Dealbreakers (must-have elements and qualities)

[gkelly]

Over the past 20 years that I've been obsessing about figure skating, I've often heard (and occasionally made) the observation that skaters "need" certain elements to be competitive at a given level.

The specifics vary depending whether we're talking about men or ladies, about world or Olympic medals or about deserving a spot on the Junior Grand Prix or anywhere in between, or domestically at lower skill levels.

Usually these observations are predictions going into an event: Most skaters contending for this prize will probably have this quality or attempt this element and the winner will probably be the one who succeeds the best. But there are no official rules that any one quality or element is required to be demonstrated successfully in order to win (what if no one demonstrates it? then does no one win?). So the predictions don't always come true and sometimes someone does win without the expected element.

There are two questions here:

1) What's the minimum standard expected to be considered for entry to certain events (subject to limits on the total number of skaters or number of skaters from a given federation)?

2) What's the most important minimum standard for the highest prize at that level, the sine qua non of a deserving champion?

For this thread, I'm more interested in 2).

We've had a number of threads and debates here about what should be most important. Posters sometimes explicitly state that they hate to see world or Olympic medalists with any falls or more than X number of falls, with multiple sloppy landings, with more double than triple jumps, without a triple axel, without a quad, (or triple lutz or triple-triple combo for ladies), with weak skating skills, with bad posture, with no transitions, with no expression, etc., etc.

Under 6.0 judging, each individual judge could have his or her own dealbreaker when deciding between performances otherwise at comparable skill levels, but that information would have been private, maybe not even consciously articulated within the judge's own mind. Of course judges couldn't control more than their own rankings, but they could control those absolutely and could consistently refuse to give first place to a skater who didn't meet their primary expectation for a champion.

Under IJS, it's harder for judges to control even their own placements on the basis of a single element or quality. If they so desire, they could inflate or deflate other marks to nudge the scores in favor of a skater who has that quality or against one who doesn't. But the system itself, the Scale of Values and the factors for the PCS, builds in priorities in ways that individual officials can't control. At most, when there is a consensus that certain qualities or elements seem to be receiving too much or too little weight, the ISU tweaks the rules to try to correct the trend.

And even so, there is always the possibility that some days all the skaters who can meet that standard fail to come through and the one who gives the best ovefrall performance that day happens to be deficient in that one particular area.

So what's most important to you? What's your dealbreaker?
You may want to specify what discipline and what level of competition you're focusing on.

Is it the kind of thing that IJS rules could be written or rewritten to support? Care to suggest how?

Or would it require different rules for different levels of competition, too many variations to be worth legislating?

[bek]

I don't think there should be any deal breakers persay as in a skater who doesn't have a quad shouldn't win. But I do think they need to do something about not having normal elements, based on level.

For example why not make a rule that says a woman should show case five different types of triples/quads. For me if a woman has a quad toe and a triple toe that counts as two different types. And a man at the Senior international level should showcase 7.

And for every different type that you miss. Then you lose 3 points of towards total score. And the rules should make it clear that falling, completely failed elements, counts towards misses. I wouldn't hit downgrades or slight two foots, slight hand downs. But stumbles, falls two hands down don't count.

Of course though I'd also see perhaps a bonus for every 3/3 if your a girl or if you can showcase more than the 5 for women, 6 for men.

I realize 3 points sounds harsh. But Kim losing 3 points for not having a triple axel (and I'd let her do 3 double axels) isn't going to kill her. But it will give someone like Rochette a bit of a reward.

This being said Lepisto doing mainly double jumps would completely hurt her score, which frankly IMO should at this level. She'd be out 9 points at worlds in 2010.

The showcased elements could vary based on level. Not having for example one type of triple, or one type of quad shouldn't be the ultimate deal breaker. But it IS a flaw. And those who have worked at mastering all the jumps should be rewarded for it. Right now the system doesn't reward it.

I would say though that if you have a rule like showcasing all the triples that a skater should then be able to repeat an element they missed without the repeating rule counting. The repeating rule should only then count for elements that are competed. For example if Kim misses her 3 sal like she's prone to do, she shouldn't then be punished for doing a 3 sal instead of another double axel....

[Vagabond]

I don't think there should be any deal breakers persay as in a skater who doesn't have a quad shouldn't win. But I do think they need to do something about not having normal elements, based on level.

For example why not make a rule that says a woman should show case five different types of triples/quads. For me if a woman has a quad toe and a triple toe that counts as two different types. And a man at the Senior international level should showcase 7.

Because very few women can meet this standard, and there are fewer men than you might think who can meet it either.

For example:

Miki Ando: No triple flip, no triple axel, no quadruple jumps.
Yuna Kim: No triple loop, no triple axel, no quadruple jumps (and singled her flip in the LP at Worlds this year).
Alissa Czisny: No triple salchow, no triple axel, no quadruple jumps.
Evgeni Plushenko: No triple flip (as of 2010), no quadruple salchow.
Artur Gachinski: No triple salchow, no quadruple salchow.

And these are some of the best skaters in the world.

[bek]

Because very few women can meet this standard, and there are fewer men than you might think who can meet it either.

For example:

Miki Ando: No triple flip, no triple axel, no quadruple jumps.
Yuna Kim: No triple loop, no triple axel, no quadruple jumps (and singled her flip in the LP at Worlds this year).
Alissa Czisny: No triple salchow, no triple axel, no quadruple jumps.
Evgeni Plushenko: No triple flip (as of 2010), no quadruple salchow.
Artur Gachinski: No triple salchow, no quadruple salchow.

And these are some of the best skaters in the world.

No woman would be penalized for not having a triple axel or a quad, as long as she had the other 5 triples. Since its not standard for a woman not to have a triple axel or quad.

No man would not be penalized for having more than one quad. As long as he had all of the other 6 triples normal for a man. Since its not standard for a man to have more than one type of quad.

But those who like Asada are missing a jump but can replace it with another more difficult jump like Asada doing a triple axel instead of a triple salchow. Woudln't be penalized. The important thing would be having 5 of them. Or 7 types if your a man.

And some of those skaters you mentioned its not that they can't do said jump. Its that said jump is inconsistent for them. And they deem it not worth the risk.

Ando's landed plenty of triple flips in her career. Plushenko didn't do a 3flip because of edge rules (that would be the only question what about the edge rules)...

In the past it was quite common for female skaters to have all 5 triples under 6.0. Because under 6.0 you could be hit on the tech score for not having one of them. (Perhaps). Its just under 6.0 there's no incentive to keep in a shaky triple.

And seriously a skater like Kim whose only missing one triple, wouldn't be that hurt by that if she had something else like a 3/3 to replace it. Its just that missing triples would add up. As it should. There would be no more lepistos only landing 3 triples (and only two types) medaling. That type of skate would be hit hard technically as it should.

[gkelly]

But I do think they need to do something about not having normal elements, based on level.

For example why not make a rule that says a woman should show case five different types of triples/quads. For me if a woman has a quad toe and a triple toe that counts as two different types. And a man at the Senior international level should showcase 7.

So how do you determine what constitutes "normal elements, based on level"?

Do the same rules apply at Nebelhorn, or in the qualifying round at Worlds, as in the final round at Worlds?

If you define "normal" as what you expect from a champion and give penalties to everyone who doesn't have all the normal elements, then most skaters at most events are going to be getting a lot of penalties in addition to not having all the valuable elements to work with in the first place.

And should "normal" apply to non-jump elements as well? If you can't get enough variety of steps and turns into your step sequence to earn at least level 2, should you be penalized not only with a lower base value for your level 1 steps, but also with a deduction for including too few of the different "normal" kinds of steps and turns?

Should women be penalized in the long program for not including a solo layback or at least X revolutions of layback in their combination spin? How about camel or sit, for both sexes? Would there be extra credit or penalty including an "abnormal" element like a solo layback as the spin in one position for a man?

Do we want to make the technical content of long programs even more cookie-cutter than it is under the current highly prescriptive well-balanced program rules?

And for every different type that you miss. Then you lose 3 points of towards total score. And the rules should make it clear that falling, completely failed elements, counts towards misses. I wouldn't hit downgrades or slight two foots, slight hand downs. But stumbles, falls two hands down don't count.

Who determines which mistakes kick in the penalties? The tech panel? The referee?

What about clean single or double jumps (popped or intentionally executed)? Do they count as mistakes to be penalized according to expectations of "normal" jump content? Even for lower-ranked senior ladies who are physically incapable of rotating one or more of triple lutz, flip, or loop?


Personally, I prefer the idea of bonuses than penalties. Not everyone can do anything. I'd like to see the well-balanced program rules more flexible than they are at the moment, not less so. I want to see free programs be free enough to let skaters earn points for whatever they can do best, whether their skills are typical or atypical compared to their competitors.

Short programs demand specific skills that skaters are required to attempt. Of course sometimes skaters earn their way to the final group and medal contention without executing all those elements; often skaters who miss more than one required element still manage to qualify for the long program in events that make cuts, on the strength of their other skills and the fact that there are more spots available in the long program than there were clean short programs. But for the most part getting to the final round, or the final group, proves that the skater has the "normal" skills for that level -- the only exception being the full range of jump takeoffs because of the limited number of jump elements in the SP.

Maybe the program components could be divided up differently to let judges reflect their own personal pet peeves and dealbreakers. For example, combine everything currently under Choreography that has to do with program concept and musical phrasing into the Interpretation component, and then change Choreography to something like "Program Layout."

Then write the criteria for Program Layout to include bullet points like
Variety of jump takeoffs and approaches and Variety of spins.

But as long as "Originality" belongs there as well, the rules will continue to have a place for rewarding skaters who include abnormal elements, which could easily make up for omitting one or more normal elements. Which, in my opinion, is not a bad thing.

[bek]

Do the same rules apply at Nebelhorn, or in the qualifying round at Worlds, as in the final round at Worlds?

If you define "normal" as what you expect from a champion and give penalties to everyone who doesn't have all the normal elements, then most skaters at most events are going to be getting a lot of penalties in addition to not having all the valuable elements to work with in the first place.

If you are going to compete at the highest levels of this sport, than you should be judged by the highest level. IF this is a sport difficult/technical skills need to be objectively evaluated as much as possible. And yes that means a championship standard. And it seems to me currently that jump content only matters for some skaters than others. If a skater can do all the triple jumps they should have a reward over those who don't have the triple jumps. It doesn't mean that they necessarily should win. But they should have a advantage over those who did on the TES mark. And currently such skaters don't. Now if a skater is missing only one type of triple. Losing 3 points won't be that big of a deal if everything else is that much better. But if a skater is missing 2,3 type of triples it would be a much bigger deal and once again it should be.

GOE makes it very easy for judges to inflate certain scores and not inflate other scores. Laura Lepisto's jump content was much lower than the technical content, that Ando, Kostner, Phaneuf attempted, but the TES marks didn't show it. The other girls really weren't given that much of an advantage, and I'm sorry it wasn't right.
Doubles/singles are fine for intermediate levels and shouldn't be considered as mistakes. But at the senior level, it should be considered not the standard. Now different countries who have different levels of talent can come up with their own standards nationally and should.

But if your going to be competiting against other skaters at the highest levels in this sport, you should be judged by the Championship standard. And if nobody meets the standard, than the person who comes closest to it wins.

Perhaps bonus points would work better (and if they add bonus I wouldn't mind bonus for 3/3s) for women and men too. But I also can't help feel bonus points would lead to even more crazy scores. Whereas this person didn't have a triple loop- is easier to evalute mathwise. And if you give someone 3 extra points for every type of triple or quad they attempt, than you pretty much are taking off 3 points for someone who doesn't have the jump.

[Vagabond]

No woman would be penalized for not having a triple axel or a quad, as long as she had the other 5 triples. Since its not standard for a woman not to have a triple axel or quad.

If I recall correctly, before you edited your post, you actually said that women should be required to have five different triple and/or quadruple jumps in order to compete on the international senior level. If some version of that rule at had been applied last season, there would have been about eight women competing at Worlds and probably even fewer at Euros and Four Continents. It would also have meant scrapping the Grand Prix and Senior "B's."

As it is, you would penalize a woman who had only four different triple jumps. It's rare enough to find a female senior-level skater who can do four different triple jumps without receiving some sort of penalty for underrotations or an incorrect edge.

You are correct that CoP has caused top-level female skaters to reduce the number of different jumps, but so what? It's not as if all those triple jumps under CoP were fully rotated or on the correct edge.

I think the declining number of triple jumps (by women, especially) is akin to the declining number of quadruple jumps that we saw up through the 2010 season. Younger male skaters who have competed mostly under CoP have found a way to do quads while doing good non-jump elements and earning high PCS. Some of their female counterparts are either already doing five different jumps or show signs of being able to do so soon.

[bek]

standard for a woman not to have a triple axel or quad.

If I recall correctly, before you edited your post, you actually said that women should be required to have five different triple and/or quadruple jumps in order to compete on the international senior level. If some version of that rule at had been applied last season, there would have been about eight women competing at Worlds and probably even fewer at Euros and Four Continents. It would also have meant scrapping the Grand Prix and Senior "B's."

I edited my post prior to the first persons response if you look at the times. And from the very beginning I said five triples/quads from a woman 7 for a men.

And where did I say that women or men wouldn't be able to compete if they didn't have those elements? I never said that. I said they'd lose points for not having all those elements. Which is a different thing altogether. 3 points wouldn't be a big deal in the long run scheme of things. It would just give a woman with 5 different types of triples or quads (either one) a 3 point advantage over someone who has only 4. Hardly the end of the world. If we are going to add this kind of rule, I wouldn't mind bonuses for triple/triples and a bonus for a woman who has 6 different type of triples, or a man like Brezina who can do all the triples, and 2 different types of quads.

Even with all five triples Joannie Rochette still wouldn't have won Worlds or the Olympics over Yu-na Kim. Although she would have narrowly gotten silver over Asada. Which I don't think I would have liked because Asada wasn't rewarded enough for the triple axels. But once again not with how much the triple axel is worth now...

I mean most of the women who are competitive now have at least 4 different types of triples anyways. Most of the men at least have 6 triples/quads. What I'm suggesting woudl mainly punish doubles. And encourage balanced jump content.

[Vagabond]

If we are going to add this kind of rule, I wouldn't mind bonuses for triple/triples and a bonus for a woman who has 6 different type of triples, or a man like Brezina who can do all the triples, and 2 different types of quads.

A woman who could actually land six different types of triples or a man who could do that and also land two different quadruples (without any falls, underrotations or edge calls) in one program wouldn't need a bonus in order to win the World Championship.

[bek]

A woman who could actually land six different types of triples or a man who could do that and also land two different quadruples (without any falls, underrotations or edge calls) in one program wouldn't need a bonus in order to win the World Championship.

Thats not necessarily true. With PCS and GOE, its perfectly easy to take away that advantage. And to be quite frank I don't think it should be a guaranteed win. But I'm also convinced that this sport doesn't reward jump content whatsover. And that's ridiculous. I remember Daisuke with a clean quad, and two beautifully clean triple axels losing to Lambiel with no clean triple axel, no clean quad. sure 3/3s. So don't tell me that this sport properly rewards jump content. Lepisto's bronze says this sport doesn't reward jump content, her TES were fair to close to the others who landed 5/6 triples. Why bother doing triples at all. And Laura is perfectly capable of doing triples. She's landed in competition ever type of triple but the 3flip. The only reason she doubles is because she never gets truly penalized for doubling.

To be frank I don't think it should be the case that just because a woman has a triple axel and all of the triples. That she should necessarily automatically win. Dido goes for a man with 8 different types of jumps.

But I do think that TES should start factoring into jump content. And I think GOE makes it so that jump content gets nulified a bit. It shouldn't be the be end and end all. And if I'm going to argue that someone should get penalized for not having a standardized set. Than there should be a bonus for having more of the standard.

And I also think taking points off for not having a standard set, takes away the necessity for giving 6 points for a quad fall that is ridiculous.

[Vagabond]

That's not true.

Isn't it?

Who were the last skaters to accomplish that in an international competition, World Championships or not? And has anyone ever done it at Worlds and failed to win the Championship?

Březina, for example, had two falls in his LP at Worlds this year, Joubert lips, Lambiel never did two different quads and a triple axel in the same program, Ito skated before CoP, etc.

[bek]

Isn't it?

Who were the last skaters to accomplish that in an international competition, World Championships or not? And has anyone ever done it at Worlds and failed to win the Championship?

Březina, for example, had two falls in his LP at Worlds this year, Joubert lips, Lambiel never did two different quads and a triple axel in the same program, Ito skated before CoP, etc.

If the sport doesn't let someone with one quad and all the rest of the triples win. Its not going to let someone with 2 different types of quads and all of the rest of the triples win.

[gkelly]

Oh, it lets them win, if they use those jumps together enough other skills (basic skating, presentation, spins and sequences, easier jumps completed cleanly) to put out a better total package than the other competitors.

What it doesn't do is guarantee that anyone who does those jumps will automatically come out ahead of someone who does not.

[bek]

Oh, it lets them win, if they use those jumps together enough other skills (basic skating, presentation, spins and sequences, easier jumps completed cleanly) to put out a better total package than the other competitors.

What it doesn't do is guarantee that anyone who does those jumps will automatically come out ahead of someone who does not.

I don't really want a guarantee that someone will win. Just because they have the jumps. I don't look at Joannie Rochette and think "robbed" I just want a guarantee that jump content will matter or at least factor into things. That the less jump content you have, guarnteed the less points you will get. With no wiggle room.

And what I like about my rule. Is while it really wouldn't hurt someone who only has 4 types of triples. Because said person would only lose 3 points. It would truly hurt someone who only has 3, and truly hurt someone who only has 2. It would put an end to Lepisto getting bronze with only two types of triples in her program. It would also hurt a guy who doesn't have a consistent triple axel or quad. Which it should..

[gkelly]

OK, so having all the triples and not falling are dealbreakers for you. That's your preference. We won't all have the same ones.

Moving on to a different perspective...

Suppose I'm an old-school judge or fan who likes to cite the cheesy mantra "It's figure skating, not figure jumping." For me, the dealbreaker is skating skills. I like clean jumps and fast centered spins, I admire difficult jumps and spins, I enjoy charisma and beautiful body line and musical expression, but what really turns me on is the way the blade moves across the ice. For me, that's what figure skating is all about.

Under 6.0, I could say that priorities 1, 2, and 3 for me were edge quality (including jump landings among all the other edges in the program), average ice speed and controlled variation of speed, and variety of edge-based skills including, steps, turns, and jump takeoffs (with number of rotations in the air lower down on the list). I could look for the skaters who best demonstrated those skills and start them at a higher base mark than those with weaker skills. Then I could adjust the marks up and down depending on the difficulty of the elements attempted, the success of those attempts, and all the presentation criteria.

What can I do under IJS? As an individual judge I could use wide ranges between the great, very good, good, acceptable, weaker, and just plain bad skaters on their Skating Skills mark. I could also make sure to reflect the edge-based aspects of the Transitions and Choreography components with high scores for skaters who excel there and much lower scores for those who don't. Maybe I won't score TR or CH above, say, 6.00 if you don't show me some rockers, counters, brackets, and choctaws on clear deep edges, turning in both directions, outside of the step sequences. And if you do meet that minimum for me, then I'll raise your scores even higher if and only if you do significantly more than the minimum and/or you also meet lots of other criteria currently listed for those components.

I could also argue that the Performance/Execution component should be higher for skaters with higher skating skills because the program as a whole just looks better executed if performed with speed and deep edges; even a couple of falls from which the skater quickly recovers don't detract as much as slow, tentative or shaky skating on shallow or scratchy edges.

If I really want to try to enforce my opinion, I could also inflate or lowball my Interpretation scores to keep them in line with the SS component even though those skills have the least in common. But that wouldn't really be the appropriate use of that component.

Or, as an old-school purist judge or fan, should I lobby for rule changes that require certain edge skills to be demonstrated outside the step sequences and explicitly penalize for their lack?

Or maybe build in bonuses for variety of turns, variety of jump takeoffs, etc. And also build in explicit ways for skaters to earn points for those skills in elements other than the step sequence?

[Aussie Willy]

GOE makes it very easy for judges to inflate certain scores and not inflate other scores.

Sorry but that is not true about GOE.

GOE actually means you judge what you see and is the most objective part of judging a program. In a panel most judges will get it right. That is why the majority rules.

You might get one judge out of kilter with the others, but when you analyse most protocols I have seen very few GOEs that overall are way off the mark and are usually pretty correct in the results they provide. Of course people are going to pick the crap out of one in all the hundreds of elements that get marked at a major event and say that is indicative of major problems with the system. But it is human nature to do that - we always look for the worst in anything rather than the positive. That is why so many people still when it comes to skating can't get their head around having a system that actually rewards the positive (such as positive GOEs). And we still tend to surprise ourselves when they happen.

Judging brings in a human factor into all sports. But with any human system mistakes are a given. Sorry if that sounds like an excuse but it is actually the truth and it happens everyday in life.

[smarts1]

If you are going to compete at the highest levels of this sport, than you should be judged by the highest level. IF this is a sport difficult/technical skills need to be objectively evaluated as much as possible. And yes that means a championship standard. And it seems to me currently that jump content only matters for some skaters than others. If a skater can do all the triple jumps they should have a reward over those who don't have the triple jumps. It doesn't mean that they necessarily should win. But they should have a advantage over those who did on the TES mark. And currently such skaters don't. Now if a skater is missing only one type of triple. Losing 3 points won't be that big of a deal if everything else is that much better. But if a skater is missing 2,3 type of triples it would be a much bigger deal and once again it should be.

GOE makes it very easy for judges to inflate certain scores and not inflate other scores. Laura Lepisto's jump content was much lower than the technical content, that Ando, Kostner, Phaneuf attempted, but the TES marks didn't show it. The other girls really weren't given that much of an advantage, and I'm sorry it wasn't right.
Doubles/singles are fine for intermediate levels and shouldn't be considered as mistakes. But at the senior level, it should be considered not the standard. Now different countries who have different levels of talent can come up with their own standards nationally and should.

But if your going to be competiting against other skaters at the highest levels in this sport, you should be judged by the Championship standard. And if nobody meets the standard, than the person who comes closest to it wins.

Perhaps bonus points would work better (and if they add bonus I wouldn't mind bonus for 3/3s) for women and men too. But I also can't help feel bonus points would lead to even more crazy scores. Whereas this person didn't have a triple loop- is easier to evalute mathwise. And if you give someone 3 extra points for every type of triple or quad they attempt, than you pretty much are taking off 3 points for someone who doesn't have the jump.

I think it would just be smarter to increase the point difference between jumps...

After all the 1.9 point difference between the triple lutz and triple toe is extremely negligible and allows someone like Lepisto to get away with such a crappy jump layout. It would be much better if there was a bigger difference between triples and doubles and varied point difference between different triples.

So something like this:
2T: 1.2
2S:1.3
2Lo:1.6
2F:1.9
2Lu:2.0

3T: 4.7
3S: 4.9
3Lo: 6.0
3F:7.9
3Lu:8.3 (because I hate that 3Toe-3Toe has a higher based value than 3Lutz-2Toe)

[smarts1]

Sorry but that is not true about GOE.

GOE actually means you judge what you see and is the most objective part of judging a program. In a panel most judges will get it right. That is why the majority rules.

You might get one judge out of kilter with the others, but when you analyse most protocols I have seen very few GOEs that overall are way off the mark and are usually pretty correct in the results they provide. Of course people are going to pick the crap out of one in all the hundreds of elements that get marked at a major event and say that is indicative of major problems with the system. But it is human nature to do that - we always look for the worst in anything rather than the positive. That is why so many people still when it comes to skating can't get their head around having a system that actually rewards the positive (such as positive GOEs). And we still tend to surprise ourselves when they happen.

Judging brings in a human factor into all sports. But with any human system mistakes are a given. Sorry if that sounds like an excuse but it is actually the truth and it happens everyday in life.

I actually disagree a bit. I've noticed that as a skater's reputation increases, GOE does tend to increase as well.

[Proustable]

smarts1, at what point is that reputation bonus and not - "this more famous skater happens to be better than that non-famous skater ergo deserves more"

If the sport doesn't let someone with one quad and all the rest of the triples win. Its not going to let someone with 2 different types of quads and all of the rest of the triples win.

Can you think of an example where someone with one quad and all the triples LOST to someone with no quad and all the triples OR a quad, but not all the triples?

ETA: assuming clean skates, of course.

[Aussie Willy]

I actually disagree a bit. I've noticed that as a skater's reputation increases, GOE does tend to increase as well.

Actually what you might see, particularly with jumps, is that the overall quality of the element is also taken into account.

For example, if a skater had a fall, but the rest of the element would have been a +2 without a fall, then an element would still be in the minus GOEs but not a -3 because you have to evaluate the element as a whole.

Better skaters generally do better quality elements, even with falls or things that could reduce the GOE. But you still have to reward the positive aspects of the element, even if it does have a mistake.

So to ask a question - if Patrick Chan does a brillant step sequence but has a fall, should he be given a -3 on that element when otherwise it might have been a +3?

People may not like that but that is how the system works.