Penultimate program I checked: Yuma Kagiyama’s free skate. Before proceeding with my analysis, I remind you of the introductory post with the rules and some preliminary explanations, and the analyzes that I have already published:

The Beijing programs: the scores. Introduction

The Beijing Programs: the scores. Nathan Chen’s SP

The Beijing programs: the scores. Yuma Kagiyama’s SP

The Beijing programs: the scores. Shoma Uno’s SP

The Beijing programs: the scores. Yuzuru Hanyu’s SP

The Beijing programs: the scores. Yuzuru Hanyu’s FS

The Beijing programs: the scores. Shoma Uno’s FS

Kagiyama’s program has far fewer problems than Uno’s program. But does the marks really correspond to what the skater did? We see. I watched the program in this version:

4S

I’m not sure that the rotation is complete. In which screenshot is the take off? In 3 no, both feet are firmly placed on the ice. In the 4? In the 5? With an edge jump it is more difficult to establish than with a toe jump, and the completeness of the rotation depends on the timing of the take off. In the second screenshot of the second line Kagiyama is already landed.

I am tempted to assign a q, but when in doubt I go in favor of the skater and consider the jump fully rotated. For the rest, let’s say there is a choctaw at 0:38, although I have some doubts about the edge. And then there’s the preparatory three at 0:48. Deduction of -1 for long preparation, and obviously no bullet 3 and 4. I give him the other four bullets. Starting from +3 (the maximum possible mark in the absence of one of the first three bullets) and considering the deduction, the final GOE is +2.

4Lo

I confirm the q call from the technical panel, the mandatory deduction in GOE is -2. There is a choctaw at 0:55, followed by changes of direction on two feet, mohawks, crossover, nothing that is not a simple move on the ice to take the speed. The entry three to the loop is at 1:09. Another long preparation, which involves no bullet 3 and 4 and a deduction. Then there is the landing with a big step out

For a step out the deduction goes from -3 to -4. Usually I opt for the smallest deduction, a step out is clearly perceptible even by the inexperienced public, so I evaluate from time to time based on how serious the step out is. In this case it’s a bad step out, for me the deduction is -4. Kagiyama also puts a hand on the ice, I give him a -1 (it would also be possible to assign -2). With only bullet 6, the only one that can be awarded to a jump performed this way, a GOE of -5 is inevitable (although not all judges think so, two managed to award a -3, two others a -4, and considering that with a step out the maximum starting GOE before the deduction can be +2, I’d really like them to explain how they got to that mark).

4T

Apparently on the toe loop Kagiyama deserves a fixed deduction for poor take off.

There is no step, but this time there is no long preparation either. In the flight phase Kagiyama loses control of the axis, not so much as to deserve the deduction for poor air position, but enough not to give him the bullet for very good body position from take-off to landing, which is not even so much due to the landing position.

So with only bullet 1 and 6, and a -1 deduction, the final GOE is +1.

3A+2T

There is a step at 1:41, the mohawk of the take off at 1:43, this time Kagiyama deserves bullet 4. I give to him also bullets 1, 3 and 6. However, his 2T can be used in judges’ training seminars as a perfect example of a toe-axel. Deduction -1 for poor take off.

Starting from +3, the maximum possible with four bullets but only two of the first two, and considering the deduction, the final GOE is +2.

CSSp

Present bullets 1, 2 and 6. GOE +3 (incredibly, that’s also what all the judges assigned. Sometimes we think the same way).

StSq

There are bullets 2, 3 and 5, GOE +3.

4T+1Eu+2S

Help me understand. Is it full blade? Because until now I had seen a full blade toe pick on a certain number of flip or lutz, but I had never noticed it on a toe loop. The prerotation is the usual one, so there is the -1 for poor take off. The landing is not the best, for me the jump is q, and Kagiyama is clearly unbalanced.

He gets along well, he was able to do the euler anyway (without degrading him, because he risked the call), even though he only managed to do a salchow double and not triple. But there is neither effortless (if you watch the video you can clearly see that he struggles to keep the landing of the salchow) nor good body position. There are bullets 1 and 6, with the two deductions for the q and the poor take off, we arrive at a final -1.

3F+3Lo

There is no step before the jump, so neither is bullet 4, but there is no long preparaton either. From the angle of the shot it is impossible to understand what the edge is like, so I go in favor of the skater and consider it correct (the addition of the 4Lo allowed Kagiyama to eliminate his flutz). But the prerotation is the same as the toe loop, so here too I give him the poor take off. In 3Lo he loses the correct axis of the body, even in this case the loss of control in my opinion it is not so much to give him a deduction, but enough for not giving him bullet 5. With bullets 1, 3 and 6, and the deduction, the GOE is +2.

3A

There is a step at 3:37, the mohawk before the axel at 3:39, so bullet 4 is there. I give to him also bullet 1 and 6, but, even if he masks it well, the jump is not effortless, Kagiyama escapes from a landing in which he is slightly unbalanced. Final GOE +3 (and this time I was more generous than the judges, three of them awarded him +3, the others ranged between +1 and +2).

ChSq

Kagiyama knows how to make good spread eagles, not only here but at other times in the program as well. I award to him the bullets 2, 3 and 6 (and there is no way that I assign him the 1, creativity and/or originality). Final GOE +3.

CCoSp

Impossible to judge. I keep the official score.

FCCoSp

There are bullets 1, 3, 5 and 6. Bullet 2 is lacking for the usual knee too low in the starting camel position.

Final GOE +3.

PCS

Here we have a serious problem: judges who apply the component cap in a very arbitrary way. Let’s look, for example, at what happened in Pairs’ free skate during the Team Event.

Remember what the cap applies to?

There is not the slightest doubt about the falls. Two falls, low cap. I highlighted all the judges who gave marks higher than the cap. Many gave the highest possible mark with that cap, but since that mark doesn’t break the rules, I ignored it. Anna Kantor is highlighted with a thicker line because she also judged the Men’s competition.

Now, falls aside, in which cases the judges can apply a cap? For technical mistakes that impact the integrity/continuity/fluidity of the composition and/or its relation to the music. Now, among these two mistakes, which has the biggest impact on fluidity and relation to the music?

Mistake 1:

Mistake 2:

Now let’s look at the marks. Anna Kantor seems to have applied the cap to Hanyu for two errors, so low are the marks she awarded. One for the sanchow and one for… what? For parteciping to the competition? Therefore, for her, not performing a jump without unbalancing is worst than a double fall, or a big step out. Well, I have no words… Rondò is the most difficult program, in terms of transitions, that anyone has ever skating in figure skating. Forget the ice dance, which is another thing. In figure skating (Men, Ladies/Women and Pair), no one has ever done anything quite as complex, not even Hanyu. Yet two other judges managed to give to Kagiyama higher marks. How is that possible if Hanyu’s program is more complex, he skates better, he interpreted it better and his mistake is much less disturbing? In the Hanyu protocol I also highlighted a mark of a judge who judged only the short program, and who assigned a score of less than 9.00. Something that no one has dreamed of assigning to Kagiyama.

I could be wrong, but it seems to me that the cap is used in a very arbitrary way and that if a judge decides to manipulate a result, the existence of this rule makes it easier for him. And even for the honest, its application is not very clear.

As for me, in the case of Kagiyama I do not apply it, and for better or worse I remain in line with the marks of the short program. The transitions are a little less than in the short program and with different long preparations often the connection with the music is lost for a long time.

Let’s see the protocol. The left side is the simple transcript of the protocol, which you can find here. Beyond the green band there are the bullets assigned by me, and that I have listed above, then some important notes, the correct BV, the mark in the GOE taking into account bullet and deduction, the score of the GOE, and the total value of the element. Adding all the values of the technical elements with those of the PCS, found in the section below, this is the result:

Kagiyama’s score didn’t drop as much as Uno’s because Kagiyama rotated almost all the jumps, so much so that the BV doesn’t change. The judges, however, gave him unjustifiably high marks in both the GOE and the PCS, and this in the final result made a huge difference.