Discussion in 'Great Skate Debate' started by Maofan7, Mar 2, 2013.
An Australian Ladies title was won with a break of at least 6 minutes (most likely more)! This was with the new rule in place. Never should have happened, it was sad for all the skaters behind this one. If you are competing, compete - that is why it is called acompetition, not a practice session. You need to let competitors perform with what they have durning thier time on the ice and judges need to judge what they see for those few minutes on the ice.
Re comparing one sport to another, Some of rules for another sport might work quite well for skating too and vice-versa.
Someone above said that at the designated official practice, skaters skate through all their elements for the benefit of the tech caller and the judges. Is that really true? Seems I recall cases where a skater did not even appear at their designated official practice.
I thought the judges etc were provide in writing what the skater planned, but he is not penalized per se if he changes his program.
I think the easy and fair way to decide when a penalty is given or not would be: if there is physical evidence of a reason to stop, eg crystals or other debris on the ice, broken or untied boot lace/broken skate blade or any other physical danger that can be seen, fixed and then the skate continues, would be allowed. Stopping because the skater is sick, injured or just tired should be grounds for withdrawal or severely penalized. This is a sport, not an exhibition and IMO the skaters should be trained to finish the program, if they want to risk competing with an injury then they should be willing to accept the possible consequences if they have to stop in the middle. If they are injured during the program, to the point of having to stop skating, they should be made to withdraw. To continue skating with a known injury incurred during the performance is dangerous to the skater or team and shouldn't be allowed, if they stop. Allowing skaters to stop in the way that we have seen lately, is unfair to the other competitors and should not be allowed in the future.
Yep, it's like when someone slips off the outside edge going into an axel- they didn't do any part of the jump, but this is almost always called as an axel attempt, so I know skaters have Oda-ed themselves when they add in another axel later (thinking 'I didn't do an axel'), so then the failed "attempt" gets no credit, and the replacement gets no credit.
They didn't attempt the jump (or in dance's case the lift) but they did enough of the preperation for it, that judges knew what they were going for and it counts as an attempt.
What do you mean, "different hold?" Could there have been an error in set-up? That's not good.
Watching other versions of the program- I don't think they set up incorrectly the first time. I think they did it differently the second time to not aggrevate the muscle spasms again.
While I again think they shouldn't be allowed to stop, I do think they stopped due to actual muscle spasms and not a program error hoping for a retry.
Stopping a program should incur a 1.0 penalty across the board, with the narrow exception of things completely out of the skater's control, such as power outages, fire alarms, streakers, etc. Singles and pair skaters should lose the second half bonus on any skills performed after a break. The program should be re-started at the point the music was stopped. Spend 30 seconds wandering aimlessly around the ice before consulting the referee? You just lost any elements in that portion of the program. Go talk to your coach before going to the referee? You just lost that portion of your program. Hear the referee's whistle because your boot strap came undone? The music should be stopped immediately upon the referee blowing the whistle, and hence, this skater gets to skate his/her entire program in two pieces. But if the skater initiates the stop, the the amount of time it takes to get to the referee is time the skater shouldn't get back. He can use the three minutes to decide is the remaining portion of the program needs to be changed/rearranged. The judges should lower the PCS marks accordingly, depending on how much of the program was not performed (but even if they don't, these other rule changes would ensure that there is a penalty for stopping a program).
That makes your remarks that much more idiotic then.
He wan't questioning whether or not they could continue though. He was saying they should have continued after the lift. And I agree with that. So should V/M. They both missed the lift and should have had to restart the program after the point where the lift would have occurred.
And, if they had done so, there whould have been a BIG penalty in their marks naturally and I doubt this discussion would be happening. It's the fact that they got to do all their planned elements that made it seem like there was no penalty that then caused people to be up in arms.
You are correct. There is no requirement to even show up at the official practices and you do not have to do your exact program at them. The technical panel does not sit there marking off the elements you skate during the practice either. (They may or may not attend.)
You do turn in your list of planned elements but you are allowed to skate a program that does not match those elements with no penalty as you pointed out. The list is just to make life easier as most of the time most skaters skate most of what they planned and even if they change things up they still do some sort of element in the place they said they'd do something. (So maybe they'll do 2X instead of 3F but they still do a jump.)
Exactly!!! Mao Asada also did not get a second chance when she had the bad fall on her preparation edge for 3A a few years ago at worlds. She just got up and continued with the program. And she was not able to fit in any extra triple axel, because this one already counted as an attempt. Although she was only on the preparation edge, she did not jump yet!
With the current rules, however, Mao should be advised by her coaches that she should skate to the referee because she has a pain her her leg and stomach (the fall definitely looked painful, there is no doubt about that!!!), she would get a break, refreshment and second attempt of the triple axel because she hasn't actually performed the element so the first attempt does not count. (Pity the fall would count though. Any advice on how to delete the fall? Or will she have to do with refreshment, break and second attempt on the element?)
Very well said.
Watch the video clip and make up your mind. I did make up my mind. I do think he made an error in the beginning of the lift. I don't believe that they did it differently the second time to not aggravate the muscle spasms again. With lift you learn an element and surely you wouldn't be changing it in the middle of the competition. That's like suddenly deciding to do completely different spin than you have been practising. In fact, with lifts any changes would be extremely difficult - if you didn't practice it that way, it could go terribly wrong and she could fall. It is usually not done.
By the way, it is not only my opinion. There was some Russian interview posted here on FSU. Someone, some ex elite dancer commented on the same - Shibutani having suddenly different beginning of the aborted lift (I think it may have been Shabalin but not certain).
Why? Because I have a different opinion? And because you have to be always right?
I agree with most of this, particularly about this being a sport and not an exhibition. The only point I differ on somewhat is- making the skters withdraw. IMO it should be left up to the skaters whether they want to risk further injury by finishing the program or withdraw. This should not be a referee's decision because some athletes are able to perform well despite an injury. So leave that decision upto the skaters. If they have a break in the program, that should still receive a deduction, should they decide to finish the program.
Why was questioning two things if I remember correctly. As you said, he was questioning why they continued (and were marked) with the lift, instead of continuing after the lift. However, he as also pointing out that the second attempt the beginning of the lift was different entrance/hold. So he was wondering whether Shibutani actually made a mistake and decided to rectify it.
I think the music should restart from the point that they start skating over to the referee or the referee calls the stop, if it's injury or skater equipment or costume issues. If it means they skate around for a while before that, it's music they lose. If they want to try to fit missed elements into the program later, that's up to them, although much more likely for singles who don't have to coordinate.
This has been a great discussion; thanks to Maofan for starting this thread.
It's great that so many of us have so many perspectives on this. Unfortunately nothing will be done about it in competitions unless something big happens in the Olympics where the whole world is watching, and FS as a sport is on trial. If it costs a skater an OGM because another skater or skaters took advantage of this rule about no deduction if a skater has an injury and has to take a time out, we may see something done post-
"Stop being rude" is indicating that I have been rude in at least several posts in a row. Okay, I realize that you probably didn't mean that, and just didn't think much before responding. Although I don't think that I was being overly rude in that one post also. I just asked you a question, and informed you about what really happened, as you said that you don't know. By the way, I also think that if you don't know, it's better to not make any statements, even with a "idk" at the end.
What do you mean by that - that a leg cramp is not serious enough to stop, and that skaters who stop because of a leg cramp should be penalized more severely than those who stop because of a "more serious" injury? Even though the skater is in pain because of that cramp, and can't do anything with that leg (probably) for a few minutes? Obviously you haven't experienced any leg cramps in your life if you think that it should be fairly easy to skate right after the cramp. It's not just about stamina - it's about what is physically possible, and what is not. Okay, probably it's not completely impossible, probably it's possible to continue to skate right away at a risk of injuring oneself more seriously while skating on a weak/non supportive leg + of course, skating very badly. At the same time, it's not the kind of injury which prevents one from doing any physical activity for a longer amount of time. A few minutes are enough to recuperate. So, I don't see how a skater with a leg cramp should not be allowed to finish the program any more than a skater with a different kind of injury.
Well, there hasn't been a big controversy for a few years now. I miss having two sets of gold medals... As it is currently happening in dance, I wonder if it will be V-M, D-W, P-B, W-P or B-S who will be the couple skating their program in two or more parts. Should we start taking bets? (sorry, this may be a bit cynical from me!)
One has to wonder where you draw the line though. A leg cramp is not an injury. Painful - yes, but not injury. If we start treating leg cramps as injuries, what about sneezing? It is not painful, but it would be dangerous for the skater to be lifted while they feel that they have sneezing coming onto them. If you sneeze in the middle of the lift, you may fall down! And some sneezing fits can be very bad. Also having hiccups. How safe is it to be lifted while having hiccups? And what about cough? It is not an injury, but it is a medical condition, and if it is bad enough it can be painful...and it can definitely be dangerous to go ahead with a lift if you feel you are going to start coughing...
So where do we draw the line?
Do you have a link to the video and protocols? I don't recall this and I'd be very interested to see the circumstances and subsequent call.
The fall is at 0:46. I don't have protocols but I am sure they are available somewhere on the internet under ISU.
The fall looks really painful. She could have taken a break...(with current rules she actually should because they might let her re-do the axel).
I understand that skaters throughout history have used this stoppage rule without penalty, and for the most part don't hold them at fault for that now. If some people view the current controversy as unfair backlash at V/M, that other skaters didn't get, then so be it, but it's time to re-visit the rule. Skating evolves with the times.
Quite on the contrary. Throughout the history when skaters stopped, they would be penalised. I think it was the longer break, the longer penalty. It is only last few years when the penalty was taken away, and seeing this season three dance couples without any obvious injury stopping the program and redoing the element which they had already set up for but did not complete, one wonders. As someone else above said, if a freeskater slips on the entrance to the axel and falls, the jump element counts as done, although the skater doesn't get any points for it. So why dancers who started and did not finished lift are allowed to restart the element? And why are they not getting deduction for stopping?
Here is the protocol from 2008 words. It was counted as an axel attempt even though she never jumped, she got 0 points.
(I remember that happening at World's, but I was thinking of a different competition where it was a 2A, and a skater did another one late in the program, got no points on either, and possibly had another jump element not count because it was an extra jump element passed the allowable. Haven't a clue which competition it was, it might not even have been a major one- they all mesh together- I just remember thinking it was crazy, and the score suffered hugely.)
My thought is just that if this counts as an attempted axel, then what the Shibs did and what V/M did is clearly a lift attempt. Neither the axel nor the lift happened, but in all 3 cases, the set up was a clear.
Thank your for the links. The ISU Technical Handbooks do have definitions for "attempt" in both jumps and dance lifts for the tech callers.
Attempted Jump: What is an attempt? In principle, a clear preparation for a take off for a jump, stepping to the entry edge or placing the toe pick into the ice and leaving the ice with or without a turn is considered an attempt of a jump, receives no value and blocks a box. In some cases, which need to be decided by the TP, the preparation for the take off without leaving the ice might be also called an attempt, e.g. a loop jump take off when the skater falls before leaving the ice, or a skater steps onto the forward take off edge of an Axel and pulls back the free leg and arms, starts the forward movement to jump into the air with the free leg and arms passing through forward but at the last moment does not leave the ice, etc.
If a Fall or interruption occurs at the entrance to or during a Dance Lift, the element shall be identified and given a Level according to the requirements met before the Fall or interruption, or No Level if the requirements for Level 1 are not met.
Seems straight forward enough if the program continues (probably explains the referenced Mao Asada marks). What appears to muddy the water is if a stoppage occurs. The referee is now involved and uses whatever directive they have to place the point of restart and notifies the tech panel. I don't know if there's a rule that's been published online outlining how that decision is made. That appears to be the mystery here. The discussion has been focused primarily on the 3 dance teams, but I hope this doesn't cause any ill will towards them because of a referee's decision beyond their control. They all played within the rules (whether we like the rules or not). For the V/M and S/S restart at the point of the lift, not knowing the field of play rules, the fact that the decision to begin with the lift was consistent at both events, makes me think that there could be something in the guidelines. IMO, the referee did the right thing informing P/C that they were within the rules to take up to 3 minutes before deciding on withdrawal or continuing.
Personally, I'd much rather see a return to the -1.0 or -2.0 point deduction for stoppage and/or a mandatory PCS deduction, than to force a DNF on any skater. Does anyone even know if this discussion is on the radar for the ISU?
Who was penalized?
No, because you are proving the adage "there's always one". It's like my cycling example. While 90% of the cycling community was OUTRAGED that one dude passed the other dude there were some who weren't. Does that mean that passing the yellow jersey dude when he has a mechanical is acceptable in cycling because 10% thought it was okay? Nope. 90% were outraged because that's the convention in that community. 99% of the skaters are saying it's not an advantage. As I said, there's always that one guy...
And I don't always have to be right. You are the one who seems very entrenched in your position. You keep hammering home the same points over and over and are a majority poster in this thread. (Watch, now you'll go count who has posted what and what percentage they've posted.) I have actually changed my position since the thread started based on arguments in the thread that have caused me to think about the problem more deeply. By changing my mind, I'm admitting my first position was wrong.
But did he say that the rule that allows you to restart was wrong? That's what I want to know. It seems the elite skaters (for the most part) are okay with this rule. If they are okay with it, I am too because it's their life that is impacted, not mine.
There are skating parents involved in this thread. What do their skaters and their skater friends think about this rule? I'd be interested in knowing.
Who knows? For all we know they ALL were penalized. Maybe V&M would have beaten D&W by 5 points if the interruption hadn't happened but got a big ding in the PCS they would have gotten. Since there is no explicit deduction, we don't know.
Hang on, so now it is wrong if I have more post than someone else? If you notice, while you are responding to 3, 4,5 or 6 posters in one of your post, I haven't figured out yet how to do multiple quote, so I would be responding to different people in my separate posts, so that may account for having more post than anyone else! Jesus Christ, one will be soon scared to write a post so you don't accuse them of having more posts than other?
Thanks for the quotes, Tammi.
I do think there could be situations where a skater starts to execute a jump or lift and aborts because that is the move that makes them realize that the skate has come untied or the blade loosened. Better to stop before trying the element and failing disastrously.
Assuming that the equipment problem can be fixed within the allowed time (3 minutes?), would we expect a deduction? and would we expect the program to resume from the entry to the element or to resume after the element?
I think the same answer should apply if the problem that caused the skater to abort the element and the program to be stopped but that could be quickly fixed was with the skater's body rather than with the skate.
I'm not sure what the right answer is. I think some penalty is appropriate in either case, because the problem does stem from what I'm calling the skater's sphere of responsibility. But I don't think it should be a severe penalty. I don't think we want skaters to push through a move and through to the end of the program even when they feel that something is seriously wrong because they fear the severe penalty for stopping. Losing the whole element plus an additional deduction feels too severe for many situations.
Although of course skaters who fall or otherwise fail an element because of equipment failure or muscle spasm during the element (with or without additional damage from the fall) have already lost most or all of the value of that element and would also be subject to a deduction if they then have to stop to fix equipment or assess whether or not they're too injured to continue.
It seems that people are calling for the harshest penalties in cases where skaters stop because they think they're too injured to continue at that very moment but then decide they are able to go on after all -- usually only the skater him- or herself knows from the feeling inside the body whether it's safe to resume so such stops would potentially be subject to abuse. But it's hard to write the rule to penalize potential abusers of the option in such a way as not to also penalize skaters who are just trying to do their best in a momentarily dangerous situation.
(And BTW, as an example of a potential danger that neither the skater nor the competition organizers can fully control, NO FLASH PHOTOGRAPHY.)
I do agree with the suggestion above that any second-half bonus for singles and pairs would be negated by a stop. Or if the stop occurs during the first half of the program, restart the bonus clock when the program restarts. E.g., if the program is 4:30 so the bonus starts at 2:15, but the skater stops and restarts at the 1:00 point, then the bonus could start at 3:15 (2:15 after the restart).
Ultimately the referee has a lot of discretion in these situations, even if the written rules are as specific as possible.
Although I trust that refs will almost always be aiming to balance safety and fairness, I would hate to introduce rules that would allow an overzealous even if well-meaning referee (let alone the rare not-well-meaning one) to stop a program and then disqualify or overly penalize a skater just because the skater paused and looked distressed for a few seconds in the middle of a program.