Mandatory PCS Reduction for Falls?

[rabbit1234]

That is a difficult question.
Fall has been deducted by the deduction and is drawn with GOE minus.
In terms of penalty in PCS, it will be reduced to triple.
If the penalty points due to a fall are large, the competitor will avoid risky jumps.
Like ladies' single, in the competition where everyone jumps only the same triple for 25 years, is it interesting as a sport?
In the 1991-1992 season, MIDORI　ITO had planned two 3A in FP.
Kristine Yamaguchi was jumping 3Lz-3T combo.
Tonya Harding was also jumping 3A.
In the ladies' single, they have not made technical progress for 25 years.
The current competitor is competing with an insignificant trivial GOE.
Repeating to raise her hand during the jump, etc.
Such a situation is boring as a sport.
I think the problem is that judgment of how to do PCS in case of falls is not unified.
There are cases where it is greatly deducted by falling and there are cases where it has not much influence.

World Figure Skating Championships　 Men - Free Skating
Number of deduction

year ：24competitors ：TOP6：TOP3 ：TOP1
2006 ： 8 ： 0 ： 0 ： 0
2007 ： 14 ： 1 ： 0 ： 0
2008 ： 12 ： 1 ： 0 ： 0
2009 ： 9 ： 1 ： 1 ： 1
2010 ： 14 ： 4 ： 2 ： 0
2011 ： 14 ： 3 ： 0 ： 0
2012 ： 11 ： 4 ： 3 ： 2
2013 ： 14 ： 3 ： 2 ： 2
2014 ： 6 ： 0 ： 0 ： 0
2015 ： 14 ： 2 ： 2 ： 1
2016 ： 12 ： 1 ： 1 ： 0
2017 ： 14 ： 3 ： 0 ： 0

The number of fall has not increased compared to before.
Indeed, in World Figure Skating Championships 2017 Men - Free Skating, top 3 performed almost no mistake performance. What made more mistakes was a competitor with few plans for quads
In reality, it is necessary that you do not miss in order for the competitor with strongly TES and PCS weak to win.
It is only PCS strong competitors that can win while doing many falls.
Like 2012 and 2013 Chan.
I wonder why people are going to discuss this time without saying to 2012 or 2013 when competitors who have fallen a lot won.

 

[jinhamasaki]

I think the easy thing to do would be to double the point deduction in a fall to -2.

Edit: I also think the rumored expansion of GOE to +/-5 will make falls harsher. Automatic -5 in GOE please!

 

[rabbit1234]

I think the easy thing to do would be to double the point deduction in a fall to -2.

Edit: I also think the rumored expansion of GOE to +/-5 will make falls harsher. Automatic -5 in GOE please!

I think that it places too much emphasis on GOE against BV.
Under such a rule, we will see Carmen of Katarina Witt composed of 3T and 3S every year.
Also, widening the discretion of the judges, such as GOE, will bring discussion on the judges every time, I think that brings uncertainty and unfairness to this sport.
Even now, every time competition, people are discussing the judgment of the judges constantly.

 

[gkelly]

I think the easy thing to do would be to double the point deduction in a fall to -2.

They've already doubled it to -2 for the third and fourth fall.

Making it a flat -2 across the board might work for the top senior men who are doing multiple quads. It would be way too high for most juniors and average or below-average senior ladies. So either have different fall deductions for different levels and disciplines, maybe factor them along with the PCS, or else maybe make the deductions a percentage of that skater's total score for that performance.

Edit: I also think the rumored expansion of GOE to +/-5 will make falls harsher. Automatic -5 in GOE please!

I think that it places too much emphasis on GOE against BV.

Does anyone know what the actual proposal is for how this +5 to -5 range will work?

Will the numerical values of reductions down to -3 remain the same, with -4 and -5 scores subtracting even more from the base marks? Or will -5 be worth the same that -3 is now, -3 the same as -2 is now, and the even reductions will subtract intermediate amounts between the odd ones?

Will there be any errors (e.g., falls, short program jump combo with only one valid jump) that earn -5 GOE for a single error? Or will the maximum reduction for any given error remain -3 but multiple errors can compound down to a floor of -5 rather than -3?

Will the numerical values of GOE bonuses up to +3 remain the same, with +4 and +5 scores adding even more to the base marks? Or will +5 be worth the same that +3 is now, +3 the same as +2 is now, and the even pluses will add intermediate amounts between the odd ones?

If the latter, probably only one bullet point would be needed for +1, two for +2, etc.

If the former, would the guidelines still be two bullets for each plus, so that an element would need to meet 8 or 10 positive criteria to merit +4 or +5? Currently there are 8 bullets listed for each kind of element; would more need to be added (or some current criteria split into two)?

The devil is in the details. I think it's too soon to have opinions before we know what those details are.

 

[ice coverage]

... Does anyone know what the actual proposal is for how this +5 to -5 range will work?

Will the numerical values of reductions down to -3 remain the same, with -4 and -5 scores subtracting even more from the base marks? Or will -5 be worth the same that -3 is now, -3 the same as -2 is now, and the even reductions will subtract intermediate amounts between the odd ones?

.... Will the numerical values of GOE bonuses up to +3 remain the same, with +4 and +5 scores adding even more to the base marks? Or will +5 be worth the same that +3 is now, +3 the same as +2 is now, and the even pluses will add intermediate amounts between the odd ones? ...

Per Jackie Wong on Nov 5:

As I write this, the ISU is preparing to test out a revamped GOE system at Tallinn Trophy later this season. (The test will be behind the scenes with a different panel of judges.) It uses a wider GOE range of -5 to +5, where each "grade" is tied to a percentage add or drop in the base value, rather than a blanket set of deductions and additions that are given to a vast range of differently-valued elements. The percentage add or drop is still in debate, but it's supposed to be in the range of 10-15% per grade.

So that's to say that if a skater falls on a quad lutz, the element would receive a -5 GOE, which drops the base value of 13.60 to potentially 6.80 (10% of BV per negative GOE) or as low as 3.40 (15% of BV per negative GOE).

http://www.rockerskating.com/news/2...-on-rewarding-the-good-and-penalizing-the-bad​

 

[xeyra]

Does anyone know what the actual proposal is for how this +5 to -5 range will work?

According to icenetwork, the plan is to have the GOE factored as a percentage of the jump's BV (10%, I believe, though Jackie Wong also mentioned the possibility of 15%). One could assume, then, that a +1 GOE would likely correspond to 10% of a jump's BV and a +5 GOE would be 50% of its BV? Negative GOE would subtract a similar amount from the jump's total score. Allied to the proposed jump BV reduction, a fall on a 4Lz might be worth slightly less than the BV of a 3Lz, if a -5 GOE were to be applied to falls.

But this is mostly speculation based on the info being given and though they'll be testing the new system with a separate judging panel at Tallin Trophy, it's unlikely we'll see the results of that tryout for now.

 

[andromache]

Something similar for pops please. NOBODY should be getting 10s with pops.

IMO, pops are 100000% times less disruptive than a fall. I understand they can disrupt the momentum of a program when a skater who has been reeling off triple after triple suddenly pops a jump at the end of their program, but otherwise, a popped jump can have zero impact on the program itself. One or two fewer revolutions than expected has nothing to do with choreography, interpretation, skating skills, or transitions. Performance, maybe. A skater on their butt from a fall affects all of those categories, except arguably for transitions or skating skills. (I suppose it is also possible that a fall at the exact right moment could be an excellent, if accidental, choreographic touch - but only in the most hilarious and ridiculous of contexts.)

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

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?

The sad thing is, even if the software deducted for a fall, judges would then score higher to overcompensate.

What the software needs to do is actually physically cap the PCS for every fall. Eg with a fall, a judge is unable to enter more than 9.50 in any category.

With 2 falls they should be unable to give more than 9.00.

After that I think it should go down by 0.25, since a skater can still exhibit nice choreography and skating skills and even with multiple falls they can still have 8-range PCS categories. But certain ones like Performance should be capped, as falls adversely affect those.

Pops (as in singles) should automatically drop the score by 0.25 as they are obvious errors. A 10.00 with a pop is not cool.

 

[Ares]

I also disagree with those high components for obviously flawed performances with disruptive falls but I am not sure whether mandatory deduction is a way to go. It just rubs you up the wrong way when you find out that some skaters receives multiple 9s for a program with multiple falls or 10 with a fall (Kolyada Rostelecom Cup FS, Medvedeva Rostelecom Cup FS). Sure there are skaters who get up easier and performance is still good after fall but all in all it affects negatively our perception and it all results in pieces of choreography being erased.

 

[rabbit1234]

The problem of No. 1 is uncertain whether the judge thinks that it should make a penalty point for PCS by fall.

http://www.jsfresults.com/data/fs/pdfs/comm/comm2089.pdf
Additional Remarks
Program Components
As a guideline the score ten (10) should not be awarded for any of the components in a program containing a Fall or Serious error.

According to this provision from this season it is clear that ISU is thinking that PCS will be affected by fall.

But, for example, Mikhail KOLYADA 's FP Best PCS is when he fell three times.
Three falls, that is a level of performance of a disaster.
It was a competition in his home country Russia.
Mikhail KOLYADA　FP　PCS

PCS：deduction

89.00：4.00： ISU GP Rostelecom Cup 2017
87.14：1.00： ISU GP Audi Cup of China 2017
85.90：3.00：25th Ondrej Nepela Trophy
81.42：2.00：Finlandia Trophy Espoo 2017

I think that opinion is not unified for whether to score PCS in the case of fall even among judges.
I think that PCS and GOE are arbitrarily operated at the discretion of judges and I think that this brings uncertainty, doubts and conflicts in this sport.

 

[moriel]

According to icenetwork, the plan is to have the GOE factored as a percentage of the jump's BV (10%, I believe, though Jackie Wong also mentioned the possibility of 15%). One could assume, then, that a +1 GOE would likely correspond to 10% of a jump's BV and a +5 GOE would be 50% of its BV? Negative GOE would subtract a similar amount from the jump's total score. Allied to the proposed jump BV reduction, a fall on a 4Lz might be worth slightly less than the BV of a 3Lz, if a -5 GOE were to be applied to falls.

But this is mostly speculation based on the info being given and though they'll be testing the new system with a separate judging panel at Tallin Trophy, it's unlikely we'll see the results of that tryout for now.

This actually sounds quite creepy, as we see tons of weird GOEs awarded for nothing, we see judges ignoring lack of steps into the jump when those should be there and so on.
Also, this would make URs and edges hurt a lot more - and those are not accurately called currently.

Just more room to judges manipulate the scores at will and less transparency.

 

[MalAssada]

I was surprised to see people happy that GOE would award more. I truly think it should only be -1 (bad), 0 (ok) and 1 (good) where a fall/UR/edge/step out got a mandatory -1, even if the skater backflipped as an entrance to the jump.

 

[dailytg20]

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

This.

While it's great that a skater can get back up quickly and fight through a splatfest, I think capping PCS or penalizing for falls more harshly would help calibrate judges' scores with audience expectations. Falls are something that can be observed by everyone--whether you are watching from the furthest seats in the arena or streaming from a mobile device with a crappy connection--regardless of your knowledge of the sport.

It's annoying to have to explain to a casual viewer why a certain skater got a high score even though they fell a lot, especially when I don't even buy it myself. Hopefully being more strict when it comes to errors that are obvious to the naked eye will make the sport a little more accessible to a wider audience.

 

[Shayuki]

This.

While it's great that a skater can get back up quickly and fight through a splatfest, I think capping PCS or penalizing for falls more harshly would help calibrate judges' scores with audience expectations. Falls are something that can be observed by everyone--whether you are watching from the furthest seats in the arena or streaming from a mobile device with a crappy connection--regardless of your knowledge of the sport.

It's annoying to have to explain to a casual viewer why a certain skater got a high score even though they fell a lot, especially when I don't even buy it myself. Hopefully being more strict when it comes to errors that are obvious to the naked eye will make the sport a little more accessible to a wider audience.

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.

In ice hockey for instance, you can easily see when someone scores a goal. You don't need any knowledge to watch and enjoy it. Figure skating should do a better job in making it easy to understand and gauge who's doing well and who isn't without requiring all sorts of knowledge and assistance.


Falls getting punished much more severely would really help.

 

[Eclair]

I'm for penalizing falls more, BUT BEFORE that Pre-rotation should be penalized, too. Otherwise, skaters with clean, good technique have an even bigger disadvantage vs. skaters with pre-rotational jumps (less revolution in the air = less height required, less rotational speed required, more consistent landings).

 

[Sam-Skwantch]

Falls getting punished much more severely would really help.

I don’t disagree but until PCS is capped it will always feel like there is an elephant in the room.

Look at it this way. If we put some sort of control that reduced PCS by a voted upon amount per fall then we can distribute that evenly to all skaters when they make a serious jumping error. Maybe it’s worth considering that by quantifying a specific point value in the PCS for a fall judges will see and operate within a more agreed upon scale. It could even bring about an increase in consistency amongst the judges.

 

[Sam-Skwantch]

I'm for penalizing falls more, BUT BEFORE that Pre-rotation should be penalized, too. Otherwise, skaters with clean, good technique have an even bigger disadvantage vs. skaters with pre-rotational jumps (less revolution in the air = less height required, less rotational speed required, more consistent landings).

Wouldn’t be surprised if the new +5 GOE rules will include language such as “visible pre rotation” as something that might bring about a -1 GOE after assessing the positive GOE. It probably won’t be required -GOE and I doubt they look for it in video review. Right now the landing is the most important and I think it will continue to get more scrutiny and for the sake of discussion hold more value in terms of points. Until PR is better defined at least. Just my opinion though....I could be wrong.

 

[Eclair]

Wouldn’t be surprised if the new +5 GOE rules will include language such as “visible pre rotation” as something that might bring about a -1 GOE after assessing the positive GOE. It probably won’t be required -GOE and I doubt they look for it in video review. Right now the landing is the most important and I think it will continue to get more scrutiny and for the sake of discussion hold more value in terms of points. Until PR is better defined at least. Just my opinion though....I could be wrong.

it would be nice if that would be included, but if the tech team is not calling pre-rotation and in SLO-MOTION then it's like not having this rule at all.

 

[rabbit1234]

fall
1 deduction -1
2 GOEminus -4 etc.
3 PCSminus?

The problem is 3.

I think whether you want the competitor to avoid risky jumps.
I think that you want a state like the Vancouver Olympics without quads, or even in ladies singles you want a world without technical progress similar to 25 years ago.

 

[moriel]

IMO, pops are 100000% times less disruptive than a fall. I understand they can disrupt the momentum of a program when a skater who has been reeling off triple after triple suddenly pops a jump at the end of their program, but otherwise, a popped jump can have zero impact on the program itself. One or two fewer revolutions than expected has nothing to do with choreography, interpretation, skating skills, or transitions. Performance, maybe. A skater on their butt from a fall affects all of those categories, except arguably for transitions or skating skills. (I suppose it is also possible that a fall at the exact right moment could be an excellent, if accidental, choreographic touch - but only in the most hilarious and ridiculous of contexts.)

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.