Spin level question

[ioana]

One of my friends pointed this out and I'm trying to figure out the answer...Akiko Suzuki's flying camel combination spin was called a level 4 at Finlandia, but only level 1 at Cup of China.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3FPo1XQfiE (starting @ 1:12)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ybb6_1Qhhk4 (starting @ 1:31)

I'm not entirely sure what features she's using to get to level 4, but my guess would be
-8 revolutions on the flying camel
-difficult variation for the cannonball backsit
-change foot to fwd spin
-difficult variation for the catchfoot layback

If that's the case, why did they get such different levels --am I missing a change of edge on the camel? Or something else entirely ?

[C_T_T_]

Change of foot doesn't count as feature, her third feature is the sideways layback position. At CoC she only spent 1 revolution in the cannonball position rather than the required 2. I think, THINK, to have a combination spin count to need to have 2 rotations in each basic position so since she didn't have 2 rotations in a sit position the spin atomatically becomes level 1. I'll look that up later if noone else has already found out by then.

[officialcoach]

Agreed, all three position in a Ccosp to get leveled features. Page 6 in the ISU handbook.

[gkelly]

In a short program, if there wasn't a basic sit position for at least 2 revs then it would have to be level 1.

But this is a long program, where only two basic positions are required, and she certainly seems to have met that requirement.

[Artifice]

Actually in the LP as well the requirement for levels is to have all basic positions, which explains why she got level 1 since the sit spin doesn't count.

[ioana]

To me, it looks like the actual cannonball position was muddled for about 2.5 revolutions, but there was a parallel position for a basic sit spin for at least 3 revolutions -which I think is the requirement for a sit spin...I'm not trying to start a new wuzrobbed thread, honestly. Just trying to understand how the spins got called such different levels. Thank you for your explanations so far!

[Artifice]

She was a little too short in the sit spin rotation. It was about 2 rotations but for judges in real time live conditions they need to be sure and in that case they weren't. And eventhough they had counted more than 2 rotations they couldn't give the level feature for the difficult variation, so, the most she could expect was a level 3, not 4.

[Doubletoe]

At CoC, it looks like Akiko wasn't *all the way down* into a thigh-parallel-to-ice position on the sitspin until she was 1/2 revolution into it, so it didn't count as 2 revolutions in sit position (the TV camera was high so it might look low enough to us, but the judges would have been looking at the replay from cameras that were closer to ice level). Starting this season, all 3 basic positions must be executed for at least 2 revolutions each in order for a CCoSp or FCCoSp to get higher than level 1, even in the long program. If she had held the cannonball for another 1/2 turn, she should have gotten a level 4 on the spin. The features would be: (1) 8 revolutions in camel position, (2) cannonball variation on sit, (3) sideways lean to back lean on layback (4) haircutter variation on layback.

[Jenna]

Yeah, I agree with all said. The caller probably didn't credit her with 2 revs in a sit position, and the spin drops all the way to a level one.

But I've said this once, and I'll say it again: Calling IS subjective! Another person may have looked at that spin, credited her with the 2 revs, and given her the level 4. Another person may have credited her with the two revs, but docked her a level for not holding the camel for eight revolutions. The bottom line: Different people see different things, so I wouldn't expect the calling across competitions to be too consistent in general.

[Artifice]

Normally the technical panel is there to ensure that the calling is not subjective. There are 3 people in the panel, so the best is done to limit the perception problem. Still, for sure the panel is human, thus not perfect, they can miss something.
Some panels are very strict and see more the glass with empty half and others see the full glass with half.

[smarts1]

^ I'm pretty sure the head specialist has the most power, even though ISU says a majority vote (of the three) is needed to downgrade, call levels on spins, etc... I mean how else do you get Rachael's two flips from the Olympics downgraded and not Miki Ando's second triple lutz? And besides that, why are the decisions of the technical panel so different from one competition to the next (like being strict on downgrades or not)?

[Artifice]

The technical panel is human so anything can happen in this regard. They are not perfect human beings who see everything right and/or have a perfect reaction when things are unsure. Also the decision can be taken through different ways, these people need to agree, and when they don't, they discuss.

When a skater is at the limit and when levels features can be discussed, it gives the possibility of interpretation up to the technical panel. From this start things can go either way. But when a skater does clearly and perfectly the level features, then the door is not open to interpretation and the levels are given.
The technical panel needs to be sure, and when they are not it's up to them as human beings.
It's just like everybody do in life.

[julieann]

What I can't figure out is how a pair can go from a level four to a level one within weeks...the spins are choreagraphed so I'm assuming there are no changes (unlike a single who can change on the spot.) I wonder what they see that the other technical panel missed. Especially when the spins look identical.

[gkelly]

What I can't figure out is how a pair can go from a level four to a level one within weeks...the spins are choreagraphed so I'm assuming there are no changes (unlike a single who can change on the spot.) I wonder what they see that the other technical panel missed. Especially when the spins look identical.

There can be small changes in execution.

In the case of the Suzuki spin shown in the first post here, it seems that the reason is that, in the evaluation of the tech panel, on the second occasion it didn't meet the requirement of all three basic positions for at least 2 revs each, which as of this year is now required for change-foot combination spins to earn any higher levels in the free program as well as the SP.

See bottom of p. 6 (p. 2 of spin section):
http://www.isu.org/vsite/vfile/page/...-0-file,00.pdf
(I missed that the first time I checked.)

So the only difference in execution needs to be the difference between 1.5 vs. 2.5 revolutions in one of the positions, and if that isn't met than any other features in the spin won't count because it has to be called as level 1.

With a pair move that has a requirement that must be met for any other features to be considered, it's even more likely that one partner would just fail to meet the requirement one day and the whole element would default to level 1.