I have two questions:
1. Why do they abandoned "!" after introducing it so recently? Were there any problems in using "!", which made them to decide to abandon it?
2. According to gkelly's post, the severity of the called edge error is decided by the individual judges. And according to Wallylutz's post, the rule says that a major edge error is subject to -2 to -3 negative GOE (that may or may not be cancelled out by positive qualities of the jumps that deserve plus GOEs). Then how much penalty do they recommend the judge to give if he/she decides that the called edge error is minor, just -1 or could be 0?
Correct me if I was not understanding correctly, but I thought that the judges did not necessarily have to give minus GOE for the edge error if it was given only the "!" mark, because "!" meant that it was "questionable."
In such a case, some judge might just give "0" and say "I saw the attention mark suggesting that the edge was questionable, but I did not think that it was a wrong edge, so I did not give any penalty for an edge error."
But now, a jump taken off from a questionable edge is going to be given "e" instead of "!." Because "e" used to mean more serious edge error than "!", I feel that the judges would feel that any jump with "e" mark must have a major edge error (more as a psychological effect due to the confusion stemming frrom the recent introduction and the quick abandonment of the "!" mark).
Then even if they are told that the individual judges could decide the severity of the edge error, I feel that they are compelled to give -2 or -3 for the edge error, even when the error is minor or just questionable.
Minor edge error should be between -1 and -2 but the overall GOE is not required to be negative.
Thank you mskater. I was not aware of that.The 2 point disruption deduction is not a PCS mark "opinion". The most recent case of this being applied was Oda's LP at the Olympics with the skate lace and Zhang/Zhang in Torino Olympics.
It would be nice if the commentators all had one. Some of them question the Tech call. At least the serious spectator can trust a commentator.ISU uses HD replays, not available at national competitions, which can make a difference as it allows the tech panel to zoom in their view down to the specific foot level.
What is the difference between a minor and a major error so that an informed audience will understand?
I could buy that see beyond the obvious, but it's just an opinion, and it all brings me back to the 6.0 System. I thought the CoP was about scoring what one sees and not look for some other way to score. So if one actually sees a Fall, the judge may think it was not a Fall but an accident. Hmmm, it seems to me that the CoP is a glorified 6.0 system.How about people who can see beyond the obvious (e.g. fall) and actually understand the subtlety and complexity of the technical challenges in this sport vs. another who demands that skaters be sent to the guillotine because such person is engulfed in: <<Mon dieu, c'est très sérieux!>>?
Please note, I am not referring to any particular poster.
They removed the spiral sequence requirement and the second step requirement (for Men) for the SP. How do the rules still need to be looked at for that then?
I haven't been paying attention lately if it did go through but, if so, then what is replacing those elements in the SP?