Re: IDSF propose new scoring system to satisfy IOC
Σάββατο, 5 Σεπτεμβρίου 2009 10:19 μμ
Could someone please inform us, the readers, where and to whom the official proposal was allegedly made by IDSF ?
If the suggested solos were just a proposal, were the recipients of the proposal in favour ?
I'd be more concern with the reaction/response of the IDSF audience whom the message was aimed at.
Proposals by themselves, are just that, proposals, and we all know there is a fundamental problem with adjudicating dancesport, fairness being questioned in many forums, skating system hailed not perfect but better than ???
I do not dispute the existence and the suggested reason for the proposal, however there were many threads in the past elaborating on an outrageous elaboration which was not even factual.
At present IDSF specifies the two solo dances performed by the finalists, which enables a closer examination, comparison and a scrutiny by the judges.
Would the suggested solos from S/F on be done in a combination with the group dance, or would the solos be IT ? Meaning 12-13 solos in W, 12-13 Solos in T,.....F.VW, QS...same for the Latin ? Followed and repeated by 6-8 solos by half of the already examined field ?
Would the athletes awaiting their turn be prepared to wait 20-50 minutes, as someone suggested, to dance the next dance.
IF the dancers were mixed up and their names called in random order, the time separation could be Minimum (2 mins X 12 couples ) = 24 minutes, Maximum 2 mins X ( 12 +12 ) = 48 minutes between W and T , T and VW..F and QS , if the changes progressed smoothly and without delays. I am certain some dancers would have to be paged, and their names called many times as they could not possibly be expected to stand by the dance-floor - if only not to upset the view of the paying audience, who came to see the "solos" NOT the backs of dancers who are exercising and stretching at the periphery to keep "warm"
If I am repeating another poster's accounting and math I apologize, please take it as 'stressing your point as very important' , not as a theft of an original idea.
|