Should the automatic deduction for a fall be increased?

[peibeck]

What about having different rules in the SP and in the FS? In one, falls could punished much more heavily, so that it is worth while to do fewer revolutions but do them cleanly ... I would think this plan would be good in the SP where there is less time and less opportunity to "compensate" for any falls. In the other, falls would be punished less heavily.

Actually I think this is the correct path. The SP is supposed to be about the required elements. They could simply get rid of the additional -1 fall deduction on jumps and spins and simply score an element with 0 points if one of those elements is not completed. If a fall was in a footwork sequence, I'd still score it as a -3.

As an example:

For Contesti's SP at CoC, the downgraded 2F/fall would count for nothing, rather than getting a score of .2

1 3Lz+3T

10.10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 0 10.10

2 3A 8.50 -2.14 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -3 -2 -2 -3 6.36
3 2F<< 0 - - - - - - - - - 0
4 FSSp4 3.00 0.29 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 3.29
5 SlSt2 2.30 0.36 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 2.66
6 CCSp2 2.30 -0.34 -1 -1 -1 -1 -2 -2 -1 -1 0 1.96
7 CCoSp2 2.50 0.07 1 0 0 0 -1 1 0 0 0 2.57

28.7
Program Components

Skating Skills 6.25 6.50 6.50 7.25 7.00 6.25 6.75 6.00 7.50

Factor

1.00 6.64

27.14

Transition / Linking Footwork 1.00 6.50 6.25 6.50 6.00 6.75 6.00 6.50 5.50 7.25 6.36
Performance / Execution 1.00 6.50 6.75 6.50 6.50 7.25 6.50 7.25 6.25 7.75 6.75
Choreography / Composition 1.00 6.75 7.00 6.75 6.25 7.00 6.50 7.00 6.00 7.75 6.75
Interpretation 1.00 7.25 7.00 7.00 6.50 7.50 6.50 7.00 6.50 8.00 6.96

Judges Total Program Component Score (factored)

33.46
Deductions: 0.00

<< Downgraded jump

Obviously this would hurt skaters who miss multiple elements, but since the SP is supposed to be about being able to perform the required elements to being with, I don't see that as a bad thing. Would skaters still risk quads in the SP? I think for those who are consistent, yes, because the reward for hitting the element would remain very high (especially if they would slightly increase the value of a quad in TES points.)

Using those same criteria, that would have put Patrick Chan 8th in the SP at Skate Canada instead of 4th. In my mind, that is actually a more justified result which shows both the equal rewards of this good skating skills in the PCS while still reflecting the three falls on the required elements.

[gkelly]

I agree with the idea that a fall should get 0 points in the SP. It is the technical program after all and splatting on a required element should be a severe penalty.

The LP is a different story.

In effect, it was just the opposite in the 6.0 system.

In the short program, judges set a technical Required Elements base mark depending on what was attempted, as well as the quality of the successful elements and, depending on that year's rules, sometimes the speed and technical quality of basic skating and in-betweens.

For elements with errors, they subtracted mandatory deductions off of that base mark.

I think in the 1980s a failure on the jump combination took a deduction up to 0.7, and later 0.5, but by the mid-90s until the end of the 6.0 system, the maximum deduction for an element that was attempted and completely failed (whether by a fall or pop or both) was 0.4. Only a complete omission -- never even attempted -- would require the maximum deduction of 0.5.

So one fall or one pop to an ugly half-revolution jump would only cost the skater 0.4 off the base mark. Falling on the second jump of a combination or on a step sequence cost 0.3.

Of course judges could take into account the amount of revolution achieved before a fall on a jump, or the amount of steps completed and how well in a fall on a step sequence, when deciding the base mark. Not everyone who attempted the same content started out with the same base mark.

And falling on a triple jump was definitely worth more than falling on a double, or quad vs. triple after quads were allowed in the short.

In the long program, on the other hand, there weren't official written guidelines about how to come up with Technical Merit marks. But one approach to scoring the jump content was to count successfully completed jumps, and to give partial credit for jumps completed with small to moderate errors, but no credit for jumps with falls or bad two-foot landings.

Of course there were more opportunities to jump in the long program -- in fact, there was no limit on the number of jump attempts allowed, just a limit on the number of (recognizable) triples that could be repeated. So falling on one or two jumps wasn't as costly in a long program compared to the successfully completed content.

But conceptually, in the short program the difficulty of a jump with a fall definitely mattered. In the long program for many judges it didn't -- all jumps with falls could be just ignored equally in terms of what they added (or rather failed to add) to the technical merit.

[Aussie Willy]

Maybe you should be watching ice dancing and not singles or pairs.

I won't find one judge, skater or coach who agrees with you.

This judge agrees with this post (and disagrees with BittyBug).

Skaters do work their butts off and should get at least credit for what they attempt.

The deductions on elements are meant to highlight the problem with the element, but unless the skater doesn't attempt it at all, they should at least get recognition that they might have done something to at least make the element valid.

That way you are giving the skater at least the benefit of the doubt and not totally slamming them and telling them they suck. You give them credit for trying. And if there wasn't that incentive, then why bother.

[bek]

This judge agrees with this post (and disagrees with BittyBug).

Skaters do work their butts off and should get at least credit for what they attempt.

The deductions on elements are meant to highlight the problem with the element, but unless the skater doesn't attempt it at all, they should at least get recognition that they might have done something to at least make the element valid.

That way you are giving the skater at least the benefit of the doubt and not totally slamming them and telling them they suck. You give them credit for trying. And if there wasn't that incentive, then why bother.

I'm sorry Aussie Willie but not giving someone credit for a failed element doesn't tell the person they SUCK. It tells them that element sucked, and that they need to work on it more. For example Daisuke Takahashi knew full well that his 4toe wasn't going well in practices. He knew that he had little chance of landing that jump, but he choose to do so anyways.

So when Daisuke fell on the jump in the Olympic long, why the heck does he deserve points for that? He KNEW he had little chance of landing it. Just as in the past Jeff Buttle knew he wasn't going to land 4toes. How fair is it to hand Daisuke or Jeff 6 points for falling on their quads, to the other guys who have taken the time and effort to actually have a consistent quad?

Patrick Chan has technical issues with his 3axel. Its something that he obviously needs to work on and fix. But when the system hands Patrick 5 points for falling on his triple axels, and huge PCS when he's falling all over the place why then should Patrick spend the time and effort getting his jumps especially the triple axel more consistent? And how fair is it once again to the men who practice their jumps, make an effort of executing their jumps correctly? It takes a lot of time and practice to get the jumps consistent.

Giving someone a bad score because they skated poorly doesn't mean they suck or they are bad skaters. It just means you skated poorly, do better next time. I wasn't angry with Yu-na for skating poorly at Skate America or at Worlds. Stuff happens nobody's perfect. But when you skate poorly your scores should show it.

[miki88]

What about giving a bonus to clean programs? I think doing a clean program is really taken for a granted these days, especially since a lot of skaters cannot manage to do just that and in someone like Chan's case, there's really no incentive to stay on his feet.

[Coco]

How about capping the P/E mark if there are falls or stepouts? Apologies because I haven't read this entire thread.

But this could be a significant penalty, as the P/E mark is multiplied, so if you are capped 1, 2 or 3 points below where your P/E mark would have been otherwise, you are losing 1.6 at a minimum (ladies LP).

It would also be a "gentle nudge" away from the corridor concept.

ETA: the cap wouldn't be as significant in an SP, but I think it would provide some "justice" in the LP.

[bek]

A cap Coco may be a good idea.

[marbri]

Wouldn't it just be easier to apply a 10.00 deduction to any skater registered with the name Patrick Chan?

[bek]

Wouldn't it just be easier to apply a 10.00 deduction to any skater registered with the name Patrick Chan?

Absolutely not. Patrick is a great skater, and when he's skating well he deserves huge marks.

[miki88]

How about capping the P/E mark if there are falls or stepouts? Apologies because I haven't read this entire thread.

But this could be a significant penalty, as the P/E mark is multiplied, so if you are capped 1, 2 or 3 points below where your P/E mark would have been otherwise, you are losing 1.6 at a minimum (ladies LP).

It would also be a "gentle nudge" away from the corridor concept.

ETA: the cap wouldn't be as significant in an SP, but I think it would provide some "justice" in the LP.

Not a bad idea. Now we just need to submit it to the ISU and wait for the long process.

[gkelly]

How about capping the P/E mark if there are falls or stepouts? Apologies because I haven't read this entire thread.

But this could be a significant penalty, as the P/E mark is multiplied, so if you are capped 1, 2 or 3 points below where your P/E mark would have been otherwise, you are losing 1.6 at a minimum (ladies LP).

So how would this work?

Would this replace the fall deduction or be in addition?

There's no outside authority that can establish "where your P/E mark would have been otherwise," so if a judge wants to hold up a skater they can say that if the program had been perfectly clean they would have given that skater 10.0 for P/E.

Maybe say the cap is 9.0 on P/E for a program with one fall, 8.0 with two, etc., and no cap on the other components.

Obviously it would be very rare for a program with a fall to earn 9.0 or with two falls to earn 8.0, because very few programs deserve those scores even with no falls.

So if a skater falls twice and a judge wants to hold her up, he can give her 7.75, which could still be the highest P/E score he gives everyone in the competition.

And we have no way of knowing whether the score he would have given with no falls was also 7.75 (the cap didn't force him to penalize her at all, and he chose not to because he's trying to cheat her to a win ahead of the other contenders he scored in the low 7s) or 10.0 (he honestly, if perhaps a bit besottedly, thinks she's the most bestest skater ever in terms of presentation, and those falls weren't really disruptive -- he'd still give her 9-point something even with the falls if not for that stupid cap rule), or anywhere in between.

It would also be a "gentle nudge" away from the corridor concept.

How? I think it would be more likely to force judges into a corridor if they're limited in how high they can go. If the besotted judge was really going to give 9s to this skater, and most of the other judges would give low 8s or high 7s, then forcing everyone to go no higher than high 7s will make it a lot more likely that all the judges will score that skater's P/E within the same 7.5-7.75 corridor. No high outliers allowed. And no incentive for judges who "would have" given that skater 7.75 for a clean skate to reduce the score all the way down to 5.75 -- they might just go down to low 7s and still be in the corridor without trying.

ETA: the cap wouldn't be as significant in an SP, but I think it would provide some "justice" in the LP.

You mean that the cap for a certain number of falls is higher (the required reduction for skaters whose scoring potential starts above the cap is smaller) in the SP than in the LP? I'd probably expect it to be the other way around because each fall represents a larger percentage of the SP than the LP. LPs are more likely to have multiple falls, but they're also more likely to have more clean jumps remaining.

And how would the cap kick in for step outs or other disruptive errors that don't currently require fall deductions? Does each judge get to decide for him- or herself when an error is disruptive enough to require a deduction? That would seem to defeat the purpose of what you're proposing. Does the referee or the tech panel (who otherwise have nothing to do with the PCS) decide?

Not sure what you mean by "justice."

[bek]

And how would the cap kick in for step outs or other disruptive errors that don't currently require fall deductions? Does each judge get to decide for him- or herself when an error is disruptive enough to require a deduction? That would seem to defeat the purpose of what you're proposing. Does the referee or the tech panel (who otherwise have nothing to do with the PCS) decide

I actaully think that all visible/glaring jump issues are an issue not just falls. I remember 2008 worlds. Mao Asada had that fall and it was disruptive for the moment, but the rest of the program was just beautiful. Yu-na had that popped jump and I heard that she was pretty tentative live/not herself but the rest was okay. And then there was Kostner, and while Carolina is a lovely skater but she had all kinds of step outs, hands down etc. None of her errors added up as big as Yu-na and Mao's one big gigantic error. But in the end I felt that Carolina's continuous mistakes should have affected the TES more and PCS more. Because after their one error on a jumping pass, everything else from Asada and Kim looked to the naked eye well executed. (Asada had her 3/3 downgraded). That's what I'm talking about when I say "messy messy programs"

Another example for me is Johnny and Evan at that Nationals. Johnny was just so much cleaner than Evan, and while Evan didn't skate poorly he was a bit messier (although obviously not horribly) it bothered me that in all of these parts, nothing reflected what I was saying. That's what I'm saying when I feel execution just isn't rewarded in this system. It bothers me because there's magic in just a clean well done skate.

[Aussie Willy]

I'm sorry Aussie Willie but not giving someone credit for a failed element doesn't tell the person they SUCK. It tells them that element sucked, and that they need to work on it more. For example Daisuke Takahashi knew full well that his 4toe wasn't going well in practices. He knew that he had little chance of landing that jump, but he choose to do so anyways.

So when Daisuke fell on the jump in the Olympic long, why the heck does he deserve points for that? He KNEW he had little chance of landing it. Just as in the past Jeff Buttle knew he wasn't going to land 4toes. How fair is it to hand Daisuke or Jeff 6 points for falling on their quads, to the other guys who have taken the time and effort to actually have a consistent quad?

Patrick Chan has technical issues with his 3axel. Its something that he obviously needs to work on and fix. But when the system hands Patrick 5 points for falling on his triple axels, and huge PCS when he's falling all over the place why then should Patrick spend the time and effort getting his jumps especially the triple axel more consistent? And how fair is it once again to the men who practice their jumps, make an effort of executing their jumps correctly? It takes a lot of time and practice to get the jumps consistent.

Giving someone a bad score because they skated poorly doesn't mean they suck or they are bad skaters. It just means you skated poorly, do better next time. I wasn't angry with Yu-na for skating poorly at Skate America or at Worlds. Stuff happens nobody's perfect. But when you skate poorly your scores should show it.

Bek - you take this all too seriously!

[bek]

Bek - you take this all too seriously!

I take it seriously because the skaters spent hours of a day practicing and all of them deserve a fair system. They deserve a system that rewards the actual performances of everyone involved.

I'm starting to get frankly more and more fed up with this system. The whole things arbitrary and its starting to feel predetermined. It feels like the judges us GOE, and PCS to ensure certain skaters win, no matter how poorly they skate and how well the others skate. I'm getting frankly tired of it. Not it seems the elements don't matter at all when you look at how easily the judges can inflate PCS and GOE. Poor Cynthia Phaneuf and her potential world bronze.

I realize this is a subjective sport. I get that. But when the number 6 guy in the world (a good skater) can't beat the number 2 guy in the world, when the number 2 guy falls four times, and the number 6 goes for the most part clean. There's a problem with the system. The whole point of a competition is to see excitement of who wins. Its not exciting if someone can make multiple GLARING errors and still win over others who are much cleaner. And its not like Chan's jump content was that much harder than the other two men. Its not like Oda/Rippon were going for just doubles. Its not like both men are poor skaters with bad edges, and no transitions.

What makes sports exciting is that the sportspeople actually have to deliver on competition day. They actually have to perform well. But its becoming very clear that IJS is making it so this doesn't matter in figure skating. The sport is losing a lot of fans, and its frankly coming close to losing me. And if the sport is starting to exasperate someone like me-there's a problem.

And its not about Patrick Chan. I actually do like his skating (he was beautiful in the free at Skate Canada) Its about little things like Asada not being able to beat Yu-na in the free at worlds. When Mao OUTSKATES her. And yes I get it that Yu-na is faster, Yu-na had more transitions/choregraphy and people had already decided they liked Yu-na's program more. But Yu-na didn't skate all that well in that program, and Mao was really phenomenal. That should matter if this is an actual sport. The Mao was better that night should be the most important factor in evaluating who wins.

[Aussie Willy]

Bek - are you actually involved in the sport (from a skater, coach, administrative or official aspect) or a spectator?

[bek]

Bek - are you actually involved in the sport (from a skater, coach, administrative or official aspect) or a spectator?

Just a spectator. But let me say this Aussie Willie. When I saw that Patrick Chan was given a 73 for a program with three falls and was within 3 points of Rippon, and 8 points of Oda after that kind of skate. I knew that as long as Patrick skated decently he'd win, because I knew the judges would ENSURE that Patrick had a 10 PCS lead over Oda and Rippon. And sure enough, I was absolutely right. And Oda and Adam knew that too of course, how disheartening for them that the judges told them that they suck so much that Patrick can fall four times and still beat them.

I love this sport but I remember telling my mother that weekend that maybe it was time I just stop watching. Because the whole thing is predicatable if that's the kind of results I'm going to see. Why even bother watching. And yes I can understand the arguments for why its okay for Patrick to have that kind of lead no matter how Patrick skates. But I'll say this if someone's going to be allowed to have that many errors over other good skaters. Than the it may be a very difficult athletic activity. But skating then is not a sport. Because in most sports you have to actually perform well in order to win.

[miki88]

bek, ITA with everything you said. I don't remember it being this bad under 6.0 or maybe it is just the nostalgic factor. But I don't remember Michelle ever winning with so many errors in her programs even though the quality of her elements were superior to many of the skaters she competed against.

[Aussie Willy]

Well Bek - the fact is the coaches, skaters or administrators don't get bogged down in as much detail as what you do in these posts. Seriously there are bigger issues and problems in this world. Those who are involved in sport, as much as we love it, have a passion for it and dedicate a hours of time to it, don't have to bold paragraphs to try and prove a point.

And when it comes down to it, it is about the skater getting out there and putting in their best performance and them being happy with what they do. And there is nothing more devastating for a skater than to not do a good performance (knowing from experience). But I am sure skaters don't sit there and stew over results like you seem to do. They are probably too busy to do that because they get on a plane, fly home, get back into training and get ready for the next event.

[bek]

Well Bek - the fact is the coaches, skaters or administrators don't get bogged down in as much detail as what you do in these posts. Seriously there are bigger issues and problems in this world. Those who are involved in sport, as much as we love it, have a passion for it and dedicate a hours of time to it, don't have to bold paragraphs to try and prove a point.

And when it comes down to it, it is about the skater getting out there and putting in their best performance and them being happy with what they do. And there is nothing more devastating for a skater than to not do a good performance (knowing from experience). But I am sure skaters don't sit there and stew over results like you seem to do. They are probably too busy to do that because they get on a plane, fly home, get back into training and get ready for the next event.

Who said there weren't much bigger issues in the world? I was just writing about how I've been feeling watching this sport lately. It was shocking that the thought actually went through my mind that maybe I was disgusted enough to stop watching.

Plus, when I get caught up in discussions, I tend to talk a lot and in detail (and get fixated on the discussion a bit.) It doesn't mean though that its all I think about or do forever more. Plus, I'm tired from work, but know I should work out and I guess I'm sort of using this discussion as a means to not go work out. Putting off the work out so to speak.

And I find the idea of oh this sport is run by volunteers oh there are more important things to be ridiculous. There's nothing stopping this sport from trying to be fair. Those skaters do work hard, and if you think that a skater like Oda or Rippon trains that much just so they can place 2nd to a Chan who falls four times. Well....Athletes who put that much time and effort want to win, and they deserve a system that is fair. No the sport isn't going to be completely fair, but it can at least make an attempt to be fair.

[EricRohmer]

I only bitched when she won the long program at Worlds for a poor skate.. And I thought her PCS at Skate America for that awful Yu-na bomb were too high as well (if you want to be fair). And if you want to complain about Rachael Flatt being awful and not deserving to win Skate America. And I won't say that Yu-na didn't deserve to win because her huge lead from the short was fair. And yes I agree that Rachael is boring as heck skater. But in the end the way I look it is if Yu-na skates like crap well than she deserves to get low scores. Would have had that one closer.

Just curious.
How do you think for PCS at NHK?

1. Kostner : 59.54
2. Asada : 56.22
3. Korpi : 55.84
4. Murakami : 52.52
5. Flatt : 52.48 (clean LP)


※ LP at 09'SA
Flatt : 60.35(TES) + 55.76(PCS) = 116.11
Yuna : 51.18(TES) + 61.52(PCS) = 111.70