No rush MM, but I would like to see a score with just the standard score involved with no goes. I'm not saying they don't exist, but I can see how a judge can use it for argumentive purposes such as "Well I did give full credit for the jump".Originally Posted by Mathman
Still any comments on Attempts? I think they will do something about the unspeakable flutz if it has not already been taken up.
Joe
The only requirement on the number of revolutions in a combination spin is that you must do at least two (?!) revolutions in each position, and at least six total on each foot.
I suppose the judges could give a higher GOE if you did more than the minimum.
Not exactly. For GOEs he got three +1s, two -1s, one -2 and five 0s, for a total of -0.06 GOE for the element.Didn't Lambiel get high GOEs for his 3A in Calgary despite the ruling of the Caller which reduced it to a double A?
I think -- but I am not completely sure, that the rule goes like this. The judges give GOE for what they saw. Some judges might have seen a flawed triple Axel and given negative GOEs, while others saw an excellent double Axel and gave positive GOEs.
I don't know exactly which features of the jump the judges thought deserved to be rewarded or penalized. It might have been the other way around. Some judges saw an excellent triple Axel and gave +GOEs, while others saw an overrotated double and gave negatives.
In the meantime, the technical specialist ruled that his rotation was short by more than a quarter of a turn. (As I understand it, this ruling is up for review and if the tapes show that the caller was in error, presumably he will receive some sort of reprimand or sanction.)
Well, I think it is fairly clear what the rules actually say. Whether we agree with them or not is another story.One other thing, what about Attempts? Is that clear?
For instance, suppose you "attempt" a triple/triple combination, but pop the first jump into a nothing-at-all, then do the second jump. Does that count as a combination? Yes! (See ISU Communication #1319, paragraph 2, page 7, ammending "Special Regulations for Single and Pairs Skating as accepted by the 50th ordinary Congress of the ISU, June, 2004")
There is also that strange rule that says if you "plan," say, a 3Lz/2Lo combo as your first element, but have a shaky landing on the Lutz and are unable to do the loop -- then later you do a solo 3Lutz -- well, you might think that's a Zayak violation. But no, they score the second Lutz as a failed combo (even though it was really a solo jump), and they score the first element as a successful solo jump, even though it was supposed to be a combo.
As weird as that sounds, I actually think that's a good rule. The reason I like it, convoluted though it seems, is this. Otherwise, if you flubbed the second element of your combo, not only are you penalyzed for that element, but you would get doubly penalized by not being allowed to skate the rest of the your program as planned.
The whole "flutz" thing is another can of worms. If you "intend" to do a Lutz, but do a flip instead, what then? As far as I can tell, the rules give the caller quite a bit of leeway in making his/her decision. In practice, so far, callers have been pretty consistent in calling it a Lutz (and letting the judges take off points in negative GOE if they don't like the take-off edge), provided the approach, counterrotation and other characteristics of the Lutz are properly executed.
That is, the way the rules have been interpreted so far, the callers have not put the whole burden on one single aspect of the jump (the uncheated outside edge).
There has been a lot of discussion of this. Maybe the ISU will tighten up the rules next year. But at least the rules are, as far as I can tell, being applied consistently. Callers are not penalyzing one skater for a flutz while letting another get away with it.
Last edited by Mathman; 06-19-2006 at 02:39 PM.
Joe, the vast majority of GOEs are 0.
For instance, click here
http://www.isufs.org/results/wc2006/..._FS_Scores.pdf
and scroll down to Joubert, for Brian's scores at Worlds. There were a total of 168 possible GOEs for the whole program (14 elements times 12 judges). Ninety of them are 0.
In particular, his triple Axel line reads
3A 7.5 (base) 0.00 (average GOE) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (individual judges' GOEs)
And his triple loop:
3Lo 5.0 (base) 0.00 (average GOE) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (individual judges' scores)
This is no surprise. 0 GOE means average. Well, the average jump is -- average. So, the typical and most common GOE score is 0.
To get a negative GOE there are certain insufficiencies which are spelled out pretty precisely. It's not just whether the judge liked the jump or not.
If you make this kind of mistake, that's a negative 1. If you make this kind of mistake and that kind of mistake, that's a minus 2. If you fall down and don't complete the element, that's a minus 3.
On the plus side, it is the same way. There are specific "plusses" that judges are looking for (such as interesting and unusual footwork into the entrance, etc.), that gives you bonus points. In general, you do not get any positive GOEs just for doing it pretty well with no errors. That's what 0 means.
Last edited by Mathman; 06-19-2006 at 12:52 PM.
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
http://www.isufs.org/results/wc2006/
All the Worlds protocols are available here. Click the link for the event you want in the right column.
I have never seen +3 across the board for any element. I expect it will be years before that ever occurs.
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.
Yes, I think it is just as well.
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 by Mathman; 06-19-2006 at 07:25 PM.
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
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 by Mathman; 06-19-2006 at 07:39 PM.
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.
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.
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.
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/...-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 by Mathman; 06-19-2006 at 08:45 PM.
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/...-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
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.
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 [color=red]*[/color][color=red]*[/color][color=red]*[/color][color=red]*[/color] and find them yourself!!
Ant
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
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
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks