2019 Four Continents Free Dance

[viennaskater]

Because Scott didn’t have bad sportsmanship? It would have been entirely unfair if V/M didn’t win the Olympics given how P/C were overscored in the SD, so I imagine that he (and the majority of the ice dance community) would be upset if they won.

Yeah yeah it's off topic, I know. C'mon shoot me down in flames. I had a lot of respect for V/M as ice dancers throughout their career but I still disagree that jumping up onto your partner's shoulders has no place in ice DANCE!

 

[litenkyckling]

Also - I wonder what they’ll do? Surely it makes sense just to alter it and turn it into a full on rotational lift just to be safe?

 

[dorispulaski]

Still not a SB? Judges really want to make a safety cushion just in case of lost lvls...

Madi & Evan did not get a SB because Mentor Torun Cup was not a competition you can get a season best at, and, of course, neither was US Nats. When it is your first real ISU competition, they do not call it a season best. Because they reset the system, they were not credited it with a PB either.


As to what happened to H&D's unstationary lift, Sinead Kerr explains it here, ( video will jump to where it is explained so you do not have to watch the whole thing. Plus it shows the lift in slomo.

https://youtu.be/IIN0OgxWd0I?t=725

By having the lift executed on the Four Continents sign, it was brutally evident how much it travelled. If the tech panel had an argument with the call, it probably was whether it was a stationary lift base level followed by a base level rotational lift, a rotational lift that stopped moving forward in the middle, or just a base level stationary lift.

A disaster tech call, whichever way the panel went.

 

[NoNameFace]

I am feeling Paul's shirt for Jason Brown's Simon and Garfunkel program.

Mmm, I see you, similar cut with some subtle ombre effect, like for 'Hazy Shade of Winter'...but it seems Jason is loyal to his bowling shirt

 

[NoNameFace]

Madi & Evan did not get a SB because Mentor Torun Cup was not a competition you can get a season best at, and, of course, neither was US Nats. When it is your first real ISU competition, they do not call it a season best. Because they reset the system, they were not credited it with a PB either.


As to what happened to H&D's unstationary lift, Sinead Kerr explains it here, ( video will jump to where it is explained so you do not have to watch the whole thing. Plus it shows the lift in slomo.

https://youtu.be/IIN0OgxWd0I?t=725

By having the lift executed on the Four Continents sign, it was brutally evident how much it travelled. If the tech panel had an argument with the call, it probably was whether it was a stationary lift base level followed by a base level rotational lift, a rotational lift that stopped moving forward in the middle, or just a base level stationary lift.

A disaster tech call, whichever way the panel went.

Thanks Doris. It really was an error, just tech panel took time to how classify it, if to count combo of lifts or just one. Frankly, if they went for combo lifts, their tech score could have been even more damaged as one of correctly done lifts later would be invalidated... It was a sign for all to not take everything for granted, especially levels in execution.

 

[dorispulaski]

https://www.goldenskate.com/forum/s...nents-Videos&p=2335878&viewfull=1#post2335878


Videos for top 6 while they last.

 

[dorispulaski]

In the original ID document, it makes it clear that a stationary lift is executed "on the spot" i.e. like a spin. It is not supposed to travel.

Types of Dance Lifts are classified as follows:
a) Stationary Lift – A lift which is executed on the spot (stationary location) by the lifting partner who may or may not be rotating:
b) Straight Line Lift – A lift in which the lifting partner travels in a straight line in any position on one foot or two feet;
c) Curve Lift – A lift in which the lifting partner travels on one curve (lobe) in any position on one foot or two feet. A turn is permitted.
d) Rotational Lift – A lift in which the lifting partner rotates in one (clockwise or anticlockwise) direction while travelling across the ice.
e) Reverse Rotational Lift – A Lift in which the lifting partner rotates in one direction and then in another direction while travelling across the ice. f) Serpentine Lift – A lift in which the lifting partner travels on two different curves of approximately similar curvature and duration. The change of direction may incorporate a turn of not more than 1/2 rotation. The pattern must be serpentine shaped.
g) Combination Lift – A lift combining two of the above types of lifts –a), b), c) or d).

 

[draqq]

https://www.isu.org/docman-document...munications/17126-isu-communication-2164/file (p.7)

I’m not sure why people think that the ISU needs to define what counts as stationary: it means “stationary,” as in not traveling. But the team does get an allowance of one traveling rotation to get into the lift.

Anyways, if Zach was traveling while the other Level features were being performed, those features didn’t count at all.

The ISU needs to define the parameters of what is "stationary" in the same way they have clarified the meaning of "under-rotation" as an error. An under-rotated jump could mean any degree of under-rotation on the landing from 1 measly degree to 359 degrees, but the ISU has defined that an under-rotation error is significant and counts at the 90-degree mark and then again at the 180-degree mark for a downgrade. It's specific for the purposes of letting judges know when and when not to apply the < and << signs, in part because the penalty for under-rotation is severe in the system.

Today in ice dance, stationary lifts can move around a bit due to the changes of positions of the lifted partner (e.g. Papadakis/Cizeron's opening lift in their FD this year). So it would behoove the ISU to clarify how the error is applied for a stationary lift that travels and what travelling means in this instance (perhaps 1 foot away from the initial centering?), especially if an error like this can cost a team about 5 points in base value and GOE compared to a Level 4 stationary lift. The severity of the error demands clarification, and I hope the ISU considers doing so in a future Communication.

 

[dorispulaski]

Without the stationary lift problem, Madison and Zach would have been second in the FD and overall.


Their PCS was the best in the event, so it should have been the same: 57.21
With the error in the stationary lift, their TES was: 62.50

They got 1.62 as base level

At level 4 with 1.56 goe as reported in the broadcast, it would have been 6.86.

So the result is 124.95

Second in the FD

124.95 fd
81.95 rd

206.90, exceeding their gpf pb 205.35

So second overall vs. 207.42 for Madi and Evan, the big difference being Sp2 in the spin.

For reference sake, the results from Europeans, where callers were quite lenient:


1 Gabriella PAPADAKIS / Guillaume CIZERON FRA 217.98 1 1
2 Alexandra STEPANOVA / Ivan BUKIN RUS 206.41 2 2
3 Charlene GUIGNARD / Marco FABBRI ITA 199.84 3 4
4 Victoria SINITSINA / Nikita KATSALAPOV RUS 193.95 5 3
5 Natalia KALISZEK / Maksym SPODYRIEV POL 185.35 4 5
6 Lilah FEAR / Lewis GIBSON GBR 182.05 7 6


A huge difference, to P &C

 

[draqq]

In the original ID document, it makes it clear that a stationary lift is executed "on the spot" i.e. like a spin. It is not supposed to travel.

I find this debate quite interesting, because it deals with how elements are defined and the words we use to describe them.

Spins, for instance, are meant to be stationary in practice; well-centered spins are given higher GOE while a spin that travels is given negative GOE. However, a spin that travels is not necessarily knocked down in base value because we don't call them Stationary Spins; it's just a low-quality spin.

On the flipside, a Stationary Lift (because we don't call it, say, a Spinning Lift) which has a travelling error no longer becomes a Stationary Lift and thereby doesn't count after travelling. This severely impacts the base value of the element, but in this particular instance, DOESN'T impact the GOE. H/D's stationary lift still received +3 to +5 GOE from the judges despite the clear travelling on the ice, which means that the judges not on the technical panel did not consider the travelling error to be a severe problem.

It's a very unusual reversal of standards due to definitions.

 

[Alegria]

I find this debate quite interesting, because it deals with how elements are defined and the words we use to describe them.

Spins, for instance, are meant to be stationary in practice; well-centered spins are given higher GOE while a spin that travels is given negative GOE. However, a spin that travels is not necessarily knocked down in base value because we don't call them Stationary Spins; it's just a low-quality spin.

On the flipside, a Stationary Lift (because we don't call it, say, a Spinning Lift) which has a travelling error no longer becomes a Stationary Lift and thereby doesn't count after travelling. This severely impacts the base value of the element, but in this particular instance, DOESN'T impact the GOE. H/D's stationary lift still received +3 to +5 GOE from the judges despite the clear travelling on the ice, which means that the judges not on the technical panel did not consider the travelling error to be a severe problem.

It's a very unusual reversal of standards due to definitions.

As if we never saw positive GOE after big mistakes. If this lift were performed by unknown New Zealand team, I'm almost sure, that they would get negative GOE.

 

[BrentWolgamott]

The only bothersome thing is that I wanted to know if they would've gone over C/B without the invalidated lift.

As you can see the math from a few posts above with Doris Pulaski, it would have been close, but H/D DEFINITELY lose the free dance to C/B, and I believe they would have lost overall, EVEN IF that lift got called Level 4.

 

[rinkside_user]

Turns out the panel was not yawning as Zach thought - rather going rampage with a hatchet. Awkward results but the podium is actually lovely. It's nice to see a C/B and W/P renaissance as well as a G/P rise.

 

[chuckm]

The JUDGES give +5s, not the technical panel. Sometimes the delay is due to the judges belatedly entering the GOEs. The delay in this case was due to the tech panel wrangling over the spin issue.

 

[draqq]

As if we never saw positive GOE after big mistakes. If this lift were performed by unknown New Zealand team, I'm almost sure, that they would get negative GOE.

We've seen positive GOE after jump errors sure, but not in this +3 to +5 range. To me, this means that the judges didn't really know the travelling stationary lift was a significant error in base value, or not an error worth too much to consider, or just too new/unusual of an error to know what to do with.

If an unknown team did this lift exactly as H/D did, I would say they would get maybe a +1 to +3. Being unknown does have an effect but without data, it's just speculation and difficult to measure.

 

[TontoK]

The outcome is unfortunate. So long as such a rule is clarified and applied equally to all athletes across all competitions, it's fine.

I dislike the sense of cheerleading I'm picking up - that H/D deserved a smackdown because (fill in the blank) and this technical issue simply serves as a vehicle to deliver a comeuppance.

I wonder if we'd have the same reaction if P/C had been similarly treated by the technical panel.

 

[s_parks]

The outcome is unfortunate. So long as such a rule is clarified and applied equally to all athletes across all competitions, it's fine.

I dislike the sense of cheerleading I'm picking up - that H/D deserved a smackdown because (fill in the blank) and this technical issue simply serves as a vehicle to deliver a comeuppance.

I wonder if we'd have the same reaction if P/C had been similarly treated by the technical panel.

Yeah, the whole "they had it coming" and some "serves them right" attitude is just yikes. There was a mistake they hadn't made before. Unfortunate. End of story.

 

[rinkside_user]

The JUDGES give +5s, not the technical panel. Sometimes the delay is due to the judges belatedly entering the GOEs. The delay in this case was due to the tech panel wrangling over the spin issue.

In case it was a direct response to my post, I meant element invalidation/level call is definitely on the tech panel.

 

[KMK0902]

The outcome is unfortunate. So long as such a rule is clarified and applied equally to all athletes across all competitions, it's fine.

I dislike the sense of cheerleading I'm picking up - that H/D deserved a smackdown because (fill in the blank) and this technical issue simply serves as a vehicle to deliver a comeuppance.

I wonder if we'd have the same reaction if P/C had been similarly treated by the technical panel.

Anyone who dared to voice his/her opinion in a similar fashion re P/C would be chased out of this universe....

 

[chuckm]

The outcome is unfortunate. So long as such a rule is clarified and applied equally to all athletes across all competitions, it's fine.

I dislike the sense of cheerleading I'm picking up - that H/D deserved a smackdown because (fill in the blank) and this technical issue simply serves as a vehicle to deliver a comeuppance.

I, too, found the schadenfreud over H/D's downgraded spin rather disgusting. Why not celebrate W/P and G/P's medals and leave it at that?

In an interview, H/D said they were glad this happened now instead of at Worlds, and they'd be paying more attention to technical issues from now on.
So I'd say the gloating may be a tad premature.