# Thread: ISU Posts "Calculation Error" in GPF FD

1. Yes, I found this:

At the 2004 World Championships, Michelle Kwan was given a 0.2 deduction on her marks during the short program. What was the reason for this deduction?
She was over the allowed time-limit. At the time, skaters were allowed a maximum of 2:40 to complete their short program. The time started from when the skater made their first movement and ended when they hit their final position. At the 2:40 second mark, Michelle was in the final revolutions of her combination spin and did not stop her movement for another 3 seconds. Other that this, she skated a flawless program with no mistakes. When asked about the deduction, Michelle said "I could understand taking a deduction if I had made a mistake but I don't feel that I made a mistake". Now during the short program, skaters are allowed 2:50 to complete their elements. This change was made to accomodate the new ISU judging system.
http://www.funtrivia.com/en/subtopic...rs-297433.html

2. Originally Posted by luna_skater
Fans: "We want transparency!"
ISU: "OK, fine. Here--we screwed up, so we're going to tell you about it."
Fans: "How DARE you make an error!"
ISU: "That's going to be the last time we tell those guys anything."

3. Considering the margins by which V/M were winning, it doesn't seem odd to me. I would expect them to look at high-level things. They could try for L4 footwork or to look for what for them was low-hanging fruit, the L4's for the CD sections of the SD and some GOE here and there.

At GPF, they blew away their prior GP FD scores (106.73 and 105.75), their own PB 0f 110.42, and achieved the second-highest FD score since IJS was implemented. (Only Navka/Kostomarov received a higher FD score, at 2003 Cup of Russia.)

Losing the FD after achieving that, V/M and/or their coaches most likely looked at the scores with a fine-toothed comb and found the error.

ETA: From soxxy's post: 'Michelle said "I could understand taking a deduction if I had made a mistake but I don't feel that I made a mistake".' There was a rule stating the maximum length of the program, there was a stated deduction for the rule, she was still spinning at the maximum time -- it was not an issue of a split second -- and she thought she didn't make a mistake?

Her skate was hardly flawless: she traveled laterally on the first spin, and in a small circle in the layback and combo spins.

4. I think its also the ISU way of telling their Judges to do their job next time, because if you compare the two FD`s Davis and White just does not measure up this year, last year what impressed me about D&W fd was the risk taking they took a difficult piece of music , harder more difficult lifts the spin incredibly difficult compared to Tessa and Scott this year its the exact opposite i feel the waltz highlights alot of their weaknesses, the lifts are all rehashed from previous years, the step sequences not very well incorporated with the music lack of unison in some of the dance holds and mismatched leg lines. V&M on the other hand take way more risks this year with their FD the first lift incredibly difficult Scott on one foot, the twizzles incredibly difficult in the transition from an outside back edge fitted with the music the two new other lifts risky and stunning the circular step sequence in S wonderful so well incorporated with the music if you saw the movie stunning lines and unison superior from top to bottom ISU admits its judges screwed up.

5. Certainly, fixing a calculation error, is a signal from the ISU to the judges that they should change the way they value V/M and DW's FD's. And that's why V/M are still, with the correct GOE, a sliver ahead of D/W in the FD instead of a sliver behind.

6. Unnecessary slopiness . They need some sydtem of checks and balances to see that changers are entered into the computer program.

7. Originally Posted by soxxy
ETA: Maybe this is the program. Although no deduction is mentioned, Dick talks about the difficulty of meeting the last beat of the music.

This was her performance of the same program at U.S. Nationals. It is really borderline as to whether it finishes right at the 2:40 mark or a tick after.

Dick Button is actually mistaken in thinking that she finished after the music. The music dies to a whisper at the very end, which cannot be heard over the noise of the crowd. There is in fact (inaudible) music playing during her final move.

However, team Kwan is certainly at fault for tempting fate like that. Why not cut the music and choreography to 2:38 seconds instead of 2:40+?

The USFSA did her no favors by letting her get away with it without comment at Nationals. That is why she was a little ticked off that the international referee (Jan Hoffmann) got on her case at worlds for almost an identical performance.

8. Originally Posted by soxxy
Yes, I found this:

At the 2004 World Championships, Michelle Kwan was given a 0.2 deduction on her marks during the short program. What was the reason for this deduction?

http://www.funtrivia.com/en/subtopic...rs-297433.html
I'm surprised it was only a .2 deduction. As I recall, one judge gave her a 5.1 on tech for this otherwise flawless performance. The reason for the deduction, as noted, was that she went over the time limit. I don't know if it was a mandatory deduction. I would think not, since ending within the time was not a required element of the short program under 6.0, as far as I know.

9. Originally Posted by giselle23
I'm surprised it was only a .2 deduction. As I recall, one judge gave her a 5.1 on tech for this otherwise flawless performance. The reason for the deduction, as noted, was that she went over the time limit. I don't know if it was a mandatory deduction. I would think not, since ending within the time was not a required element of the short program under 6.0, as far as I know.
Referee Jan Hoffmann instructed the judges to take a .1 deduction for the time violation. All the judges had to do it.

10. Originally Posted by overedge
As I read them, those rules are about skaters or officials challenging results. They don't address what happens if the ISU itself discovers an error in its own calculations.
The way I read them, they all have a statement along the lines of "after X happens, the scores are final" and that this statement applies to everything. The only exception being when the ISU decides to make up the rules on the spot, of course.

I also suspect rather strongly that the ISU only "found" the error because it as pointed out to them and most likely by Team V/M, but definitely by a skater or an official. So it definitely fits into the rules about skaters and officials challenging results. The reason I think the mistake wasn't found by them is that I doubt the ISU was sitting around one day and said "let's revisit all the scores from Worlds in case we made a mistake!"

Anyway, I don't see any big messages or conspiracies in this. Once someone pointed out the mistake and that it changed the finishing order of the free dance, ISU's best course of action was to make some sort of public announcement. And, knowing they would do that, they really had to go back and look at any other programs that included this move and make sure recalculating them didn't change any results as well.

11. Originally Posted by giselle23
I don't know if it was a mandatory deduction. I would think not, since ending within the time was not a required element of the short program under 6.0, as far as I know.
Time was restricted in each of the programs, and there was a specific deduction for going over it.

ETA:
Originally Posted by Mathman

The USFSA did her no favors by letting her get away with it without comment at Nationals. That is why she was a little ticked off that the international referee (Jan Hoffmann) got on her case at worlds for almost an identical performance.
Perhaps she should have been ticked off at USFS.

12. Originally Posted by giselle23
I don't know if it was a mandatory deduction. I would think not, since ending within the time was not a required element of the short program under 6.0, as far as I know.
Yes it was, and still is. That rule hasn't changed -- just the amount of the deduction, and who takes it, because of the way the scoring system has changed.

Long programs have official time limits (e.g., 4:00 for senior ladies, 4:30 for senior men) and skaters are allowed 10 seconds more or less with no penalty. More or less than that and they get the deductions.

Short programs have a maximum time (2:40 in 2004, now 2:50). That's an absolute maximum. One second over and the deduction kicks in.

The short program can finish as much under that maximum as the skater likes with no penalty, assuming the skater can execute all the required elements in less time. There's no advantage to finishing much earlier, though, because that leaves less time for in-betweens and might make the elements themselves feel rushed.

I remember two time deductions in the short programs at 1998 Worlds, for Eltsova/Bushkov (7th in the SP) and for Emanuel Sandhu (29th in SP -- probably wouldn't have made the cut for the LP even without that deduction, but it didn't help).

Anyway, I don't see any big messages or conspiracies in this. Once someone pointed out the mistake and that it changed the finishing order of the free dance, ISU's best course of action was to make some sort of public announcement. And, knowing they would do that, they really had to go back and look at any other programs that included this move and make sure recalculating them didn't change any results as well.
But they didn't look at all the other programs. They just looked at a random sample. IMHO every program including this move needs to be rescored, to be truly fair.

14. Originally Posted by overedge
But they didn't look at all the other programs. They just looked at a random sample. IMHO every program including this move needs to be rescored, to be truly fair.
That sounds like the ISU I know and "love".

Basically they did something to CYA after being forced into it by someone complaining about V/M's scoring.

15. Originally Posted by euterpe
Referee Jan Hoffmann instructed the judges to take a .1 deduction for the time violation. All the judges had to do it.
But what explains the 5.1? She skated very well.

16. Originally Posted by giselle23
But what explains the 5.1? She skated very well.
One judge gave Kwan a 5.1, which would have been a 5.2 without the time deduction. The rest gave her 5.4-5.8, which would have been 5.5-5.9 before the deduction. I would ask what the justification was for giving her a 5.9 before deduction, when all three spins traveled, and she had lower difficulty compared to Arakawa (3Lz/3T), Ando (3Lz/3Lo), and Kostner (3F/3T) technical content and quite good spins, and their and Sebestyen's superior jumping technique and Cohen's superior spins. But that's me.

My favorite part of returning home and watching the videotape was listening to Button complain about Arakawa's new SP footwork, and Peggy Fleming stridently (for her) disagreeing at length.

That sounds like the ISU I know and "love".

Basically they did something to CYA after being forced into it by someone complaining about V/M's scoring.
Complaining? Why can't it simply be they asked their coaches the same question people asked on internet forums? That question was why are they doing a combo lift when they could split the lifts in two and gain an extra .5 in GOE? Their coaches tell them they are worth the same but when they look at the numbers it's clear it isn't being computed that way. Someone informs whoever is responsible of this error and it is fixed. It doesn't just benefit V&M, it benefits every team that does a combo lift. Maybe in this case it was made public because it does affect the order of finish in the FD but most importantly it lets everyone who has been wondering about it publically on the internet that they are now aware of the error and it has been fixed.

I don't know why people want to make it more dramatic or complicated then it has to be.

18. ## Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

I love how a discussion of ice dancing under CoP turned into a discussion of Michelle Kwan under 6.0 in just 65 posts.

19. Originally Posted by bmcg
Maybe in this case it was made public because it does affect the order of finish in the FD but most importantly it lets everyone who has been wondering about it publically on the internet that they are now aware of the error and it has been fixed.

I don't know why people want to make it more dramatic or complicated then it has to be.
Because they fixed the error in that particular competition, but IMHO it isn't satisfactory to say that random sampling proved that there weren't errors in the marking at other competitions.

20. Originally Posted by Vagabond
I love how a discussion of ice dancing under CoP turned into a discussion of Michelle Kwan under 6.0 in just 65 posts.
She ain't the Kween for nothing!!

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•