I suspect that people are just jumping into the thread not having read what came before and now we're just going round in circles posting the same thoughts over and over.
Actual bumper sticker series: Jesus is my co-pilot. Satan is my financial advisor. Budha is my therapist. L. Ron Hubbard owes me $50.
Given the number of different possible scenarios, the range of severity for the different kinds of problems, and the fact that some problems or at least their severity are not clearly visible from the outside, would you want these clear rules to err on the side of penalizing skaters harshly beyond what might be significant points lost to the problem itself? or on the side of giving skaters the benefit of the doubt?
Should the rule be something like "If a skater stops of his/her own initiative, and if the referee could see no imminent danger to the skater from an outside source and no potential danger to the subsequent skaters, then and only then there will be a X point deduction from the total segment score should the skater be able to resume the program within the time limit"?
So if the referee stops the skater for safety reasons, there's no deduction.
If the skater stops because of gushing blood, there's no deduction because the referee would have stopped them anyway to avoid ruining the ice surface.
If either the skater or the referee initiates a stop because of a problem from an outside source, there's no deduction.
In that case maybe we should define "outside source" as including costume/equipment failures because the skater can show the problem to the referee, whereas an internal physical problem can't always be verified. We don't want a skater who is aware their skate is untied to try to keep skating until the referee stops them just to avoid a deduction.
I've been thinking of other examples-like Japan's Shun Fujimoto who competed on the Rings at the 1976 Olympic men's gymnastics competition with a broken leg. His performance assured Japan the Team gold. Same with Elvis Stojko, and Kerri Strug at their respective Games.
I've read every post in this thread and have actually given the situation a lot of thought. Someone upthread hit upon what I would do if writing the rules: If the skater(s) stops, the music keeps playing. If the skater(s) is able to resume the routine, s/he is free to do that until the end of the music. If the music ends before the skater is able to return to the program, then the skater will get judges on what portion of the skate was performed. If the skater(s) is able to return before the music ends, great, but only the completed elements will be given a score. This will prevent a DNF and allow participation in the free skate/dance, if applicable.
If the referee stops the music for a non-skater-caused reason (fire alarm, something on the ice), no penalty. If the referee stops for a skater-"caused" reason (untied laces, bootstrap, etc., then a deduction will be charged at 1 point for every 30 seconds.
Another example of athlete's incredible pain threshold is Miki Ando at 2006-7 Japan Nationals where she dislocated her shoulder (around 3:20) but popped it back into place with such little fuss that commentators didn't even realize the severity of the injury.
She continued to skate without a music stop and placed second:
A few issues with this.If the referee stops the music for a non-skater-caused reason (fire alarm, something on the ice), no penalty. If the referee stops for a skater-"caused" reason (untied laces, bootstrap, etc., then a deduction will be charged at 1 point for every 30 seconds.
1) Can the skater stop the program or skate over to the referee and ask the ref to stop the program because the skater is aware of the problem before the ref is? I.e., skater-"caused" problem, skater stops program and takes the deduction.
2) What happens if a skater is aware of a problem but doesn't consider it necessary to stop the program? E.g., dangling pants strap that isn't long enough to pose a hazard. If the referee stops the program, thus triggering the deduction, after the skater had determined it was safe to continue without stopping, the skater would justifiably be angry at being forced to take a deduction as well as forced to interrupt the momentum of the program.
3) I HATE the idea that the length of a delay between stopping and restarting the program should affect the size of the deduction. There is a limit on the amount of delay that allowed, and it's not all that long if there is a safety problem that needs to be solved. The length of time between stopping and restarting is mostly NOT under the skater's control.
I just see too much potential for referees' actions to penalize skaters unnecessarily, not maliciously (although I'm sure conspiracy theorists will accuse refs of intentionally sabotaging them or their favorite skaters), but just because not every ref will react at the same speed and not every rink is laid out the same.
E.g., if the ref and the skater are both discussing the situation in English as a second language, it will probably take longer to establish what's going on and what needs to happen next than if skater and ref can both communicate in their first language.
If the problem occurs right in front of the judges' stand, it will take less time for the skater to approach the ref than if the problem occurred in the far corner. But maybe the clock doesn't start until the skater has gotten to the ref and communicated the problem in the first place.
If the skater's entrance where the coach with extra shoelace/screwdriver or medical personnel with bandaid are located is in the closest corner of the ice from the judge's stand it will take less time to go solve it than if they're in the furthest corner. It may be only a difference of a few seconds, but if the difference between 25 seconds and 35 seconds is a whole point, that's a significant difference.
For skaters who do not ask for the program to stop but just deal with the problem right there on the ice while the music is playing, in that case the length of delay should be reflected in the marks, because part of the performance is missing.
As I see it, the whole point of adding a deduction for interrupting the program and then resuming is so that the skater who can retie a shoelace or shake off a sudden spasm or a bad fall in 10 seconds doesn't lose more points than the skater who stops, takes a longer break, catches breath, drinks water, etc., before continuing.
But I would have the deduction be a single 1- or 2-point deduction if you stop the program. Either/Or.
Either you stop and restart (with deduction) OR you keep going and lose whatever points you lose because of the problem that you resolved while the music was still playing but without deduction.
Once you stop, if you can resume within 3 minutes, you continue and take the deduction. If you can't resume within 3 minutes, you withdraw.
I'm all for disqualification , but IF a penalty is to take place, then I agree that it should be a simple solution. Adding extra if's simply complicates an already difficult to understand judging system IMO.
I agree with the first part, minus the referee whistle. Sometimes, a skater is able to see/feel something is wrong with the equipment/costume before the referee does and waiting for them to blow a whistle seems unnecessary.
A skater stopping for any reason related to injury, shortness of breath, cramp etc should most definitely incur a deduction of -2 at least. Beyond 3 minutes, it should be an automatic withdraw. IMO
If you stop because off injury and music keeps playing, you may miss let's say 2-3 elements (before you sort out whatever the problem was and restart), which means you will loose so many points that it may be the same as if you withdraw. Imagine Virtue-Moir finishing let's say 10th at 4CC instead of 2nd! I think if the rules were like that, the skaters would rather choose to skate to the referee and ask whether they can withdraw.
It may be better option if you put there automatic penalty -1 point per minute and max 3 minutes (or even if it was automatically -3 points for any stops in the program). I know -3 points is a lot in dance, but it would discourage the skaters from stopping unless really necessary, and at the same time it is still less than if you completely miss 2-3 elements. -3 points wouldn't put skaters like Virtue and Moir to 10th place at 4CC even if it would mean that they may or may not finish out of medal if it was at worlds. So it seems to me adequate.
(By the way, using Virtue and Moir is only an example. I wanted to demonstrate how badly could skaters be affected if they missed several elements.)
Last edited by hanca; 03-06-2013 at 06:55 PM.
Last edited by dinakt; 03-06-2013 at 10:14 PM.
improving my ballad- like lines
3:06 -- set up for lift
3:10 -- gliding after the lift, over the next 10 seconds, one can see that Tessa lifts her left leg and puts it down, twice
3:20 -- they are gliding/skating a bit; discussion taking place between the two of them (likely to determine whether or not Tessa is OK)
3:35 -- Scott heads over to the refs
3:38 -- music is stopped
3:40-3:42 -- Scott is at the judges table for a very brief visit
3:42-3:55 -- Scott & Tessa make their way to the boards and remain there for about the next minute
4:57 -- Scott is at judges table
5:15 -- Scott & Tessa are back together on the ice
5:36 -- music begins to play, it starts at a point prior to the lift, approx 20 seconds early
6:00 -- Scott & Tessa actual begin skating again to the music
So with this scenario, at what point would one determine the timing begins for the deduction for stoppage? and at what point does it end? Who would make the determination of the timing of such. I'm not trying to be a smartass, I'm truly curious cause I'm not anything more than a fan of the sport and am often looking to learn something. Yeah, the devil is in the details, and some probably think I'm in there with him.
This is turning out to be a really good topic and I've been enjoying some of the ideas put forth.
Crazy about sports!
I'd say if any stoppage was initiated by the skater(s), penalty should be taken. If the stoppage was out of control by the skaters (e.g. music stopped, light out, foreign object was thrown to the ice, etc), referee should stop the program and no deduction should be made.
This was posted on a linked blog in Sekret Sources, not sure if it has been mentioned here. How does everyone feel about the rule and ruling in this situation, where the skaters DIDN'T stop when the referee blew the whistle?
Can men tell if their strap is updone? I'm assuming yes only because the tugging on their pants would be gone but I'm not too sure.