1. Sotnikova’s PCS
Her PCS has improved by a total of 19.48 points (counting both short and free) in a space of 6 months.
PCS
Cup of China
Trophee Eric Bompard
Grand Prix Final
Olympics
Total increase
Free
60.31
64.65
60.47
74.41
+ 14.1
Short
30.17
30.77
30.85
35.55
+ 5.38
NY times Kurt Browning, (world champion)
“I was shocked. What, suddenly, she just became a better skater overnight? I don’t know what happened."
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/21/sports/olympics/adelina-sotnikovas-upset-victory-is-hard-to-figure.html?smid=tw-share&_r=1
This improvement in Sotnikova’s PCS also begs the question of whether she is actually at a level where she might be awarded similar marks as Carolina Kostner or Yuna Kim. They are mature skaters who have been consistently awarded higher PCS. Taking into account this consistency and Sotnikova’s increase, it is more than a little puzzling that Yuna’s PCS has been scored at 7 points in the Olympics by some judges.
2. The edge call on the triple lutz
Lutz is differentiated from flip by the take-off edge when entering into the jump. The former uses deep outside edge and the latter an inside edge. If this distinction is not upheld by the judges, there would be little point in awarding different marks for each jump. The judging call on the wrong edge take-off in the Olympics is all the more interesting in light of this fact: from 2013 World Championship to CoC, TEB, GPF and European Championship, she tried 3Lz 7 times and was found to have used the wrong edge 6 times. As the replay of her programmes will show, Sotnikova still jumped with the wrong edge in the Olympics. But there was no wrong edge mark in her protocol.
In fact, she received positive GOE for jumps that were done with the wrong technique. According to current rules, judges can request a super-slow video of the jumps to verify the edge call. How could have the judges missed it?
3. The lack of rotation on the 3T in Sotnikova’s 3LZ – 3T in the free programme.
It goes without saying that to be awarded full marks for a jump, it must be fully rotated or at least come within the margin of rotation that ISU has deemed acceptable. That her 3T was under-rotated by 1/4 or 1/2 was visible even to the naked eye without the slow-motion replay. Also referring to the point above, there should have been further deduction for her wrong edge along with the deduction for the under-rotation. Instead she was awarded plus GOE for the combination. Furthermore, 3T requires skaters to use the toe pick during the take off. Instead, Sotnikova used the full blade to press against the ice, a jumping technique that is frankly wrong, not different
4. The minus GOE on Sotnikova’s 3F+2T+2Lo in the free programme
In that jumping passage, Sotnikova made a big mistake on the landing of the last jump. She stepped out of the double loop and two-footed the landing. It seriously disrupted the flow of the jump. In addition, the axis of rotation in the air was shaky. According to guidelines given by ISU, such mistake (two footed landing in particular) merits -2 to -3 level of GOE. But the penalty given was only at -0.9. Even if the judges had decided that -2 level of GOE would be sufficient, the point deducted would have been at least 1.4.
5. The call on the level of step sequence
To obtain level 4, the skaters only need to satisfy what the rule book states as necessary turns and steps as well as further elements to go up the level. Sotnikova was only one skater who got the lv. 4 both short and free program in the Games, despite the fact others had also satisfied the requirement for it. The step sequence is about the use of turns and the edges on the ice. Skaters who do not use deep edges with consistent speed and/or do not carry out variety of turns and steps cleanly should not be rewarded for their step sequence. It is laughable and incomprehensible that judges chose to award Sotnikova with level 4 when they gave Yuna's step sequence (much more speed, deeper edges, spotlessly clean turns, variety of movements) level 3.
6. Awarding of GOE on the jumps
GOE 1.2
GOE 1.1
The giving of positive GOE on executed jumps involves the consideration of ISU guidelines. Those include the consideration of flow, both in and out of the jumps, in-air position, and the take-off. In comparing Sotnikova’s flip with Yuna’s flip, the discrepancies in GOE are readily obvious. For one, Sotnikova clearly demonstrated poor take-off. The full blade, as opposed to just the toe, was in contact with the ice; the flow in and out of the jump also looked heavy and forced. Sotnikova's jumping mechanism is the same whether she jumps the flip or flutz (lutz with wrong edge take-off) - a clear indication of a technical flaw. On the other hand, Yuna’s flip was jumped with perfect technique, blended into the choreography of the programme, with excellent flow in and out of the jump. But it was Sotnikova who was awarded the higher GOE. One of the judges even gave Yuna zero GOE for her flip, when the quality of the jump called for plus GOE.
7. The rebuttal of the base value argument.
Only 1.4 difference in the base value
The base-value argument, i.e. Sotnikova had one more triple than Yuna, is logically flawed. We only need to look at the TES in the short programme to disprove it. Yuna, jumping 3Lz-3T, 3F and 2A, had more base value in jumps than Sotnikova. Yet she was awarded lower TES though her jumps were perfectly landed. Even if we were to argue on the basis of base-value argument, the difference between Sotnikova and Yuna is extremely slim. Calculating the base value in the short and the free, there is only 1.44 separating the two. That is not even worth a double flip or loop.
The base-value argument fundamentally ignores the fact that the final score of the programme also relies on the awarding of GOE as well as PCS. Whether there were 7 triples or 6 triples or 8 triples is only a very small part of the story. Mao Asada jumped 8 triples for the free programme, but was scored under Sotnikova because of minus GOE. It is the actual execution of those jumps and judges’ perception of their quality that decides the marks, not the plan on the paper. It has already been said that Sotnikova’s execution of technical elements were not the cleanest on the night. But GOE given to her is something you would see given to perfectly executed elements.
At any rate, 1.44 is a difference that could be overcome by a skater like Yuna, whose quality of skating and interpretation very strongly merits a high level of positive GOE and PCS. That much is evident, easily proven by referring back to Yuna’s protocols over the course of her career. Despite the fact that her free programme was executed perfectly well, her GOE in comparison to Sotnikova’s was underscored. The base value argument is misleading in the extreme, trying to take away the attention from poor judgment calls made during the ladies’ event. The level of PCS and GOE, as well as the edge call, given to Sotnikova should be the debating point, not Yuna’s base values.
