CoP Olympic report card | Page 2 | Golden Skate

CoP Olympic report card

Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Joesitz said:
Please the details of the worlds scoring.
Joe, follow the link that GKelly just provided and click on judges protocalls (pdf) for the men's free skate. The direct link is the one that I gave above (post #18, near the top).

Here are Lambiel's scores for the disputed elements.

2A (reflecting the downgrading) 3.3 (base value for a double Axel)

Next comes the average GOE for the judging panel. This is after the random draw and after the high and low are thrown out, and reflects the weighting of the GOE for that element. For Stephane's Axel it was -0.06. (The surviving scores must have been something like +1 0 0 0 0 -1 -1, with a weighing of 50% for elements with a base score of 3.3 -- this gets a little tricky -- you have to look up the precise conversion of the -1s, etc., for each element).

Then come the GOEs awarded by each individual judge. They are

0 1 -1 1 -1 0 -1 0 0 0 1 -2

The last number is the total credit for the element: 3.24. (= 3.3 - 0.06.)

So Stephane got 3.24 for the attempt instead of the 7.5 (base value for a 3A) that he was hoping for.

GKelly is quite right about +3 GOE. Nobody got a +3 on any element from a single judge in the entire competition.

Joe said:
Also you avoided the flutz which is just as well.
Yes, I think it is just as well. :laugh: Since I am not a skater myself I can only go by the various opinions of other people that I have read. Your point of view -- a Lutz is a Lutz, a flip is a flip -- certainly has the merit of clarity.

But the explanations that other posters have written, such as GKelly and Hockeyfan, make a lot of sense to me, too.

Anyway, to me the main concern is that the rules, whatever they are, are uniformly enforced and are interpreted the same way by all parties.

It's like the strike zone in baseball. Every year the umpires and the league get together and decide how they are going to call it this year. Is a pitch at the armpits going to be called a ball or a strike? It depends on whether or not they decide that the fans want to see more home runs this year. As long as they call it the same way for each batter, and as long as everyone knows how they are going be calling it this year, I don't have too much of a gripe.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 11, 2003
I believe Hockeyfan just says a flutz is an attempt and that the judges judge the flutz (not the absent lutz) on how bad the flutz is. I just don't by that. That's not in the rules either. ISU will not acknowledge that it exists.

I don't know what gkelly thinks about judging a flutz as a lutz.

An attempt by the way does not mean that an element was successful. I believe it is just the opposite; that it was not successful. Bases were loaded; it was two out; the player's team was 3 runs behind, he attempted a home run but it went foul. Should we give credit? Let's get away from this girly sport.

Joe
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Joesitz said:
And Joubert had several plus GoEs.
Yes, Brian got mostly +1s and +2s on his opening 4T+3T, on his 3F, and on his straight-line footwork.

By the way, Lambiel's final element was a combination spin. According the the CoP it was only a level two (2.5 points base value).

But he did it so well that he got almost straight +2 GOEs, which factored into +1 extra point. So his total for the element was 3.5, which is exactly what he would have got for a level 4 spin with 0 GOE.
 
Last edited:

chuckm

Record Breaker
Joined
Aug 31, 2003
Country
United-States
I propose the callers should call a flutz a flutz, with a predetermined base value lower than a lutz; the judges would assign a GOE, but limited to a maximum of 0 and a minimum of -3. This would avoid the Zayak rule, but still penalize skaters who don't bother to do the lutz correctly, while rewarding textbook lutzers with higher values.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Joesitz said:
I believe Hockeyfan just says a flutz is an attempt and that the judges judge the flutz (not the absent lutz) on how bad the flutz is. I just don't buy that. That's not in the rules either.
Now it's my turn to ask if you can supply a link to the ISU rules about this, LOL.

Since GKelly is on line right now, maybe we can coax her into repeating her analysis. (Which, BTW, was one of the all-time outstanding posts on this board, IMHO, which is why I remember it so well. :laugh: )

I think the argument goes something like this. There are several characteristics that define a Lutz jump and distinguish it from other jumps, not just the edge.

That is, just because you take off from an outside edge, that does not automatically mean that you did a true Lutz. There are other factors to consider.

Two of the other factors that I recall from GKelly's previous posts (I think there were four in all) are (a) the approach, and (b) the counterrotation in the air, where you must use your upper body strength to twist around in the direction oposite from the circle.

(Something like that -- again, I am no expert.)

So, if the ISU decides that the definition of a Lutz jump has four components, not just one -- I am not irate about that.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
chuckm said:
I propose the callers should call a flutz a flutz, with a predetermined base value lower than a lutz; the judges would assign a GOE, but limited to a maximum of 0 and a minimum of -3. This would avoid the Zayak rule, but still penalize skaters who don't bother to do the lutz correctly, while rewarding textbook lutzers with higher values.
Well, I am not so much trying to decide in my mind whether the ISU rules are morally right or wrong, I just want to make sure that I understand what they say.

In the document about how judges are to assign GOEs on jumps, here's what it says about Flutzes.

http://www.isu.org/vsite/vfile/page/fileurl/0,11040,4844-168551-185769-65184-0-file,00.pdf

A jump has four phases:

(a) Preparation
(b) Take-off
(c) Rotation (flight)
(d) Landing.

Criteria for a -1 GOE: Minor problem in one phase of the jump. Eg.

* Touch down with one hand or foot

* Long preparation phase (telegraphing)

* Short change of edge in take-off of flip or Lutz

* Weak landing (land on wrong edge or toe, etc.)

Criteria for a -2 GOE: Minor problems in two phases as described in (-1) or major problem in one phase of the jump. Eg.

*slightly underrotated either on take-off or landing (1/4 turn or less)

* moderate change of edge on take-off of flip or Lutz

* touch with two hands

*step out of landing

* land on two feet

Etc.

So according to the ISU rules, giving equal weight to all four phases of the jump, a "minor Flutz" is on a par with a touch down of one hand, and a "moderate flutz" is a sin on the order of a two-footed landing.

Pointwise, this means that a Lutz jump that was otherwise OK but had a "moderate" wobble over to the wrong edge on take-off, would score (after GOE) 4.0 points instead of 6.0 for the same jump with a proper edge -- just like your idea about inventing a new jump called a flutz and giving it a lower value.

So I don't know -- I just can't seem to work up any righteous indignation over the ISU interpretation.

But if the ISU decided to change the rules about flutzing, I would be OK with that, too. Just so the rules are clearly spelled out (as they are in this ISU document) so that everyone is playing by the same rules.
 
Last edited:

hockeyfan228

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Joesitz said:
I believe Hockeyfan just says a flutz is an attempt and that the judges judge the flutz (not the absent lutz) on how bad the flutz is. I just don't by that. That's not in the rules either. ISU will not acknowledge that it exists
What I argued based on learning from more knowledgable people -- and I believe gkelly was one of them -- that the definition of a jump is more than the take-off edge: it's also the curve from which the skater approaches take-off, the direction (forward vs. backward), the opposition (or lack there-off) as well, in addition to the landing foot and edge, and whether the free leg skate assists.

One page 6 of ISU Communication 1342 (applied in 2005-6), the mandatory GOE deduction for "Starting on the wrong edge (depending on length)" (Jumps, column 2) is -1 to -3, which is where the "depending on length" is.

http://www.isu.org/vsite/vfile/page/fileurl/0,11040,4844-175231-192449-94938-0-file,00.pdf

In past versions of this communication, there were specific descriptions for -1, -2, -3 (last minute COE, short COE, long COE), and it's been a rule from the beginning.

What changed was that in the first year, any jump where any of the four phases was less than base (adequate) could not get a score greater than base. That was changed (last season or the season before) to allow the positives to outweigh the negatives. Given the frequency of positive GOE on flutzes and lips, there were an awful lot of +3's and +2's given to air positions and landings, for example, to average out those -3's for blatant flutzing and lipping ;)
 

chuckm

Record Breaker
Joined
Aug 31, 2003
Country
United-States
And of course there is the practice of bumping up the PCS scores to make up for technical faults for the 'favored' skaters. So even if the judges were told by the referee that deducting for flutzes was mandatory, the right hand can give back what the left hand takes away.
 

antmanb

Record Breaker
Joined
Feb 5, 2004
Joesitz said:
MM - I remember checking the details of the Men's scoring when the questionable 3A was called by the Caller (how powerful this position is!! and people think he is God.) I saw +3s across the board. And Joubert had several plus GoEs. Can you direct me to that detailed judging. I don't have it anymore.

Also you avoided the flutz which is just as well. Nobody wants to deal with that jump made famous by the 98 Olympic Champ, not the least of which is the ISU. It only concerns American skaters who are incapable of doing a proper lutz.

Please the details of the worlds scoring.

Joe

Since you seem hell bent on trying to make a point to hang MM with i'd be tempted to say get off your lazy arse and find them yourself!!

Ant
 
Joined
Jul 11, 2003
antmanb said:
Since you seem hell bent on trying to make a point to hang MM with i'd be tempted to say get off your lazy arse and find them yourself!!
Ant
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
I do have a life although it may not seem that way. One thing is for sure, I am at fault for being overly protective of Lambiel, and it appears to me, that some people are out to get him :frown: :laugh:

Have to admit, I am not one for the rules, but from what I read, there is absolutely no mention of flutz in the rules. I may be wrong but maybe hockeyfan or gkelly can show me where it is mentioned.

From what I've been reading, the edge of the takeoff of a jump is not all that important as is the approach to the edge, it would seem that the definition of the actual takeoff is irrelevant for the jump to be called anything but what was the intention of the skater. (I wanted to do a lutz, but I did a flip by mistake - so take off for the mistake but not too much from the base score of the jump I attempted. hey that sounds good.)

Of course the rules get stricter for air rotations - not too much on attempts there.

I can't help but go along with Chuckum's proposal and allow the Caller to call a jump a flutz when he sees it, and then let the judges score what they want with it.
This way, lutz by definitiion will be maintained. How bad would it be to give credit to skaters who follow the definition?

Joe
 

antmanb

Record Breaker
Joined
Feb 5, 2004
Joesitz said:
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
I do have a life although it may not seem that way. One thing is for sure, I am at fault for being overly protective of Lambiel, and it appears to me, that some people are out to get him :frown: :laugh:

:laugh: Seriously though, i don't get the impression that MM dislikes Lambiel. I get the impression that MM likes the CoP (hey being a maths fanatic i can see why!). The Lambiel downgrade problem at worlds i went into at great length on the post entitled Lambiel wuz robbed of personal best so i don't want to go on even more about it but suffice to say i think we both agreed that something was fishy on the basis that many of the panel gave him +GOE for the jump and suposedly an underotated jump in addition to being underotated carried mandatory -GOEs depending on the severity of the undorrotation which means that a lot of panel saw a good (+GOE worth of good) triple axel...nuff said!


Joesitz said:
I can't help but go along with Chuckum's proposal and allow the Caller to call a jump a flutz when he sees it, and then let the judges score what they want with it.
This way, lutz by definitiion will be maintained. How bad would it be to give credit to skaters who follow the definition?

Joe

I wouldn't be averse to putting the flutz in the table of values but where would it go in terms of difficulty? More than aflip but less than a lutz? arguably its a jump based on bad technique...should it be less than a double axel?

What if its placed between a flip and lutz in terms of difficulty? Would that encrouage skaters to fill their skatnig passes with lutzes flutzes and flips and leave the lesser triples out?

Ant
 

chuckm

Record Breaker
Joined
Aug 31, 2003
Country
United-States
If there's a value for a flutz, then there has to be one for a lip (a flip switching to an outside edge) as well. Lots of skaters who do proper lutzes lip their flips.
 

hockeyfan228

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Joesitz said:
Have to admit, I am not one for the rules, but from what I read, there is absolutely no mention of flutz in the rules. I may be wrong but maybe hockeyfan or gkelly can show me where it is mentioned.
"Flutz" and "Lip" are figure skating board terms. Where this is mentioned in the rules is "Starting on the wrong edge" and, more specifically, "Short change of edge in take-off of flip or Lutz," etc.

Joesitz said:
I wanted to do a lutz, but I did a flip by mistake
Your personal definition of a lutz is based on take-off edge, but for three years, that has not been the definition in the rules, which takes into account several other factors.

Joesitz said:
This way, lutz by definitiion will be maintained.
The definition of the lutz is maintained, because it included several factors including take-off edge.

There are mandatory deductions for changing the take-off edge. Unlike in 6.0, where BTW, neither Sarah Hughes nor Lipinski in her second year nor Fumie Suguri were charged with violating the Zayak rules for their flutzes, nor Arakawa, Sebestyen, and Sokolova were charged with violating the Zayak rules for their lips.

joesitz said:
How bad would it be to give credit to skaters who follow the definition?
They are the ones who get full credit for a correct take-off edge and don't get mandatory -1 to -3 deductions.
 
Last edited:

hockeyfan228

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
antmanb said:
but suffice to say i think we both agreed that something was fishy on the basis that many of the panel gave him +GOE for the jump and suposedly an underotated jump in addition to being underotated carried mandatory -GOEs depending on the severity of the undorrotation which means that a lot of panel saw a good (+GOE worth of good) triple axel...nuff said!
As Mathman has already written, only three of the judges gave Lambiel +1 GOE, and the rest of the 12 gave him 0 or -1. Since an underrotation gets -1 to -3 depending on severity, it is also perfectly plausible that three of the judges saw a +2 GOE axel jump, from which they deducted -1 to net out to the final score of +1.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Joesitz said:
Let's get away from this girly sport.
:laugh: Joe, I think cheating on the take-off edge of a Lutz jump is pretty far down the list of why many people regard figure skating as a "girly" sport.

It is so regarded because of the second mark. Figure skating, like it or not (and I do!) is half athletic contest and half performance art. :clap: :clap: :clap:

There was a funny interview on Sunday with Dirk Nowitzky, star player with the Dallas Mavericks basketball team. He said that while he was growing up his father wouldn't let him play basketball because it was a "women's sport."

So Dirk grew up playing the manly sport of handball instead. (Herr Nowitzky was a champion handballer, while Dirk's mother and sister played pro basketball in the European leagues.)
 

SeaniBu

Record Breaker
Joined
Mar 19, 2006
Mathman said:
It is so regarded because of the second mark. Figure skating, like it or not (and I do!) is half athletic contest and half performance art. :clap: :clap: :clap:

:clap: :love: :agree: :bow: :rock: :yes:
And what is wrong with a mostly girl associated sport to anyone who might say such a thing anyway. Ask them to get on a spinner and then just try jumping with 1 rotation on the ground, then do one of their favorite dance moves (that mind you is likely unattractive) then they will see!:p Girls rock just as hard as guys:rock:

Hopefully this is on topic -

I hope it doesn't shift away from "artistic" because of the importance of the "blessed numbers." I think I am being a little too pesimistic - odd for me - but this issue does seem to be coming up once and a while.

What is the CoP (man I would love a terms & abbreviations list) doing to ENSURE THIS DOESN"T HAPPEN?
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 11, 2003
antmanb said:
:laugh: Seriously though, i don't get the impression that MM dislikes Lambiel. I get the impression that MM likes the CoP (hey being a maths fanatic i can see why!). The Lambiel downgrade problem at worlds i went into at great length on the post entitled Lambiel wuz robbed of personal best so i don't want to go on even more about it but suffice to say i think we both agreed that something was fishy on the basis that many of the panel gave him +GOE for the jump and suposedly an underotated jump in addition to being underotated carried mandatory -GOEs depending on the severity of the undorrotation which means that a lot of panel saw a good (+GOE worth of good) triple axel...nuff said!
MM and I both enjoy the nipicks during the summer doldrums. Keeps the Board moving towards Campbells. It so happend that Lambiel got the prize this summer. I do believe that the CoP has given new life to Mathman which is tough enough on him because Michelle whether injured or not was never known as a spinner. However, there were gasps and huge applause for Stephane in Calgary when he landed the 3A. While I don't trust TV we will get a chance to see it again. I would love to hear from someone who has not really made up his mind about it including me.




I wouldn't be averse to putting the flutz in the table of values but where would it go in terms of difficulty? More than aflip but less than a lutz? arguably its a jump based on bad technique...should it be less than a double axel? Ant
There are legitimate definitions of what a lutz and flip are. No need to go into the entry. The lutz is a jump which takes off on a back outside edge, and the flip is a jump that takes off on a back inside edge. Any entry into those jumps that do not follow those simple RULES is pure adulteration of the RULES.

I'm not against the rock over into the attempted lutz, but it is the Caller's business to announce that that was what happened. It should be, imo, an automatic deduction of say, 2 points minimum which will give the judges who want to cheat a chance to give +3 goes for his interests. Honest judges would just give it what appears to be a very poor flip or -2 minimum. The total deduction would be -4, not bad on honesty.

As for many people (whoever they are) not worried about the difference between a lutz and a flip probably never figure skated in their lives. Figure skaters work hard to perfect their elements. I wouldn't give them a cheap 'who cares'.

Joe
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Joesitz said:
I'm not against the rock over into the attempted lutz, but it is the Caller's business to announce that that was what happened.
Are you sure that's what you want, Joe? That puts even more power into the caller's hands (and less in the judges') than he already has.

As it is, it is up to the judges to judge what they saw. Was there an improper take-off edge? Was there a hand down on the landing? Was it two-footed? All of these things require a deduction on the part of the judges. Would it really improve matters to take this judgement out of the hands of the judges and give it to the caller?

Can't we trust the judges to see the difference between an inside and an outside edge, and to follow the ISU rules about how to score it?
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Joesitz said:
I do believe that the CoP has given new life to Mathman...
You nailed me on that one, Joe. Michelle may have ridden off into the sunset, but at least I have all those lovely numbers to console me. :)
 

hockeyfan228

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Except that an attempted lutz coming from the right direction/curve as a lutz with the right opposition as the lutz and the wrong take-off edge isn't a flip, either. It isn't a defined jump, and therefore can't violate the Zayak rule.
 
Top