2016 Cup of China Ladies FS

[Meoima]

I guess Shin Amano has released his demon enough for the whole season. Anyone know which event he will be this season? Maybe it will be Worlds... :laugh15:

 

[sowcow]

I'm not sure to whom you're referring for "they", and I can't answer the question because I'm not an organizer of any GP event with the power to invite skaters whom I want to see. However, Mariah wasn't initially assigned to any GP event because of her low standing at Nationals as well as her track record in the previous seasons. She was lucky enough to compete at Skate America as the substitute of Angela Wang. It was great for Mariah to grab an opportunity to shine through in front of the home crowd, but there is also no guaranteed for her to place in above 4th even if she has another chance because of her inconsistency. She is not the only one in the case this season. Kevin Reynolds wasn't invited after winning a bronze at Skate Canada. I hope this may be sufficient for your question.

Similarly, in 2012-13 season, Kaetlyn Osmond was NOT invited to any other Grand Prix event despite placing 1st at Skate Canada!

 

[topaz emerald]

She always fights. I personally tired to wait when she would finally stop fighting and start skating...

great comment....this girl barely makes it round her jumps, yet she gets plus goes, bogus. Hunched back, wild limbs.

 

[Sam-Skwantch]

While by definition a pre rotated jump (#FigureSkatingBuzzWordz) is an under rotated jump by nature, the < symbol can apply for practical purposes but I'd love to see the ISU cater its scoring system to the talking heads at the figure skating forums and adopt a ~ symbol for jumps deemed pre rotated. That way we can be sure to spice our snarky comments more accurately.

We can also have Garden threads for skaters like Ashley who excel at getting carrots and Snake threads for Zhenia and Satoko types

 

[sowcow]

This is useful information. So this means sometimes when we think it might be a UR it actually a PR? hmm...

Yes, that's exactly right (...and the point I was trying to make in the 3rd and final bullet "►" point). :agree:

Of course, that assumes if by "PR" you really mean the officially termed "CTo" ("Cheated take-off") since there's no mention of "pre-rotation" in the Rule itself! :scratch3:

In fact, the Tech Panel does have a clear rule regarding pre-rotation of jumps, which includes the specific penalty to be applied to the offending jump element:

Cheated take-off

• A clear forward (backward for Axel type jump) take-off will be considered as a downgraded jump. The toe loop is the most commonly cheated on take-off jump. The TP may only watch the replay in regular speed to determine the cheat and downgrade on the take off (more often in combinations or sequences).

Source: Technical Panel Handbook — Single Skating — 2016/2017 (version as of 24.07.2016) — see pg 15 of 19.
Link: http://static.isu.org/media/1001/tphb-singles-2016-2017.pdf
​

► Interestingly, while the Technical Panel Handbook says that a jump with cheated take-off should be downgraded, it does not assign a unique symbol to be able to differentiate a "cheated take-off" downgrade versus a jump "missing rotation of ½ revolutions or more".

► So, it would seem that both types of downgrade are indicated by the same "<<" notation.

► This means that many of the GS debates regarding controversial "<<" calls — which tend to almost exclusively be discussed/argued in terms of whether the jump was "missing rotation of ½ revolutions or more" — may have focused on entirely the wrong reason for the downgrade!! In some cases, perhaps the reason was due to a "cheated take-off" assessment by the Tech Panel; which is made all the more difficult since the Tech Panel "may only watch the replay in regular speed" to assess pre-rotation penalties!!

 

[Jaana]

I guess Shin Amano has released his demon enough for the whole season. Anyone know which event he will be this season? Maybe it will be Worlds... :laugh15:

Oh, I really hope that Shin Amano will be at NHK and especially at Worlds!!! Otherwise there would be no fair results towards other competitors.

 

[ancientpeas]

Yes, that's exactly right (...and the point I was trying to make in the 3rd and final bullet "►" point). :agree:

Of course, that assumes if by "PR" you really mean the officially termed "CTo" ("Cheated take-off") since there's no mention of "pre-rotation" in the Rule itself! :scratch3:

yes, sorry. I was using the term that seems popular around here.

It's very good and useful information. Thanks for sharing it.

 

[QuadThrow]

IMO Liza is a silent winner of this Free Skate. Hopefully she will add the 3A at nationals and maybe she is able to beat Pogo or Elena. Her jumps have never been underrotated so far.

Kaithly should go for the 4F one day. Her flip is so high.

 

[Lys]

Oh, I really hope that Shin Amano will be at NHK and especially at Worlds!!! Otherwise there would be no fair results towards other competitors.

To have fair results you shoud make him re-evaluate previous GPs too, tho. Not just NHK


By the way, in my opinion this is (another) proof isu needs to throw out of the window "total score" (and similar) tie-break for gp standings.

 

[ancientpeas]

To have fair results you shoud make him re-evaluate previous GPs too, tho. Not just NHK


By the way, in my opinion this is (another) proof isu needs to throw out of the window "total score" (and similar) tie-break for gp standings.

And replace it with what? I say most original music. How else to discourage warhorse use?

 

[Lys]

And replace it with what? I say most original music. How else to discourage warhorse use?

sum of fp+sp placements? sums of fp placements only? sp only? best fp placement? best sp placement?

There are still tiebreaks to be used instead of total scores.

While field is not the same across the various GP and that can't be changed, at least that tiebreak wouldn't be so dependent on how strict or not tech panel + judges are in throwing out candies.

 

[skylark]

Yes but, and I'm not trying to be argumentative, this is a legitimate question, if it's easier to UR your jumps to get them landed how do we reward those who do not ur? Surely it's unfair to give the same mark (say 8 BV) to a jump that is ur as a jump that is landed cleanly? If a flutz is easier to land than a lutz then if they don't call it the person doing the flutz is getting the same mark for doing an easier jump. Sort of like giving the same mark for a triple toe as for a triple flip?

I'm all for calling both UR and edges as long as it's done fairly. I think if there is room for doubt though it should be given to the skater. Innocent until proven guilty.

Just my opinion.

I don't have a problem with rules that reward those who don't UR. However, I think the penalties for UR are way out of proportion. For instance, if you look at Ashley's 3F-3T in SP and LP at Worlds, in the SP she earned full credit (9.60) plus 1.40 GoE, for a total of 11 points. In the FS, her 3F-3T was called UR, so her score was 8.30, with minus .40 GoE, for a total of 7.90 for that jump combination.

So she may have lost 3.10 points for an underrotation that's so hard to see that the judges had to review it in slow motion to be sure. I believe such an error should not be subject to such a huge point loss. I also believe that one reason figure skating audiences have shrunk is that, unlike at GS, most fans want to be able to make sense of why a program wins or loses by watching the program. When an invisible or barely visible error costs as many points (or nearly as many) as a fall on the same jump combo, that's out of line, in my opinion.

Again, I'm not against penalties for underrotating. Just against such a disproportionately large penalty for it.

 

[ancientpeas]

I don't have a problem with rules that reward those who don't UR. However, I think the penalties for UR are way out of proportion. For instance, if you look at Ashley's 3F-3T in SP and LP at Worlds, in the SP she earned full credit (9.60) plus 1.40 GoE, for a total of 11 points. In the FS, her 3F-3T was called UR, so her score was 8.30, with minus .40 GoE, for a total of 7.90 for that jump combination.

So she may have lost 3.10 points for an underrotation that's so hard to see that the judges had to review it in slow motion to be sure. I believe such an error should not be subject to such a huge point loss. I also believe that one reason figure skating audiences have shrunk is that, unlike at GS, most fans want to be able to make sense of why a program wins or loses by watching the program. When an invisible or barely visible error costs as many points (or nearly as many) as a fall on the same jump combo, that's out of line, in my opinion.

Again, I'm not against penalties for underrotating. Just against such a disproportionately large penalty for it.

I actually think they way to deal with this is to punish falls more. Falling to me really disrupts programs and makes them less enjoyable for the general public. But then people will say that discourages skaters from pushing the boundaries technically.

I just think if you don't punish it properly you encourage people to be lazy about their jumps. I think it's a conundrum really. Striking the right balance.

Just saw the news about Japan. I hope all are well.

 

[ancientpeas]

sum of fp+sp placements? sums of fp placements only? sp only? best fp placement? best sp placement?

There are still tiebreaks to be used instead of total scores.

While field is not the same across the various GP and that can't be changed, at least that tiebreak wouldn't be so dependent on how strict or not tech panel + judges are in throwing out candies.

I worry that that might encourage some Feds not to full all their places in order to assure placements. Say SC (because I'm canadian and if I'm going accuse anyone of playing unfairly, even hypothetically, it should be my own countries Fed.) Has a field of 12 ladies but 2 drop out. If its done by placement they are never going to invite someone who might beat out a Canadian they want to go the GPF . I don't know the correct answer either. I think if there is a tie they should invite both skaters or pair. It's not like one more skater.

How often has it come down to total scores, btw? Is this a regular occurence or a rarity (not that it being rare makes it right)?

 

[Mrs. P]

Officials using instant reply is the norm in most sports today. Take baseball as an example, if a team request a replay, the call goes to a technical panel in NYC in real time. There has to be sufficient evidence to overturn, and if not enough evidence or the play is still unclear, the original call on the field stands. No team wants to lose a major pennant, because of a questionable umpire call. IMO it has improved the sport for the better, same with hockey.

I think there has to be a sense of fairness in skating that shows the jumps were executed to a technical degree of proficiency, and by doing so skaters get awarded accordingly.

There is a HUGE difference, IMO, between the level of reviewing allowed in baseball/basketball/football and in figure skating. I believe the amount of calls is limited to just a few per game per team. As a result - the team has to be selective in which calls they want to challenge. And I believe that's especially the case in basketball (the NBA -- but the NCAA is also experimenting with a similar review system in some of the major conferences), because if the team wrong -- they're charged a timeout. The team is accountable.

In FS--the technical panel has all the power to review EVERY jumping pass. That's a lot of power for one technical panel. And there's not a lot of accountability if they make a incorrect call (or at least to the general public).

I'm all for rewarding fully rotated jumps, but I think we should be careful to give the power of one skater's score to essentially two people.

 

[ancientpeas]

There is a HUGE difference, IMO, between the level of reviewing allowed in baseball/basketball/football and in figure skating. I believe the amount of calls is limited to just a few per game per team. As a result - the team has to be selective in which calls they want to challenge. And I believe that's especially the case in basketball (the NBA -- but the NCAA is also experimenting with a similar review system in some of the major conferences), because if the team wrong -- they're charged a timeout. The team is accountable.

In FS--the technical panel has all the power to review EVERY jumping pass. That's a lot of power for one technical panel. And there's not a lot of accountability if they make a incorrect call (or at least to the general public).

I'm all for rewarding fully rotated jumps, but I think we should be careful to give the power of one skater's score to essentially two people.

There is an appeal process, right? I thought there was because I thought I'd seen people use it.

I guess I'm just saying I'm not sure what you do about it. Where is the fair balance. If a jump is under rotated should it just lose GOE points? And what about edge calls?

I mean if a big beautiful, fully rotated cleanly landed, right edge triple lutz only gets you 1 point more than an under rotated eeked out triple lutz that barely gets off the ground why would any one bother? Because the person doing the first kind of jump is way more likely to fall.

It's like risk reward in golf. If you go for the green in 2 you might put your ball in the woods or in the water or you might might an eagle or you might only get par. If you play it safe and go the longer, safer way you might be a birdie. If there were no, or little reward then why would anyone take the risk?

 

[Mrs. P]

There's an appeal process -- but it sounds like you don't have much time to appeal it and it's always done after the competition (not during the game unlike other reviews).

( I also think there's some paperwork you have to fill out too).

Not a UR, Grant Hochstein coach appealed his 2Z (was actually a 3Z) at Skate Canada this year and Perizat/Bourzat appealed a level in the SD at Cup of China in 2013...but in general it's not done very often

I'm not sure what the solution is but I also think giving the technical panel willy nilly access to replays isn't necessarily the best solution.

 

[ice coverage]

There is an appeal process, right? I thought there was because I thought I'd seen people use it. ...

I looked up the official ISU rules for "Protests" -- and what is allowed is extremely limited.

From what I can see:

- Protests are allowed ONLY against incorrect mathematical calculations ... or incorrect data input by the Data Operator.
- Protests are NOT allowed against evaluations made by the Referee, Judges, and Technical Panel.
- Protests are NOT allowed against "wrong identification of an element or of a level of difficulty."​

Excerpts from "ISU Constitution and General Regulations 2016" (pp. 120-121):

4. Protest restrictions
A. Figure Skating
a) No protests against evaluations by Referees, Judges and the Technical Panel (Technical Controller, Technical Specialists, Data & Replay Operator) of Skaters’ performances are allowed;
b) Protests against results are permitted only in the case of incorrect mathematical calculation. A wrong identification of an element or of a level of difficulty, although it results in a lower or higher score, is a human error and not an incorrect mathematical calculation;
c) However, if the Referee learns:

i) Prior to the beginning of the award ceremony or prior to the official announcement of results if there is no award ceremony, that a human error relating to a wrong data input by the Data Operator occurred, the Referee may correct the error provided that the Technical Controller, both Technical Specialists and the Data Operator all agree that there was an error;
ii) Within 24 hours after the award ceremony that an incorrect mathematical calculation occurred, the Referee may correct the calculation even without a protest provided that the Technical Controller, both Technical Specialists and the Data Operator all agree that there was such an incorrect calculation. If such correction requires corrections of the final placements of the Skaters, the corresponding medals and/or awards shall be changed accordingly;
iii) If the situation under paragraph a) and b) arises the Referee shall make a short record in writing which has to be signed by all the Officials concerned.​

3. Time limits for filing protests

a) Protests concerning the participation of a Competitor must be filed before the competition starts. ...
b) Protests concerning the composition of the panel of Officials must be filed within 30 minutes of its announcement.
c) Any other protests, except cases covered by subparagraph d) below, must be filed with the Referee immediately, however, not later than 30 minutes after the completion of the competition concerned. Completion of a competition (for this purpose only) means .... end of any single segment (Short Program / Free Skating / Pattern Dance / Short Dance / Free Dance) of a Figure Skating competition.
d) Protests against incorrect mathematical calculation may be filed until 24 hours after the completion of the competition concerned. (See also paragraph 4. A. iii) below). If the Referee is not available in person at the site or hotel, the Protest shall be sent by fax or email to the Secretariat which will forward it to the Referee concerned.​

http://static.isu.org/media/1017/constitution-and-general-regulations-2016.pdf​

p.s. Hello to Elias .

 

[skylark]

I guess I'm just saying I'm not sure what you do about it. Where is the fair balance. If a jump is under rotated should it just lose GOE points?

The B.Esp. commentators said over the week-end that a UR costs anywhere from 10 to 15 percent of the base value. If I'm doing my erstwhile high school math correctly, and to stay with the example a triple flip+triple toe combination, the base value is reduced by 14 percent for a UR call, from 9.6 points to 8.3 points.

To me, that's out of proportion. And an easy fix would be to reduce the penalty to 5 to 7 percent of the base value of the jump or combination.

And what about edge calls?

I mean if a big beautiful, fully rotated cleanly landed, right edge triple lutz only gets you 1 point more than an under rotated eeked out triple lutz that barely gets off the ground why would any one bother? Because the person doing the first kind of jump is way more likely to fall.

Here, you're talking about several qualities of the jump. And that comes down to each judge's tastes, opinions, vantage point. What they value the most. And so this (to me, who isn't a figure skater, which I'm sure is obvious) speaks to the fact that figure skating has so many elements, not just the component scores, that depend on each judge forming an opinion and a conclusion about each element and each quality.

Sonia Bianchetti said years ago that in 6.0 system, if she or any other judge, being human, made an occasional mistake, then it was balanced out by the other judges. But that the new system gives too much power to one or two individuals. I really agree with this. Just the fact that there's huge disagreement on this forum about whether such and such a UR call was correct or not demonstrates the truth of the fact that nothing is 100% objective. Except the computer timing the program and determining exactly when the half point of a program is.

 

[ancientpeas]

The B.Esp. commentators said over the week-end that a UR costs anywhere from 10 to 15 percent of the base value. If I'm doing my erstwhile high school math correctly, and to stay with the example a triple flip+triple toe combination, the base value is reduced by 14 percent for a UR call, from 9.6 points to 8.3 points.

To me, that's out of proportion. And an easy fix would be to reduce the penalty to 5 to 7 percent of the base value of the jump or combination.



Here, you're talking about several qualities of the jump. And that comes down to each judge's tastes, opinions, vantage point. What they value the most. And so this (to me, who isn't a figure skater, which I'm sure is obvious) speaks to the fact that figure skating has so many elements, not just the component scores, that depend on each judge forming an opinion and a conclusion about each element and each quality.

Sonia Bianchetti said years ago that in 6.0 system, if she or any other judge, being human, made an occasional mistake, then it was balanced out by the other judges. But that the new system gives too much power to one or two individuals. I really agree with this. Just the fact that there's huge disagreement on this forum about whether such and such a UR call was correct or not demonstrates the truth of the fact that nothing is 100% objective. Except the computer timing the program and determining exactly when the half point of a program is.

I don't know how to do that multiple quote thing so this is in response to Mrs. P. and Ice Coverage also.


I was thinking about possible solutions to all these various concerns. So here goes (and I'm aware that the biggest issue might be a slow down in marking)


1. Keep the tech panel but when they call a jump for a UR, cheated rotation (which I recently learned is noted down on the scoresheet the same way as a UR) or an edge call then the footage is sent to the judges (it's a short snippet of the feet right?) the judges review it and if 6 of 10 of them see a problem then the call is made.

2. Conversely make it up to the judges to notice the UR, cheated rotation or edge call and then have the tech panel review it and say yes or not. If 6 or more notice the UR they could flag the jump and then that footage is sent to the tech panel and they say if it's right or not.

For example: Skater A has a triple lutz that's called for an edge and a triple loop that's called for a UR by the technical panel and those two short pieces of footage (really are either more than 5 seconds long?) and then the judges press the same button they use for costume deductions to say if they agree or not.

I think this might be a workable solution. Just not sure how to keep time from becoming a factor.

3. And my personal favourite: Develop an algorithm that detects UR and edges and run it though the whole program and when it pings on something then the tech panel can weigh in (it needs oversight). this way if the algorithm can't pick it up the skater won't get the call and if the system does call them and the panel disagrees they can override it. (I like this approach but I have no idea if how long it would take to develop and perfect.

I don't like the idea of reducing the penalty myself. I think it needs to be harsh, IMO. But I do agree that the calls need more safeguards.

Eli is happy. He hates rain and loves snow so he's been in heaven the last few days. He frolics around in it like he's a big puppy. It's adorable.