Page 2 of 16 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 313
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,661
    vCash
    532
    Rep Power
    16524
    Quote Originally Posted by Zemgirl View Post
    Some people have written that if there is an unsafe situation skaters should be allowed to continue after a break. What if the unsafe situation leads to a skater being hurt and needing a break? IIRC, Barbara Fusar-Poli said that there were lots of Swarovski crystals on the ice during the OD in the 2006 Olympics. Though she did not attribute their fall to this, what if someone had tripped over those and hurt themselves? Should that team have been penalized? I just don't see how the ISU can start institute a selective policy. Either every stop leads to a deduction, like a few years back, or none do. Or I wouldn't put it past some skaters to find a "legitimate" reason if they stop because they are hurt.
    As I said before, it is a different situation if you can show that your blade has broken or your lace is undone, or if the ice has crystals all over it. You can't cheat that - you can easily prove that there is a problem.

    But injury is different. If you stopped because you are injured, one can argue that by allowing you to continue they are letting you place yourself into more danger of getting hurt by being allowed to continue while injured. Either you are not injured, or are injured but it doesn't prevent you from completing the program - in which case it is your decision (and your health) if you want to risk it. But if you are so injured that you need to stop, one can argue that you should withdraw because you are putting yourself in huge risk of making your injury worse. If your injury is bad enough that you stopped, it should be bad enough that you should withdraw. The argument that you stopped because it was unsafe because of your injury, but then you suddenly continued (so suddenly the same injury became safe again) does not seem to make sense.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Take me back to TEXAS
    Posts
    727
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    1501
    A Hazard stop- ice or skate equipment should not incur a penalty

    A suspected injury, time to collect breath, or time to regain composure after a fall should be a penalty if there is a stop.

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,661
    vCash
    532
    Rep Power
    16524
    Quote Originally Posted by centerpt1 View Post
    A Hazard stop- ice or skate equipment should not incur a penalty

    A suspected injury, time to collect breath, or time to regain composure after a fall should be a penalty if there is a stop.
    Yes, exactly. And the penalty should be severe. For example minus 1 point per minute, with maximum 3 minutes (= 3 points)off. (one can argue that the person who takes one minute has smaller advantage than the person who takes 3 minutes).

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1,256
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    1012
    Quote Originally Posted by hanca View Post
    If your injury is bad enough that you stopped, it should be bad enough that you should withdraw. The argument that you stopped because it was unsafe because of your injury, but then you suddenly continued (so suddenly the same injury became safe again) does not seem to make sense.
    If a penalty for stoppage is brought back, can it still be easily defined? I'm thinking of a cut caused by a blade. The referee may not notice blood on the ice, so they wouldn't call a stoppage, but the athlete would know if they were causing an unsafe condition by continuing to skate and bleed. A continuance of the program after getting a bandaide seems within reason and that could be the case for other injuries as well (a breath from an inhaler, a wrap for a wrist sprain, etc.). I think it's difficult not to find gray areas, which would end up making a specific rule very cumbersome or simply place the decision for penalty squarely on the shoulders of the referee. They're on ice level, talking directly with the athletes and although unpopular, would probably be the best judge of whether or not to impose the penalty. Perhaps make it like the costume rule deduction in dance, where at least 1/2 of the judges need to be in agreement before the deduction is taken.

  5. #25
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Posts
    9,948
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by professordeb View Post
    As I posted in the comp thread, not all the scenarios are the same. In the FD for the Junior Worlds, the French couple went into the FD knowing she had an injury and was in pain. They decided to skate anyway. The Shibs as well as V/M came into their FD feeling fine -- no injuries bothering them. Then during the dance, pain flares up and they just can't continue at that specific point in time.
    We cannot know whether skaters are absolutely fine going into the competition. Ice dancers notoriously don't like advertising their smaller injuries - unless they are withdrawing from a competition - because this may change the way the judges see their performance. Especially more experienced ice dancers are careful with the PR. Virtue and Moir did not have a fall or a collision, she didn't pull a muscle. Maybe she was fine going into the program, but maybe not.

    With V/M it was the referee who stopped the music which meant the V/M HAD to stop skating. It wasn't they who chose to stop but the referee who made that determination when they stopped the music.
    The referee stopped the music because V/M interrupted their program and were skating around the rink. Tessa aborted a lift. They should at least not been given the aborted lift IMO. It's incredible that they were allowed to do the lift after catching their breath and drinking water. If a Russian team were given this possibility at the Worlds, IMO this forum would explode with indignation.

    You really believe that all 3 teams should be treated the same when one team came in knowing that one of them was rather injured and perhaps, PERHAPS? used the rule to their advantage?
    I honestly don't believe any dance team would interrupt their program on purpose. The overall impression is so important in ice dance.

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Age
    53
    Posts
    10,458
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    20970
    There could also be clearer guidelines for the judges on how much to penalize in PCS.

    Even if there were very specific recommendations like "at least 0.5 off from Performance/Execution and Choreography, plus as much off the other components as appropriate," the judges would still have leeway to decide how high they would start from before taking the deductions and whether to take any more than the minimum recommended.

    So the best skater/team might still get the highest PCS even with a stop, if they were that much better. But not if the next-best competitor was close. The rules would specifically discourage judges from ignoring the interruption and just marking as if the two parts of the performance had been directly connected.

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,661
    vCash
    532
    Rep Power
    16524
    Quote Originally Posted by Tammi View Post
    If a penalty for stoppage is brought back, can it still be easily defined? I'm thinking of a cut caused by a blade. The referee may not notice blood on the ice, so they wouldn't call a stoppage, but the athlete would know if they were causing an unsafe condition by continuing to skate and bleed. A continuance of the program after getting a bandaide seems within reason and that could be the case for other injuries as well (a breath from an inhaler, a wrap for a wrist sprain, etc.). I think it's difficult not to find gray areas, which would end up making a specific rule very cumbersome or simply place the decision for penalty squarely on the shoulders of the referee. They're on ice level, talking directly with the athletes and although unpopular, would probably be the best judge of whether or not to impose the penalty. Perhaps make it like the costume rule deduction in dance, where at least 1/2 of the judges need to be in agreement before the deduction is taken.
    Tammi, I don't understand why it would be difficult to define? Let's say you cut yourself by the blade. It doesn't matter whether the referee sees it or not. You would either stop and have it treated (and get compulsory deduction, depending on how long you would need to take time off) or you would continue and bleed to death, if you are so stupid that you prioritise a few points over your health. If referee sees it and stops the program, you would still get the same deduction - simple solution, really!

  8. #28
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    İstanbul
    Posts
    338
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Asli View Post
    I honestly don't believe any dance team would interrupt their program on purpose. The overall impression is so important in ice dance.
    A lift cost more points. For example 2013 4CC free dance Virtue/Moir's aborted lift base value 8.00 points and got 2.43 GOE to. With a small wobble you can lose this GOE and maybe levels to.

    This stop is not a big mistake for dancers somehow.

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,661
    vCash
    532
    Rep Power
    16524
    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    There could also be clearer guidelines for the judges on how much to penalize in PCS.

    Even if there were very specific recommendations like "at least 0.5 off from Performance/Execution and Choreography, plus as much off the other components as appropriate," the judges would still have leeway to decide how high they would start from before taking the deductions and whether to take any more than the minimum recommended.

    So the best skater/team might still get the highest PCS even with a stop, if they were that much better. But not if the next-best competitor was close. The rules would specifically discourage judges from ignoring the interruption and just marking as if the two parts of the performance had been directly connected.
    I would be quite uncomfortable if the judges had the power to decide whether they will deduct or not, and how much. I think there should be the same rule for all, otherwise the favourite couples will end up least penalised and those from small federations will be penalised heavily.

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    4,736
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by hanca View Post
    Tammi, I don't understand why it would be difficult to define? Let's say you cut yourself by the blade. It doesn't matter whether the referee sees it or not. You would either stop and have it treated (and get compulsory deduction, depending on how long you would need to take time off) or you would continue and bleed to death, if you are so stupid that you prioritise a few points over your health. If referee sees it and stops the program, you would still get the same deduction - simple solution, really!
    It is possible for a skater top cut or otherwise hurt themselves in a way that probably requires medical attention but doesn't mean bleeding out on the ice Remember when Joubert cut his hand at 2011 Worlds, and ended up spraying blood all over the place on his final spin? In that case he was able to complete the program without stopping, but I think it did require treatment later, and I'm not sure it was ideal for to have blood on the ice like that.

  11. #31

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    3,169
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    4024
    Quote Originally Posted by MacMadame View Post



    I think stopping because something is on the ice or your boot lace comes undone is different. In that cause, you *could* have skated your program straight through. It just wasn't safe to do so.
    But isn't it the skater's responsibility to make sure their laces are properly tied before taking the ice and why should they be alllowed to stop if they neglected that responsibility?

  12. #32

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1,256
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    1012
    Hanca,

    I had two trains of thought going there and probably didn't explain them very well. The first was if the penalty should be waived due to the referee calling an unsafe condition, as opposed to the skater stopping themselves due to injury. Just trying to point out that there could be some crossover there, with a cut being both an injury and an unsafe condition. Second train of thought was in response to your suggestion that if an injury is bad enough to stop, then the athlete should be forced to withdraw. I would heartily agree if this was soccer (those apparent dives and being miraculously cured by the magic water is beyond frustrating) and maybe it's just semantics, but I don't think that all injuries which require a stoppage, can't be overcome enough to finish a program (ie. is it an "injury" or "medical condition").

    Probably still haven't put my thoughts well enough into words, so I'm just going to say that I'm on board with gkelly's suggestion . Isn't there currently a .5 mandatory deduction from SS for a fall? Maybe it would be similar.
    Last edited by Tammi; 03-02-2013 at 06:53 PM. Reason: ugh typo's

  13. #33
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,419
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    With V/M it was the referee who stopped the music which meant the V/M HAD to stop skating. It wasn't they who chose to stop
    What event were you watching? At the recent 4CC, V-M skated thru their planned lift without doing it, glided about aimlessly talking for several seconds until Scott left Tessa at center ice and skated towards the boards. http://youtu.be/iaSoVxk4zLc?t=3m4s
    The music was not stopped until he had nearly reached the boards, about 30 seconds after they stopped executing the program choreography.

    But this discussion is not about criticizing or defending V-M, because that was just one example. To me, it should not matter who the skater is or why a skater has to stop. I agree it is just not practical to try to distinguish between pre-existing condition, illness or a new injury. Even in the case of a bad fall, it seems weird that the skater is better off falling badly enough to stop skating, rest a bit and regroup than to have a less serious jump error where they just get up, chase across the ice to catch up with the choreo and resume the program. I mean, this is supposed to be big-time sports, not elementary school.

    I'm not even convinced it should matter whether the break is due to an equipment failure or a medical time out, it is still not fair to allow one competitor to have a rest break part way through their program. The stamina to compete the whole program all the way through is part of what is being tested in this sporting event. I think that's probably why the old rule required a re-skate from the beginning.

    The problem with the old rule was that skaters were abusing it in order to get to re-try failed elements. Maybe they need to combine the two approaches. The skaters should have to re-skate the entire program from the beginning, but are not allowed to improve their scores for elements already marked the first time. Of course, then you would have the problem of skaters not really bothering with the elements previously completed. Maybe they should get the lower value of the two efforts for reskated elements.

    I think my preference would be to eliminate altogether the concept of restarts after a skater initiated stoppage. When the skaters stop, the music should keep playing so they can pick up the program wherever the music is at that time, stopping only once the skaters notify the referee they are withdrawing. I'm thinking the referee should take the initiative to stop the music only if there is a problem that has nothing whatever to do with the skater (like the lights in the building going out). The idea of everyone sitting around for 3 minutes while people race around looking for a new bootlace for Tonya Harding was just absurd. (Once again, I am back to "this is the Olympics, not grade school." Or was that one waiting for people to run around looking for a screwdriver/bigger screw so she could tighten a loose blade?) The athlete should be held responsible for the condition of his own costume and equipment. I know there will still be the freak occurrence like breaking a blade, but I'd rather see that filed under "sh*t happens" than try to make some kind-hearted rule that will sooner or later be abused.
    Last edited by Susan M; 03-02-2013 at 07:23 PM.

  14. #34

    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,958
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    7796
    There was a penalty for interrupting a program and then the ISU took that change back. They probably felt it was unfair to the skaters to get that deduction when they were injured. I honestly don't know what prompted them to change the rule again. I don't think that someone really will abuse the rule, but I can see that others might think it is unfair.

    As for other sports, there are penalty-free injury breaks in combat sports such as judo and taekwondo.

  15. #35

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,661
    vCash
    532
    Rep Power
    16524
    Quote Originally Posted by Tammi View Post
    Hanca,

    I had two trains of thought going there and probably didn't explain them very well. The first was if the penalty should be waived due to the referee calling an unsafe condition, as opposed to the skater stopping themselves due to injury. Just trying to point out that there could be some crossover there, with a cut being both an injury and an unsafe condition. Second train of thought was in response to your suggestion that if an injury is bad enough to stop, then the athlete should be forced to withdraw. I would heartily agree if this was soccer (those apparent dives and being miraculously cured by the magic water is beyond frustrating) and maybe it's just semantics, but I don't think that all injuries which require a stoppage, can't be overcome enough to finish a program (ie. is it an "injury" or "medical condition").

    Probably still haven't put my thoughts well enough into words, so I'm just going to say that I'm on board with gkelly's suggestion . Isn't there currently a .5 mandatory deduction from SS for a fall? Maybe it would be similar.
    Maybe you are right. Maybe there are injuries where you can continue. That's why I would put in place severe sanctions (such as deduction one point per minute) rather than telling them automatically to withdraw although in other sports they wouldn't have this luxury - they would have to withdraw. But interrupting program for injuries should be seen as it is - a luxury, which is penalised by deduction. I know that it feels horrible to those who are injured, but what about those who are injured and decided not to compete to give a chance to other skaters from their country? How fair it is to them? Maybe they would manage to skate their program, if they had it cut in two pieces. We really don't want to get as far as the skaters arriving at competitions with a sick note from their doctor!

  16. #36

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,661
    vCash
    532
    Rep Power
    16524
    Quote Originally Posted by Susan M View Post
    To me, it should not matter who the skater is or why a skater has to stop. I agree it is just not practical to try to distinguish between pre-existing condition, illness or a new injury. Even in the case of a bad fall, it seems weird that the skater is better off falling badly enough to stop skating, rest a bit and regroup than to have a less serious jump error where they just get up, chase across the ice to catch up with the choreo and resume the program. I mean, this is supposed to be big-time sports, not elementary school.

    I'm not even convinced it should matter whether the break is due to an equipment failure or a medical time out, it is still not fair to allow one competitor to have a rest break part way through their program. The stamina to compete the whole program all the way through is part of what is being tested in this sporting event. I think that's probably why the old rule required a re-skate from the beginning.

    The problem with the old rule was that skaters were abusing it in order to get to re-try failed elements. Maybe they need to combine the two approaches. The skaters should have to re-skate the entire program from the beginning, but are not allowed to improve their scores for elements already marked the first time. Of course, then you would have the problem of skaters not really bothering with the elements previously completed. Maybe they should get the lower value of the two efforts for reskated elements.

    I think my preference would be to eliminate altogether the concept of restarts after a skater initiated stoppage. When the skaters stop, the music should keep playing so they can pick up the program wherever the music is at that time, stopping only once the skaters notify the referee they are withdrawing. I'm thinking the referee should take the initiative to stop the music only if there is a problem that has nothing whatever to do with the skater (like the lights in the building going out). The idea of everyone sitting around for 3 minutes while people race around looking for a new bootlace for Tonya Harding was just absurd. (Once again, I am back to "this is the Olympics, not grade school." Or was that one waiting for people to run around looking for a screwdriver/bigger screw so she could tighten a loose blade?) The athlete should be held responsible for the condition of his own costume and equipment. I know there will still be the freak occurrence like breaking a blade, but I'd rather see that filed under "sh*t happens" than try to make some kind-hearted rule that will sooner or later be abused.
    You are making a lot of sense! I like it!

  17. #37

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    bowing down to Robert Lepage
    Posts
    3,415
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    5645
    Tracy Wilson just said in the Junior Worlds coverage that she believes that if skaters have to stop they should not be allowed to re-start - that is should be considered a DNF - did not finish. She also emphasized what many have said here - that it would be a "travesty" if that were to happen at the Olympics - a sport among sports.

    I don't understand people who believe that this should be true for injuries but not equipment problems. Making sure your skate laces don't come undone, that your laces are strong enough not to break, to make sure your elastics holding your pants down are done up well enough to stay done up is the athletes' responsibility. If something going wrong with equipment causes a danger - I don't see how it is any more risky to go on with that than with certain injuries. I also think it is s slippery slope if we start judging which injuries count and which don't

    Problems with the venue would be a different story IMO.

  18. #38

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,661
    vCash
    532
    Rep Power
    16524
    Quote Originally Posted by The Accordion View Post
    I don't understand people who believe that this should be true for injuries but not equipment problems. Making sure your skate laces don't come undone, that your laces are strong enough not to break, to make sure your elastics holding your pants down are done up well enough to stay done up is the athletes' responsibility. If something going wrong with equipment causes a danger - I don't see how it is any more risky to go on with that than with certain injuries. I also think it is s slippery slope if we start judging which injuries count and which don't

    Problems with the venue would be a different story IMO.
    The thinking behind it was that at least you can prove that you had a broken lace on your boot, or blade got unattached from the boot, or you can pick a lot of stones from the ice if you want to prove that the ice was not in a great condition. whereas you can't really prove an injury, so there is nowhere to draw the line with injuries (unless you want the skaters arriving to the championships with their doctors medical note). Does person X have really back injury or do they just say so because they messed up entrance to the lift? Some injuries are obvious - e.g. cutting your hand on the blade, but some (such as back problem) could be easily abused.

  19. #39
    Internet Beyotch
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    NorCal
    Posts
    15,811
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    23556
    Quote Originally Posted by Asli View Post
    If a Russian team were given this possibility at the Worlds, IMO this forum would explode with indignation.
    This forum exploded with indignation when V/M did it at 4CCs so I'm not sure what your point is here.

    Quote Originally Posted by judiz View Post
    But isn't it the skater's responsibility to make sure their laces are properly tied before taking the ice and why should they be alllowed to stop if they neglected that responsibility?
    Sometimes laces come undone even if you've done everything right.

    Quote Originally Posted by hanca View Post
    The thinking behind it was that at least you can prove that you had a broken lace on your boot, or blade got unattached from the boot, or you can pick a lot of stones from the ice if you want to prove that the ice was not in a great condition. whereas you can't really prove an injury, so there is nowhere to draw the line with injuries (unless you want the skaters arriving to the championships with their doctors medical note).
    That's one line of thought. My own line of thought is that anything that is not under the control of the athlete should be allowed. It's not one dance team's fault that the team ahead of it dumped crystals all over the ice, for example. It's not a skater's fault that the fire alarm went off in the middle of their skate. Those kinds of interruptions should be allowed with no penalty other than what naturally comes from interrupting a program (it interrupts the flow).

    Equipment malfunction is not as black and white but because of the safety issues and because of the culture of figure skating, I would allow it within certain predefined criteria for how long the interruption is and what kinds of malfunctions allow the program to be restarted.
    Actual bumper sticker series: Jesus is my co-pilot. Satan is my financial advisor. Budha is my therapist. L. Ron Hubbard owes me $50.

  20. #40

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    4,736
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by The Accordion View Post
    Tracy Wilson just said in the Junior Worlds coverage that she believes that if skaters have to stop they should not be allowed to re-start - that is should be considered a DNF - did not finish. She also emphasized what many have said here - that it would be a "travesty" if that were to happen at the Olympics - a sport among sports.
    It has happened in recent Olympics - most famously when the Zhangs needed to stop after she hurt herself on the throw (and I think most people admired their sportsmanship and commitment) but also when Oda had issues with his skate laces. Skating survived. It's also happened at other major events: V/M's stop at 4CCs this year, Trankov's costume surgery at 2008 Worlds, Ladwig's skate adventures at 2011 4CCs... I just don't think it's all that damaging, other than to the skaters whose program is interrupted. Skating is not the only sport in which there are breaks or timeouts. Personally, I think gkelly's suggestion is the best one in this thread.

Page 2 of 16 FirstFirst 123412 ... 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
  •