Question about mandatory deductions in short programs

[rack]

During the Skate Canada coverage, Peggy Fleming referred several times to mandatory .3 or .4 deductions for short program failed elements.

There are 8 required elements in short programs, and even if you go with the .4 mandatory deduction, times that by 8 and you get a deduction of 3.2, which in theory means that a skater could come out for a short program and sit on the ice for 2 minutes 40 seconds and still get a 2.8 for technical difficulty.

Obviously that isn't going to happen (entertaining though it might be). Which means that in between the 3.2 of mandatory deductions and the remaining 2.8 before absolute zero, there's this kind of nebulous floating stuff that I always associate with what astronomers say hangs out in the universe in between galaxies.

What's in that 2.8? Is there a range on deductions greater than the mandatory? For example- if you fall on your double axel, and that's a mandatory .4 deduction, can a judge deduct .5 or .6 or a full 1, or do they have to stop at .4? Or is the 2.8 just sort of there, like a safety net, to guarantee that if a skater is willing to go out there with skates and costume, they're not going to go home in a state of total humiliation (like getting a 200 on your college boards just for showing up)?

Some people don't worry about these things. But I figure if someone here can explain this to me, then maybe I'll have a chance of understanding about all that nebulous floating stuff in the universe as well (you got to start somewhere in your quest for knowledge).:D

[Artemis]

Well, as I understand it, there's mandatory deductions, and then there's base starting mark. A 6.0 is the base starting mark for someone who is planning or attempting the highest degree of technical difficulty.

So if a skater is only planning a 3toe2toe combo, for example, she will have a lower starting base mark than someone planning a 3lutz/3loop.

Then there's the relative difficulty of the other moves. This is where the somewhat controversal issue of judges going to the practice sessions comes in. Knowing ahead of time that skater A's footwork sequence is much more difficult and complex than skater B's helps the judges mark them: even if both execute their footwork flawlessly, skater A with the more difficult sequence has a higher base mark.

[flippet]

Originally posted by Artemis
Well, as I understand it, there's mandatory deductions, and then there's base starting mark. A 6.0 is the base starting mark for someone who is planning or attempting the highest degree of technical difficulty.

So why then (correct me if I'm wrong), does someone like Michelle gather a few 6.0s, when she rarely even tries a 3/3, let alone lands it. Or are all her 6.0s in presentation, not technical? Does it depend on who else is in the competition, and what they're planning? If so, that brings us back to that nebulous stuff again..... :P

Also, who decides what the 'highest degree of difficulty' is? Does it again depend on the field? Do things like that get 'adjusted' for quads and ladies 3axels? Seems like an awful lot of flip-flopping to me....and a whole lotta room for 'gee, I think I like her better...doesn't matter what she did'. But of course, it's not like we don't see that every day anyway...just gives the judges space to do it.

[hoptoad]

1.3 1.6 1.4 1.8 1.5 1.6 1.0 1.6 0.8
3.2 3.1 3.0 3.8 3.0 3.2 3.5 3.5 2.9

These are the marks for the lowest placed competitor in the ladies short program at the JGP in Canada this year. The base mark reflects all around basic skating technique, including edge quality, as well as the difficulty of the planned elements. I think a skater's base mark can be low enough that deductions could theoretically put her into a negative mark.

[Leanne]

The marks really mean little in raw value. The job of the judges is to rank the skaters from 1 to whatever, and marks serve as the most convenient vehicle for doing so.

If you go to a local competition, you'll find that most of them (in fact, more like 99.5%) employ "closed judging" where marks are not read and often never shown. What is posted at the end of the competition are the ordinals with the result. These are what matter (even in OBO, which the USFSA does not use), and this is why what the ISU has decided to show us this year - unpaired marks no ordinals (except "real time ordinals" on TV only which are meaningless for all but the last skater) is meaningless and useless.

Marks have some general value in that there is a certain level of skating that is expected with a mark in the 5.0 range (i.e. 5.0-6.0 = excellent; 4.0-4.9 = good, etc.) Think of it marks in the 5's meaning you got an "A". This is why it's often exciting for a junior or senior skater to get their first mark in the 5's, for example. It's a big deal! Most senior level skaters don't crack a mark in the 5's on the club level. Sectionals are about to start around the U.S. and encourage you to go to one and see what I mean.) The USFSA passing average for the senior MIF and free skating tests is actually a 4.2, I believe.

The bottom line is that the answer to your question is "yes". It's all relative to the field that is competing. That's why marks are lower for the first skater in a field, because if a judge were to give that skater a 6.0/5.9, for example, which total 11.9 with tech being the tiebreaker in SP, then what do they do if two skaters come along who are better? There is only room to place one skater higher. This is why it's important for judges to watch practices, so they have an idea where skaters may fall and know where to expect to leave room. If you've never judged before this probably doesn't sound reasonable, but trust me, it helps judges be more accurate, not less.

The deductions are set as exact ranges. You can download more information that you'd ever want to know at the USFSA Web sitehttp://www.usfsa.org/about/forms.htm especially in competitions/accounting section.

[Ellyn]

Originally posted by flippet
So why then (correct me if I'm wrong), does someone like Michelle gather a few 6.0s, when she rarely even tries a 3/3, let alone lands it.

And she's never attempted one in a short program, which is what this discussion is about.

Or are all her 6.0s in presentation, not technical?

I don't believe she has ever gotten a 6.0 for required elements (SP) or technical merit (LP); I think they have all been for presentation. The only skaters I can recall getting 6.0 for technical merit in the last five or six years are Elvis Stojko and Irina Slutskaya, when they landed jump combinations that hadn't been done before. Oh, and I think Alexei Yagudin at Worlds one year. There may have been one or two others, but it's very rare. The 6.0s for presentation, although also relatively rare, are much more common and usually a way of the judge saying "that performance had everything it needed for good presentation plus an intangible something extra that made it special." Of course, occasionally it just means "I gave an earlier skater 5.9s and this skater was better."

As for Kwan, she has gotten a fair amount of 5.9s for required elements/technical merit over the years, although not when she makes mistakes or waters down the content. At her best, she can do some of the most complex footwork and connecting steps, above-average spins with very good centering, and land 7 clean triple jumps with or without triple-triple in a long program, which may be a lot more than anyone else in the same competition. When she doesn't do that much, she doesn't get the 5.9s for tech merit. Or the lutz combination, flip out of steps, and double axel in the short -- which others might match or exceed, although we haven't yet seen many skaters push further than triple lutz-double loop for the combo and even fewer succeed. If she gets the highest required element marks, it'll be because judges thought her jumps were at though not above the top standard, and her footwork and spirals were better.

Does it depend on who else is in the competition, and what they're planning? If so, that brings us back to that nebulous stuff again..... :P

Yes. See Leanne's good explanation above.

Also, who decides what the 'highest degree of difficulty' is? Does it again depend on the field? Do things like that get 'adjusted' for quads and ladies 3axels?

If a lady comes out and does a long program with 7 or 8 triples including a triple axel and/or a quad, with above-average spins, steps, stroking, she probably will get 6.0 for technical merit unless there are other skaters yet to skate who could do better. Even just 7 triples with one or two difficult triple-triples might earn a 6.0 at the end of a competition. Nor will a skater whose spins, steps, and/or stroking are below average get 6.0s even with the top jump content, although merely "above average" and not necessarily particularly "good" might be enough if the jump content is extraordinary.

But if/when several ladies are attempting and sometimes succeeding at two triple-triples, triple axels, or quads in programs with 7+ triples, then it will no longer be extraordinary and won't garner 6.0s, just as that kind of content is now being attempted (not always successfully) by quite a few men.

Of course, if the whole scoring system changes to Cinquanta's cumulative system before the ladies start completing that content, we won't be talking about 6.0s any more.

Seems like an awful lot of flip-flopping to me....and a whole lotta room for 'gee, I think I like her better...doesn't matter what she did'. But of course, it's not like we don't see that every day anyway...just gives the judges space to do it.

Not sure what you're saying here.

BTW, to Leanne -- the passing average for the USFSA senior tests is 4.5 For junior it's 4.2.

[flippet]

What I meant there is, many viewers don't understand that a 6.0 isn't always a 6.0---though there are good explanations here. To the uninitiated, if a WOW triple axel (plus the rest) garners a 6.0, it's hard to see why it wouldn't always. It can almost feel that a 6.0 can mean whatever you want it to...which doesn't seem fair, without all the extensive explanations that you've given. That's all.

[Artemis]

Well, with the proposed new system (plus 3 to minus 3 for each element) it will all become moot ... :roll: