Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 109

Thread: ISU rule changes

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    28,827

    ISU rule changes

    OK, all of you CoP nerds out there, bookmark ISU Communications #1396 (I just did, LOL).

    http://www.isu.org/vsite/vfile/page/...-0-file,00.pdf

    This document summarizes the revised rules for the coming season. A couple of noteworthy changes:

    #6. Require at least one spiral position without any assistance of the hand or arm, in both the SP and the LP.

    In particular, not every spiral can be a Biellmann. This is a great rule change. Now we will see who can really attain an acceptable classic spiral position and who can't.

    #11. If a triple or quad jump is performed twice as a solo jump the second execution will be counted as a jump sequence with only one jump included.

    The change is, it used to be scored as a jump combo. Under the new rule you will still be able to do and get credit for two combos, even if you flub a combo attempt.

    Actually, the penalty for not completing the sequence is not very severe. It would be worth it to do two solo quads and blow off the Zayak rules altogether.
    Last edited by Mathman; 07-17-2006 at 08:37 PM.

  2. #2
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    28,827
    There are also some revised guidelines about levels of difficulty for spins and spirals, some adjustments in the base values of spins, and some clarifications of the GOE criteria.

    They did not address the flutz question. The rule is still, just take off -1 to -3 GOE for a wrong take-off edge, depending on length.

    As best I can make out, they put in some rules to the effect that certain errors carry a required negative GOE, so that judges can't say that positive features outweighed the negative and end up with a 0 or positive GOE on a badly flawed element.

    (I'm not sure about this. Some GOEs are listed as, for instance, "GOE -3" and others as "-3, -GOE". I think the former means, you must give a -3 GOE for the element, and the latter means, take off -3 in the calculation of the overall GOE, but other features could also count on the positive side.)

    Here are the rules on underrotation of jumps. If it is underrotated and downgraded, the judges are supposed to take off an additional -1 to -3 off the downgraded base value.

    If it is slightly underroted but not downgraded, the judges are supposed to take off -2 from the full base value.

    This is not a change from last year, BTW. So, for instance, if the judges were following the rules on Lambiel's downgraded triple Axel, the fact that 8 of the 12 judges gave Stephane 0 or positive GOEs means that those eight not only thought that the jump was rotated enough to be called a triple, but in fact was a fully rotated triple, all 1260 degrees with no cheat whatever.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    755
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman
    Here are the rules on underrotation of jumps. If it is underrotated and downgraded, the judges are supposed to take off an additional -1 to -3 off the downgraded base value.
    I don't like this. If you go for a Triple Toe and do 2.5 revolutions, why should you get less credit than a regular Double Toe??? If anything, you should get a small BONUS.

  4. #4
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    28,827
    Quote Originally Posted by Zuranthium
    I don't like this. If you go for a Triple Toe and do 2.5 revolutions, why should you get less credit than a regular Double Toe??? If anything, you should get a small BONUS.
    Yeah, that's kind of strange. This is not a new rule, BTW, that's how it has always been.

    The way it was explained to me, if you do 2.5 revolutions on a double, that means you have a severe overrotation, so you should be marked down for it. (Plus, your landing is going to be wonky if your blade isn't all the way around, I would think).

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    755
    I just don't see overrotating as a bad thing if it looks clean.

    Often times your landing might be bad on a 2.5 jump, but other times it means you are doing 3 full revolutions with just a clean half rotation done on the ice instead of the air. In Shizuka Arakawa's 2004 Worlds Short Program, she only did 2.5 revolutions in the air for the second part of her 3Lutz/3Toe combination, but without the slow-mo you could barely tell anything was wrong because the extra half rotation of the blade on the ice was totally clean. In these cases I think it should be counted as a double jump with a bonus.

  6. #6
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    28,827
    Maybe they figure that you deserve a penalty because you landed on the wrong edge -- say, a forward inside edge instead of the required back inside edge. (?)

    Just guessing. I agree that the penalty for underrotation seems out of line compared to that for other mistakes. You have already lost the majority of the jump's value by the downgrade.

  7. #7
    Custom Title 76olympics's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    GA
    Posts
    469
    Another vote for Doris Pulaski to write an in-depth look on the past, present and future of pairs skating! Sign me up for an autographed copy!
    Last edited by 76olympics; 07-21-2006 at 08:44 PM.

  8. #8
    MY TVC 1 5 SeaniBu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Watching the Wheels
    Posts
    4,984
    Quote Originally Posted by 76olympics
    Another vote for Doris Pulaski to write an in-depth look on the past, present and future of pairs skating! Sign me up for an autographed copy!
    I might like that as a read too. Start typing!

  9. #9
    Custom Title Joesitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    20,185
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman
    Here are the rules on underrotation of jumps. If it is underrotated and downgraded, the judges are supposed to take off an additional -1 to -3 off the downgraded base value.
    Keyword here is supposed.

    If it is slightly underroted but not downgraded, the judges are supposed to take off -2 from the full base value.
    'supposed' again. What is the definition of 'slightly' underrotated? Where is the Caller on all of this?

    This is not a change from last year, BTW. So, for instance, if the judges were following the rules on Lambiel's downgraded triple Axel, the fact that 8 of the 12 judges gave Stephane 0 or positive GOEs means that those eight not only thought that the jump was rotated enough to be called a triple, but in fact was a fully rotated triple, all 1260 degrees with no cheat whatever.
    This was my argument after seeing it LIVE in Calgary. It was not a popular call at the Worlds. It seemed as if the Caller was just expecting an underrotation because of previous 3As in competition.

    I think there isn't much change in the ISU regarding underrotations.

    And the Flutz remains a legal jump without calling it by its true name.

    Joe

  10. #10
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    28,827
    Quote Originally Posted by Joesitz
    What is the definition of 'slightly' underrotated? Where is the Caller on all of this?
    "Slightly" means less than a quarter turn. In other words, it is underrotated, but not so badly as to be downgraded.

    As I understand it, the caller's only job is to say yes or no, it was more than a quarter turn underrotaed or not.
    This was my argument after seeing it LIVE in Calgary. It was not a popular call at the Worlds. It seemed as if the Caller was just expecting an underrotation because of previous 3As in competition.
    That argument was quite correct. I didn't competely understand it at the time. (That is, I did not realize that a 0 or 1 GOE meant that the judge thought it wasn't underrotated AT ALL, much less by more than a quarter turn. Both you and Antman tried to explain it to me at the time, but somehow it didn't click in my mind (what mind? LOL).)

    I think the issue of technical specialists and judges "expecting" skaters to do well or poorly on certain elements is quite prevalent.
    I think there isn't much change in the ISU regarding underrotations.

    And the Flutz remains a legal jump without calling it by its true name.
    Yes, there is no change in either of these. Same rules as last year.
    Last edited by Mathman; 07-18-2006 at 06:27 AM.

  11. #11
    Custom Title Lonewolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    North Dakota
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman

    In particular, not every spiral can be a Biellmann. This is a great rule change. Now we will see who can really attain an acceptable classic spiral position and who can't.

    I agree this is good rule change. Although, I am not a big fan of the Biellmann, if a skater performs one well that’s okay. However, too many skaters perform more than one in their routine. This is why I am not a big fan of the Biellmann. Thus, if I read this correctly, the number of Biellmann’s will be reduced in a skater’s routine as they find new ways to add spirals to their performances.

  12. #12
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    136
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman
    #11. If a triple or quad jump is performed twice as a solo jump the second execution will be counted as a jump sequence with only one jump included.

    The change is, it used to be scored as a jump combo. Under the new rule you will still be able to do and get credit for two combos, even if you flub a combo attempt.

    Actually, the penalty for not completing the sequence is not very severe. It would be worth it to do two solo quads and blow off the Zayak rules altogether.
    I don't really understand what effect this rule has at all. Jump+COMBO should be the same as Jump+SEQUENCE. Both take up one of your multi-jump passes, correct? Or have I missed something?

  13. #13
    Down With It
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    13,691
    don't have the technical know-how of skating but I think a combo is two jumps in a row and a sequence is when you have a jump, maybe some half turn or something and then another one...? (techies correct me if I flubbed)

  14. #14
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    136
    Quote Originally Posted by Red Dog
    don't have the technical know-how of skating but I think a combo is two jumps in a row and a sequence is when you have a jump, maybe some half turn or something and then another one...? (techies correct me if I flubbed)
    I know the difference between a combo and a sequence, but thank you. My question is about the efficacy of this rule.

    Does a sequence take up one of your multy-jump passes? I had thought it did. If so, it is just an aesthetic change, not a concrete one. Does anyone know the answer to this question?

  15. #15
    Go NJ Devils
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    2,700
    Quote Originally Posted by Theatregirl1122
    Does a sequence take up one of your multy-jump passes?
    Yes.

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •