Mandatory PCS Reduction for Falls?

[Sam-Skwantch]

Just wondering if anyone thinks PCS should have a mandatory reduction when falls occur. I usually want the judges to have freedom to judge but I’m also aware that some abuse PCS to prop flawed performances. I think we all are. I am rather lenient though and truly think as long as the GOE is negative on a fall I don’t even care if it’s only a -1. For perspective I’d welcome latitude for the judges to be able grade the fall. Could make for some good laughs if nothing else :yes:

The point in creating a mandatory reduction on PCS would be to prevent judges who use PCS to save certain skaters from a poor performance. There are a couple of ways to do this but the first I’ll consider is to impose a scoring ceiling. This inherently would only affect the top tier skaters who score the highest PCS scores but I could live with something like this. We would just need to cap scores at 9.50 for one fall and just keep going down in .25 increments as falls keep occurring. So a two fall program is not allowed to score over 9.25 in any PCS category. The negative here is that it doesn’t address the skaters who are getting lower component scores.

Maybe just reducing .25 from each judge’s final PCS marks per fall would work. So for example each PCS would be reduced by .75 for a three fall program. The software could just subtract it manually from every catagory for every fall deduction the technical panel applies. This would apply to all skaters more so than the above mentioned ceiling and is probably more fair. 5th and 6th place scores matter too

I know a lot of people will point out that a 1pt deduction is already assessed and the judges can make PCS reductions if they see fit so that maybe adding further reduction is unfair. Let’s stop for a second and consider this small example from Skate Canada. Maria Sotskova does a second half jump (3f-1lo-3s) that usually scores around 14pts when clean. She had an oopsy moment and under rotated it. So in comes the technical panel and the combo that just a few weeks prior we scored massively is now worth 6pts less. I’m not arguing the call or saying her penalty is unfair. Please keep that in mind. In relation to a fall though...I’m starting to think adding in a PCS reduction is a lot more reasonable. If this jump pass which had a slight under rotation which had to be confirmed thru slow motion can loose 6pts then why can’t an easily visible fall face similar punishment?


Any thoughts on this? How many points would you reduce PCS for s fall? Should SS be spared from additional reduction or maybe even hit harder? Is this just s bunch of nonsense and PCS jumps don’t affect the quality of s performance?

 

[Spirals for Miles]

I don't know. I don't want to see abuse of the system to prop up skaters who fall.
BUT if a skater has a phenomenal performance other than the fall, I'd like to see normally high PCS. Not overly low, not overly high. I think the fall is penalized enough in the GOE.

 

[moriel]

I would rather change the way stuff is scored in TES than meddle with PCs.
For example, increase TES deduction for falls: maybe adding a deduction that is a % of the value of the element would be fair too.

Now, if the falls start getting PCs deductions too, I would also add PCs deductions for the following mistakes:
- pops: because it is pretty disruptive for performance, as there is usually a whole setup, a musical accent, and then nothing happens, hurting performance and choreo.
- step outs, landings on one's hands. For example, see Osmond's opening combo at SC FS. At worlds, when she did it clean, she got 11.00, while at SC she got 8.20, 2.80 less. Using same logic as was applied above, I totally see how this would deserve a PCs deduction similar to a fall.

 

[kenboy123]

No, because don't they already get a point deduction for a fall anyways????...so, the penalty is already there, if you give another reduction, then...wouldn't the reduction be overinflated???

 

[Sam-Skwantch]

No, because don't they already get a point deduction for a fall anyways????...so, the penalty is already there, if you give another reduction, then...wouldn't the reduction be overinflated???

I anticipated and responded to this in my original post. Read the part about Masha losing 6pts for a UR.

I know a lot of people will point out that a 1pt deduction is already assessed and the judges can make PCS reductions if they see fit so that maybe adding further reduction is unfair. Let’s stop for a second and consider this small example from Skate Canada. Maria Sotskova does a second half jump (3f-1lo-3s) that usually scores around 14pts when clean. She had an oopsy moment and under rotated it. So in comes the technical panel and the combo that just a few weeks prior we scored massively is now worth 6pts less. I’m not arguing the call or saying her penalty is unfair. Please keep that in mind. In relation to a fall though...I’m starting to think adding in a PCS reduction is a lot more reasonable. If this jump pass which had a slight under rotation which had to be confirmed thru slow motion can loose 6pts then why can’t an easily visible fall face similar punishment?

 

[Sam-Skwantch]

I would rather change the way stuff is scored in TES than meddle with PCs.
For example, increase TES deduction for falls: maybe adding a deduction that is a % of the value of the element would be fair too.

Interesting...I was simply trying to eliminate the the way judges can erase TES deductions by awarding high PCS to counter it. If a judge adds .25 here and there it can really add up on their total score. Of course this is before the scores get averaged or factored but I think it’s important.

To me falls should be the most heavily punished and if PCS can be used to counter it then in a way the fall reductions can be applied unevenly and potentially unfairly.

 

[kenboy123]

I anticipated andresponded to this in my original post. Read the part about Masha losing 6pts for a UR.

I realized that, but i think i'm going to keep my opinion and not compare it to underrotation calls and other calls because underrotations, that's just a different thing altogether...underrotation calls and falls are different...i guess it also to depends on what you think is worst, falls or underrotations...generally, underrotations are deemed worst than a fall if you rotate the jump fully because it's very hard to rotate jumps fully....i also think as a viewer, one might feel like a fall is worst than an underrotation because underrotations are harder to catch and don't really disturb the flow of movement whereas a fall is much easier to catch and do disturb the flow of movement...but the main point here is i still think one reduction is enough...

 

[4everchan]

if i were doing the CoP

I would be confronted with two issues

PCS : fall should reduce automatically perfomance and execution... but in some cases it does affect composition and transition... ... so it is hard to gage.... i would tell judges that any fall caps PCS at 9.50 but wouldn't dare to go much further than that.... because it does become subjective here

THOUGH : I'd like to see what would happen if skaters were told that fall = 0 point... Forget the deduction... just don't give value for an "invalid" element.. and to be valid the jump needs to be landed on your foot... (touch hand down/2 footed jump would be a major deduction) landing on butts, knees, belly or head = 0

Hardcore? Yeah... but maybe we would see cleaner programs with less subjective judging.

UR : tough question but usually these jumps are not pretty, have a hook landing or two-foot landing.... or you can see they land crooked in terms of where they vaulted... I don't think the penalties should be any less than now.

Teaching textbook jumps should be a priority for coaches and young athletes should learn from the get go how to master their elements before trying to always push further. It is sad that the quality of execution is so low nowadays that we are collectively fearing another men splatfest at the olympics... wouldn't it be nice to sit down and enjoy a dozen of great and clean performances?

 

[Sam-Skwantch]

I realized that, but i think i'm going to keep my opinion and not compare it to underrotation calls and other calls because underrotations, that's just a different thing altogether...underrotation calls and falls are different...i guess it also to depends on what you think is worst, falls or underrotations...generally, underrotations are deemed worst than a fall if you rotate the jump fully....i also think as a viewer, one might feel like a fall is worst than an underrotation because underrotations are harder to catch and don't really disturb the flow of movement whereas a fall is much easier to catch and do disturb the flow of movement...but the main point here is i still think one reduction is enough...

That’s completely reasonable but do you think that judges use PCS to make up for a fall ever and counter the lost points or do you think I’m wearing a foil cap here?

 

[Sam-Skwantch]

PCS : fall should reduce automatically perfomance and execution... but in some cases it does affect composition and transition... ... so it is hard to gage.... i would tell judges that any fall caps PCS at 9.50 but wouldn't dare to go much further than that.... because it does become subjective here

Why not transitions? A fall most certainly would disrupt the intended transition from from jump back into choreography?

Even skating Skills could take a hit because isnt jumping just the act of transferring edges in the air. If your blade is not running out on a deep edge then you are doing it wrong.

UR : tough question but usually these jumps are not pretty, have a hook landing or two-foot landing.... or you can see they land crooked in terms of where they vaulted... I don't think the penalties should be any less than now.

I really am not worried about UR and I don’t think for the sake of this discussion it factors in much more than that a fall is worse than UR and especially related to PCS.

 

[4everchan]

Why not transitions? A fall most certainly would disrupt the intended transition from from jump back into choreography?

Even skating Skills could take a hit because isnt jumping just the act of transferring edges in the air. If your blade is not running out on a deep edge then you are doing it wrong.



I really am not worried about UR and I don’t think for the sake of this discussion it factors in much more than IMO fall is worse than UR and especially related to PCS.

i did mention transition... read again

 

[Sam-Skwantch]

i did mention transition... read again

Lol..I read it wrong :laugh15::shame:

 

[drivingmissdaisy]

I think falls should be handled with TES, and PCS only to the extent that the judge feels the errors affected the performance. I also think any judge who gives a 10 for PE to a program with a fall should be publicly shamed.

 

[icybear]

I find it weird how some skaters can get 9s in performance with falls in their program like some in the final group of men in worlds. Even if they can carry the artistry after the fall, its an obviously flawed performance

 

[kenboy123]

That’s completely reasonable but do you think that judges use PCS to make up for a fall ever and counter the lost points or do you think I’m wearing a foil cap here?

No, i just think that you think some of the underrotation calls are too harsh and wish that the fall reductions are given a harsher penalty and aren't PCS usually a built in score that rarely changes??? or something that you have to actually build???...if PCS is based on the components you have in the program, i don't see how judges are using it to in order make up for lost points for certain skaters, it's just that i guess certain people have more leeway to make mistakes based on their PCS...i don't know what i'm talking about anymore...

 

[moriel]

Interesting...I was simply trying to eliminate the the way judges can erase TES deductions by awarding high PCS to counter it. If a judge adds .25 here and there it can really add up on their total score. Of course this is before the scores get averaged or factored but I think it’s important.

Yo me falls should be the most heavily punished and if PCS can be used to counter it then in a way the fall reductions can be applied unevenly and potentially unfairly.

Actually, whatever you do with PCs, the option of countering whatever using PCs will be still there, really.
The way they are currently judged is pretty vague, and same goes to GOE.

If it was me, i would force judges to instead of giving a grade, to literally check bulletpoints for GOE (and let a computer compute final GOE), and evaluate each aspect of each pcs category (in a more rough scale, such as bad / average / good, for example, to be later added up and averaged by the computer). All the deductions for URs and falls and whatever else would be automatic too. All the info would be released with the protocols.
Advantage 1: you can, instead of just taking out the lowest and the highest result, check individually each aspect. For example, if out of 9 judges, only 1 said a jump had difficult arm variation, that surely does not applies. If all but 1 judge evaluated the purpose apsect of choreo as good, that means something too.
Advantage 2: full accountability of each judge, easy to track and contest or discuss. The system may still not be easy, but you can see where did this 9 in PCs or this +3 GOE on a jump came from.
Advantage 3: less reputation and so on scoring, since you have to evaluate lots of small specific aspects, not just give a single value and thats it. Kinda naturally forces some objectivity on it.

I dont think we would even need to change the current values and deductions, just force judges to actually follow it.

 

[Viiktoruu]

I think PCS shouldn't be influenced by the technical elements - that's not the idea at all. Let's punish a lesser technique in the technical score. A fall shows a lack in technique of the jump (not overall skating skills or artistry), and that the performance had at least one flaw. So other than a reduction of performance score I don't see the point of further messing with the PCS. And a single fall in a brilliant program can really seem minor in some cases. Giving a skater average 8,5s or 9,5s actually indicates a big difference in the levelof overall a skater's skills/artistry, and a single jump doesn't change that all so much - not like a fall cannot happen even to the very best.

Perhaps decreasing the base value of the jump with a fall could fix this? Let's say by 50%.. Perhaps even more if the jump had a fall and was also underrotated. If a fall was fully rotated but there was an issue with the landing, that does show better technique than if there was idk tilting in the air and poor height/speed so that even the rotations weren't done - that's why I think an automatic 0 would be too much.

 

[karne]

1 fall = capped at 9.

2 falls = capped at 8.5

3 falls = capped at 8

4 falls = capped at 7.5

And so on.

Nobody and I mean NOBODY should be getting 10s with a fall. Nobody should be getting 90+ for programs with major errors.

 

[andromache]

I think there is the possibility that a greater range of GOE will fix this problem, if used correctly. A fall should always receive a -5 GOE and therefore be worth fewer points than a UR (maybe, idk the math) or a hand down (which is currently the same number of points as a fall, I would guess).

Therefore, falls become penalized more harshly, which makes up for the PCS being used to bump up scores. It doesn't stop judges from doing it, but it makes up for it.

This probably isn't at all right once the numbers are crunched, but just something that occurred to me. I do hope the wider range of GOE does indeed penalize falls more harshly.

 

[Viiktoruu]

1 fall = capped at 9.

2 falls = capped at 8.5

3 falls = capped at 8

4 falls = capped at 7.5

And so on.

Nobody and I mean NOBODY should be getting 10s with a fall. Nobody should be getting 90+ for programs with major errors.

Such scoring would really make the sport come down to good or bad luck and rid the PCS of its meaning.