Mandatory PCS Reduction for Falls?

[Sam-Skwantch]

What about falls that aren’t on jumps or spins? Shouldn’t those be detrimental to PCS scores?

For me, pops can be even more disruptive than falls.
The revolutions usually have all to do with music - most skaters have the jumps timed with some musical accent. It happens specially with men and quads, and Caro: the skater has this long setup, music and choreo building up, and nothing happens. A fall under such condition is way less disruptive, since the element was actually executed.

Thats interesting...I’m not sure I’d want a pop to be punished harsher than a fall though.

 

[moriel]

Yep, higher penality for falls would keep skaters from trying harder elements.
So less quads for men, no quads and 3As for ladies - because you can splat on that.

Not sure if "skating a program clean" is worth that.

 

[rabbit1234]

If people want a program without a fall, why not go see a professional competition?
However, in reality, the World Professional Figure Skating Championships has become less popular and is no longer held.
I think that the challenge to a difficult jump is one of the attractions in a single competition. It is exciting whether it will be determined or not.
If the fall is greatly reduced, Jason should stop challenging 4T and KOLYADA should stop challenging to 4Lz.
But I like their challenge.
Do they really want a competition without a challenge?

However, the ISU should unify the criteria whether to score PCS in the case of falls or how much to score as a penalty point.
Because it is not fair that the criterion differs depending on the competitor.

 

[moriel]

What about falls that aren’t on jumps or spins? Shouldn’t those be detrimental to PCS scores?



Thats interesting...I’m not sure I’d want a pop to be punished harsher than a fall though.

Agree that shouldnt be punished harder than a fall.
But, for example, a pop is more disruptive than UR, and it is currently not punished in PCs, which would make all sense if falls were

 

[GF2445]

Ive posted before about this.

Change the fall deduction rules from first and second fall -1 each, third and fourth -2 each, fifth and further -3

TO

Number of falls, squared

1 fall= -1 deduction
2 falls= 2^2 = -4 deductions
3 falls= -9 deductions
4 falls = -16 deductions
5 falls = -25 deductions
...
10 falls= -100 deductions.

At the moment, its more costly to land on one foot underrotated or with the wrong take off edge, than a fall. Penalties for underrotations and wrong edge takeoffs should remain as tough as it is (as it is technically cheating) but the penalties for falls should increase. This is especially when complex programs with disruptions (e.g. falls) don't seem to always get penalised in the PCS.

 

[GF2445]

To me, these are the rankings of the worst kinds of mistakes or things that get negative GOE

Falls as the worst
Stumbles (on your knees and or both arms)
Pops
Rotation Issues (usually under rotated jumps results in falls and stumbles. This is more like jumps that looked clean but are actually not)
Edge Calls
Bobbles (hand down, two foot, three turn out etc.)
Leaning landing on jumps
Muscled Jump landings/'fights to hang on' sort of landings

 

[gkelly]

Agree that shouldnt be punished harder than a fall.
But, for example, a pop is more disruptive than UR, and it is currently not punished in PCs, which would make all sense if falls were

Nothing is officially punished in PCS. There is no such thing as mandatory PCS deductions. And there is no mention of element errors in any of the PCS criteria.

We have no way of knowing if judges are taking those kinds of errors into account when they award their component scores. The more disruptive the errors, the more likely that judges do reflect them to some degree in PCS. Certainly an error-filled program is likely to score lower on Performance than other components even if that skater usually scores highest on that component.

As long as the actual score isn't 10.0, there's a good chance that judges did consider disruptive errors when scoring. If they award 9.75 for a performance with one stumble or fall, likely they would have awarded 10 without it.

 

[Sam-Skwantch]

We have no way of knowing if judges are taking those kinds of errors into account when they award their component scores. The more disruptive the errors, the more likely that judges do reflect them to some degree in PCS. Certainly an error-filled program is likely to score lower on Performance than other components even if that skater usually scores highest on that component.

We just saw this proven not to be the case. I started the judging anomaly thread because judge number 6 on the SC ladies panel lowballed the entire field except for one skater in the SP. That was weird and all but then in the FS the preferred skater saw her marks increase from all 9.0’s and a 9.25 into 9.5’s and 9.75’s with serious errors unlike in the SP which was clean. How is this explained?

This is one of the reasons I encourage the ISU to cap PCS or implement a mandatory reduction per fall because error filled performances aren’t seeing reductions from some judges who actually give increases. This is a judge who recently has declared she intends to put herself into consideration for an Olympic panel.

 

[gkelly]

We just saw this proven not to be the case. I started the judging anomaly thread because judge number 6 on the SC ladies panel lowballed the entire field except for one skater in the SP. That was weird and all but then in the FS the preferred skater saw her marks increase from all 9.0’s and a 9.25 into 9.5’s and 9.75’s with serious errors unlike in the SP which was clean. How is this explained?

If that judge's scores at that event are an anomaly, you can't use them to indict the whole system, only that judge (on that occasion). What did the average scores look like?

 

[moriel]

To me, these are the rankings of the worst kinds of mistakes or things that get negative GOE

Falls as the worst
Stumbles (on your knees and or both arms)
Pops
Rotation Issues (usually under rotated jumps results in falls and stumbles. This is more like jumps that looked clean but are actually not)
Edge Calls
Bobbles (hand down, two foot, three turn out etc.)
Leaning landing on jumps
Muscled Jump landings/'fights to hang on' sort of landings

I would actually put bobbles above rotation issues, because they are visible mistakes.
Just trying to order it from a perspective of a casual viewer who is not trained to count revolutions. So you go there, and see a skater do a clean jump, and then the score goes down and the person is puzzled, why did this get lower score than that jump with a visibly messy landing.

- - - Updated - - -

Nothing is officially punished in PCS. There is no such thing as mandatory PCS deductions. And there is no mention of element errors in any of the PCS criteria.

We have no way of knowing if judges are taking those kinds of errors into account when they award their component scores. The more disruptive the errors, the more likely that judges do reflect them to some degree in PCS. Certainly an error-filled program is likely to score lower on Performance than other components even if that skater usually scores highest on that component.

As long as the actual score isn't 10.0, there's a good chance that judges did consider disruptive errors when scoring. If they award 9.75 for a performance with one stumble or fall, likely they would have awarded 10 without it.

Oh, i just mean that if falls start getting a mandatory PCs deduction as it was suggested in this thread, pops should too, for the same reason.

 

[David21]

It is true that sometimes falls are a result of bad luck (a bad patch of ice -- more likely later in the draw, which is also a matter of luck) rather than bad technique.

But this kind of "luck factor" already applies today...when you fall on the entry of a jump because there is something on the ice, you get -1 points overall. When you fall on a rotated quad, you can get +6 points or more, so I'm seeing no argument against a limit for PCS with fall(s). But all things considered...no, we don't need any additional mandatory reduction for falls...the rules are all there since judges are allowed to reduce the PCS for flawed performances. The problem IMO is that the judges are incompetent and do not differenciate between the different PCS so they also aren't able to reduce certain components (like PE) when the skaters falls and thus ruins the overall programm.

 

[David21]

Very important, I feel. And this definitely requires more attention. Skating and its beauty is determined by the people watching it, after all. And when the audience sees someone fall, they definitely will know that it's a bad thing. But the more subtle things one might not even notice - So are they all that important, in the end? Something making this sport less accessible for the casual viewers is that they don't really understand what's going on or who's doing well, and when people falling 3 times is clearly winning over someone who had a great, clean and emotional performance that the audience loved.

This is very unimportant. It's not the casual viewers who decides which skaters gets which scores. It's not the casual viewer who has to understand which skaters gets which scores. Figure skaing is not a simple sport, it is complicated. Just because an error is obvious, doesn't mean that the error is more grave than another error of a different kind. By useing your logic, things like underrotations shouldn't get punished much because they are hard to detect...this is the completey wrong attitude and will figure skating destroy even more and make all the slight improvements of the IJS (like skaters now finally actually *gasp" sometimes getting punished for clearly ur'ed jumps with their totally wrong technique) null and void.

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

The thing about PCS is it's not a "deduction". It's awarding a mark out of 10.

So when a judge gives a 10.00 for a program with a fall, they're essentially saying that skater's interpretation/performance/etc. is a 10 out of 10.

I think exponential fall deductions are a bit harsh, but actually not the worst idea. Really, it is best applied to top skaters, because we all know that the judges are totally willing to penalize second-tier skaters on their PCS for falls, but look the other way when it comes to the faves. It is a ton of anxiety for a skater though, knowing their errors actually compound on themselves.

Of course, nobody who falls like 5 times in a program should be anywhere near on the podium (unless the whole field bombs themselves), nor should their components be above 8 -- deductions need to be made transitions (since the skater is presumably doing less exit transitions), skating skills (if the skater falls while skating around - this can also affect transitions if a skater falls on a transitional turn), choreography (if a fall disrupts the program and prevents the skater from hitting a musical highlight or ending note, etc.

But ESPECIALLY performance (which is the overall quality of a program) and interpretation (the only time a fall lends itself to interpretation is if someone is skating to "Let Me Fall" or doing Sasha's Marshall's spin to a graceful death drop, lol) need to be penalized significantly (keyword: significantly.. not just "Oh well, I think I'll give a 9.75 instead").

It is absolutely mind boggling how skaters can get near perfect or perfect scores for performance and interpretation when they commit the worst error (from an aesthetics standpoint) that there is to commit in figure skating. Whoever the judges are that give those out need to be banned immediately. Don't skate perfect, don't get a perfect score... it's not rocket science.

 

[Spirals for Miles]

The thing about PCS is it's not a "deduction". It's awarding a mark out of 10.

So when a judge gives a 10.00 for a program with a fall, they're essentially saying that skater's interpretation/performance/etc. is a 10 out of 10.

I think exponential fall deductions are a bit harsh, but actually not the worst idea. Really, it is best applied to top skaters, because we all know that the judges are totally willing to penalize second-tier skaters on their PCS for falls, but look the other way when it comes to the faves. It is a ton of anxiety for a skater though, knowing their errors actually compound on themselves.

Of course, nobody who falls like 5 times in a program should be anywhere near on the podium (unless the whole field bombs themselves), nor should their components be above 8 -- deductions need to be made transitions (since the skater is presumably doing less exit transitions), skating skills (if the skater falls while skating around - this can also affect transitions if a skater falls on a transitional turn), choreography (if a fall disrupts the program and prevents the skater from hitting a musical highlight or ending note, etc.

But ESPECIALLY performance (which is the overall quality of a program) and interpretation (the only time a fall lends itself to interpretation is if someone is skating to "Let Me Fall" or doing Sasha's Marshall's spin to a graceful death drop, lol) need to be penalized significantly (keyword: significantly.. not just "Oh well, I think I'll give a 9.75 instead").

It is absolutely mind boggling how skaters can get near perfect or perfect scores for performance and interpretation when they commit the worst error (from an aesthetics standpoint) that there is to commit in figure skating. Whoever the judges are that give those out need to be banned immediately. Don't skate perfect, don't get a perfect score... it's not rocket science.

I absolutely agree.
Sasha's Marshall FS was iconic...

 

[gkelly]

Which is more disruptive?

Pair team falls in unison side by side elements and gets up pretty much in unison
vs.
One partner falls and the other remains upright, with or without clean landing

The former will get two fall deductions, but perhaps the latter should be penalized more in PCS

Aside from two fall deductions, how much should PCS (in an IJS context) be reduced here ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1CZBnzMq0I&t=3m14s

 

[draqq]

From what I can tell when it comes to the impact of falls on PCS, it depends on the disruption that the fall has on the performance. When Pogo falls, she tends to have a dramatic fall that hampers the rest of the choreography or just misses it entirely, so the PCS scores can drop significantly. I also feel like a program with any fall should have the 10.00 mark greyed out on the judges panel just to make a point (but anyway).

I do think that falls on a transition aren't penalized properly. I mean, I can understand someone falling on a jump element (since it's difficult), where a skater loses about 3 points overall. But I feel like a skater falling on a simple step like a back crossover or three-turn should be penalized more significantly than just 1 point. I do think the judges keep this in mind, though I assume some just write it off as a silly mistake rather than the skater failing to do a basic turn.

 

[Viiktoruu]

The thing about PCS is it's not a "deduction". It's awarding a mark out of 10.
So when a judge gives a 10.00 for a program with a fall, they're essentially saying that skater's interpretation/performance/etc. is a 10 out of 10.

But ESPECIALLY performance (which is the overall quality of a program) and interpretation (the only time a fall lends itself to interpretation is if someone is skating to "Let Me Fall" or doing Sasha's Marshall's spin to a graceful death drop, lol) need to be penalized significantly (keyword: significantly.. not just "Oh well, I think I'll give a 9.75 instead").

This reminded me of what Tarasova said about Evgenia Medvedeva's recent fall at Rostelecom (which maybe sparked this discussion) - that it almost makes sense to fall by the end of an Anna Karenina program (as in the story she is basically free-falling by the end) and that even if she stayed down it would be justified by the story of Karenina So I guess the 10 on Interpretation was OK? The performance one - I love Zhenya, but just - no.

This example aside, the performance mark really shouldn't be 10 if there was ANY error in my opinion - even a struggle for a landing, but I think even with the fall other PCS marks can be 10. With a fall, honestly, 9,5 should be the top (but I wouldn't force lesser grades on other PCS marks, they aren't necessarily influenced by a fall). 10s in transitions are so rare anyways, I don't think we'll see a 10 for transitions with a fall (has it even happened, ever?)