Page 13 of 16 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast
Results 241 to 260 of 313
  1. #241

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    NC, USA
    Posts
    16,691
    vCash
    450
    Rep Power
    7993
    Quote Originally Posted by lauravvv View Post
    Yes, I agree. But I also agree that skaters have to be given a chance to decide whether they can continue, or not, an the penalty can not be too severe, as it would discourage skaters with a serious problem from stopping for fear of having no choice but to withdraw, or of being so severely penalized that it wouldn't make sense to continue anyway even if they felt capable of continuing.
    I'm sure there's a middle ground that could address the concerns of both sides of the issue.

  2. #242

    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    24,950
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    91441
    Quote Originally Posted by lauravvv View Post
    Yes, I agree. But I also agree that skaters have to be given a chance to decide whether they can continue, or not, an the penalty can not be too severe, as it would discourage skaters with a serious problem from stopping for fear of having no choice but to withdraw, or of being so severely penalized that it wouldn't make sense to continue anyway even if they felt capable of continuing.
    If the penalty is too mild, again there is a potential for abuse of the rule. I think an athlete knows when to push himself/herself and when to stop (when the injury makes it impossible to continue).

  3. #243
    Internet Beyotch
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    NorCal
    Posts
    15,804
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    23556
    Quote Originally Posted by shan View Post
    I'm sure there's a middle ground that could address the concerns of both sides of the issue.
    And such a middle ground has been proposed several times in this thread with some very sensible proposals such as a few by gkelly and other. Things like not getting any bonus points for jumps after the halfway mark if you stop and a graduated series of penalties as the stopage gets more and more severe.

    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.

  4. #244

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Age
    53
    Posts
    10,451
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    20970
    Quote Originally Posted by shan View Post
    I think your comments show the problem with the whole situation. There's just too much speculation and "probablys" and "can't know for sure" and depending upon what something appears to be. That's why I think the rule should be written in such a way that it can clearly be enforced.
    So how would you write the rule(s) in such a way as to be more clearly enforced?

    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by Vash01 View Post
    If the penalty is too mild, again there is a potential for abuse of the rule. I think an athlete knows when to push himself/herself and when to stop (when the injury makes it impossible to continue).
    Again, how do we define the rule so as to prevent abuse by skaters without overpenalizing stops


    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.

  5. #245
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Sending positive thoughts to Mirai..
    Posts
    3,712
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by NadineWhite View Post
    Lol I love the way you express yourself, Sasha'sSpins. And I too would honestly be on the ground crying with you.

    Seriously though these athletes are on another level, and they'd have to be, considering their elite status, they've earned it and truly paid wilth blood, sweat, tears (btw does Yuko Kavaguti ever cry??? she's like a bionic woman! even Eldredge lay prone on the ice gritting his teeth when he popped his shoulder back in place).
    Thank you. I think it comes from my late grandma who was a rather melodramatic Latin lady.

    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.

  6. #246

    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    6,820
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    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.

  7. #247
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    23
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    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:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_OK1VDgPrY

  8. #248
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Riga, Latvia
    Posts
    1,312
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by MacMadame View Post
    And such a middle ground has been proposed several times in this thread with some very sensible proposals such as a few by gkelly and other. Things like not getting any bonus points for jumps after the halfway mark if you stop and a graduated series of penalties as the stopage gets more and more severe.

    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.
    I, for one, have read most of what has been written in this thread. That's why I wrote "I agree that...", and then just briefly summarized some of the points that had been mentioned, as I simply didn't have enough time to look for all the respective posts in order to quote them. Sorry if writing that I agree with something seems like polluting the thread to you ().

  9. #249

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Age
    53
    Posts
    10,451
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    20970
    Quote Originally Posted by Capella View Post
    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.
    I'm OK with that for situations like muscle cramps. I'm just afraid it would end up applying in situations where it would make more sense and be fairer to everyone if the skater would stop and solve the problem before resuming.

    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.
    A few issues with this.

    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.

  10. #250

    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Posts
    7,595
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    1913
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ziggy View Post
    It really is simple to solve.

    If there's a costume/safety issue, referee whistles = no deduction

    If skater runs out of breath and stops on his own = deduction

    I guess that could lead to skaters tearing pieces of their costumes off if they wanted a break.


    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

  11. #251

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,658
    vCash
    532
    Rep Power
    16524
    Quote Originally Posted by Capella View Post
    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.

    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.

  12. #252

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    3,729
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    6669
    Quote Originally Posted by hanca View Post
    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.)
    I don't see "-3" as a prohibitive deduction, even in Dance. In two instances where I remember the scoring, with Papadakis/Cizeron and Virtue/Moir, it would not have affected the final placement; both teams would have finished second with the deduction. I'd rather see a deduction than go into how PCS should be affected or not. PCS is murky as is; and if the two parts of interrupted program are performed brilliantly, I am OK with PCS being barely affected ( if a deduction is implemented) ; after all, a stop only influences P/E, and has no relevance to IN ( or at least it does not automatically have to), CH, TR or SS.
    Last edited by dinakt; 03-06-2013 at 10:14 PM.
    improving my ballad- like lines

  13. #253

    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    In Canuck Land, hey!
    Age
    56
    Posts
    3,819
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    2416
    Quote Originally Posted by hanca View Post
    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.)
    I understand using automatic penalties and so have a question. At what point would the time for penalty start and end? Using V/M only as an example, I went and attempted to break down what happened. Here's my unofficial findings
    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!

  14. #254

    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    2,493
    vCash
    400
    Rep Power
    2110
    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.

  15. #255

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Age
    53
    Posts
    10,451
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    20970
    Quote Originally Posted by luenatic View Post
    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.
    And what if the skater sees the foreign object on the ice before the referee sees it, and stops for safety reasons?

  16. #256

    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    2,493
    vCash
    400
    Rep Power
    2110
    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    And what if the skater sees the foreign object on the ice before the referee sees it, and stops for safety reasons?
    Said skater should avoid the foreign object. Keep on skating. When the program is done, file a complain to the referee.

  17. #257

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    2,219
    vCash
    5550
    Rep Power
    17276
    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?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOWSU...layer_embedded

  18. #258

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Age
    53
    Posts
    10,451
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    20970
    Quote Originally Posted by luenatic View Post
    Said skater should avoid the foreign object. Keep on skating. When the program is done, file a complain to the referee.
    Even if the obstacle is something that would be difficult to avoid while skating the program as planned? Do you really think the skater should risk injury if she discovers, e.g., multiple bobby pins from the previous skater strewn randomly across a large swath of the ice?

  19. #259

    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    24,950
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    91441
    Quote Originally Posted by luenatic View Post
    Said skater should avoid the foreign object. Keep on skating. When the program is done, file a complain to the referee.
    IMO that's too dangerous because the skaters have a set pattern that they have been practising, and trying to avoid that foreign object creates a distinct disadvantage for the skater when it's not his/her fault. If they see a foreign object, they should skate over to the refs table and point it out. There should be no deduction in this case, regardless of how long the break is.

  20. #260
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    3,506
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    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.

Page 13 of 16 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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