Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 109

Thread: ISU rule changes

  1. #91
    Wicked Yankee Girl dorispulaski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Staring at the ocean and smiling.
    Posts
    16,812
    Joe, it's happened already. Read my original post on the pairs rule changes for this season. I am quite annoyed on behalf of the PetTikhs. After all, they are the ones who skated best at Worlds, by a country mile. Piseev should be politicking for them!.

  2. #92
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,929
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckm
    Isn't it interesting that the rule giving so many extra points for Biellmanns came along when Irina was firmly back in the picture. The rule changes for Singles skating upgraded the point values for many of the skills Irina had always had, just in time for 2005 Worlds and the 2006 Olympics.
    What changes took place just in time for 2005 Worlds or 2006 Olympics to favor Slutskaya? As far as I'm aware, nothing changed between the 2003-04 COP rules (which were in effect during a season when she was virtually absent) and 2004-05. She used the existing rules to her advantage, and some changes or clarifications were made afterward to make it harder for the same elements to score as high (or at all, in the case of her 2loop after the third 3loop in Moscow).

  3. #93
    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.

  4. #94
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    7,646
    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly
    What changes took place just in time for 2005 Worlds or 2006 Olympics to favor Slutskaya? As far as I'm aware, nothing changed between the 2003-04 COP rules (which were in effect during a season when she was virtually absent) and 2004-05. She used the existing rules to her advantage, and some changes or clarifications were made afterward to make it harder for the same elements to score as high (or at all, in the case of her 2loop after the third 3loop in Moscow).
    The rules surrounding the spiral sequence and spins were changed, going into detail as to what constituted a level 3 and level 4. Before that, level 3 was as high as you could go. The Biellmann of course, was given a level 4.

  5. #95
    Wicked Yankee Girl dorispulaski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Staring at the ocean and smiling.
    Posts
    16,812
    Thank you, 76olympicsfan! :blush:

  6. #96
    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!

  7. #97
    Go NJ Devils
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    2,700
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckm
    The rules surrounding the spiral sequence and spins were changed, going into detail as to what constituted a level 3 and level 4. Before that, level 3 was as high as you could go. The Biellmann of course, was given a level 4.
    If I remember correctly -- I recycled the original GOE chart -- the value for the original level 3 was transferred to the new level 4, and new level 3 was added between the old level 2 and old level 3 scores. The rationale was that it was too difficult to get from level 2 to level 3, and the level 3's weren't being called.

    Since they were called more for the skaters with reputation, this change actually helped the skaters without, because they could get new level 3, when the year before, they could never get beyond old level 2.

    In addition, two rules were created for the 2006 season that would have resulted in downgrades for Slutskaya in 2005: as gkelly wrote above, in 2005-6, where there is a Zayak rule violation in combination, the entire combination receives 0 points, while in Moscow, Slutskaya's Zayak rule violation in the 3Lo/2Lo combination earned her points for the 2Lo; the second was that the Bielmann would not count in the upright spin unless a minimum number of revolutions had been performed in other positions.

  8. #98
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,326
    Do these revised rules for singles skaters mean that each position in a spiral sequence no longer has to be held for at least 3 seconds?

  9. #99
    Go NJ Devils
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    2,700
    Quote Originally Posted by jenaj
    Do these revised rules for singles skaters mean that each position in a spiral sequence no longer has to be held for at least 3 seconds?
    No. The changes are:

    1. Change of edge and change of position/direction don't count as separate elements towards leveling unless the positions before and after the change are each held for 3 seconds.

    2. At least one position must be unassisted.

  10. #100
    Wicked Yankee Girl dorispulaski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Staring at the ocean and smiling.
    Posts
    16,812
    I started a new thread with small video clips of twists to start a discussion of the new pairs' twist rules, for those who might be interested.

  11. #101
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,356
    Quote Originally Posted by DORISPULASKI
    I started a new thread with small video clips of twists to start a discussion of the new pairs' twist rules, for those who might be interested.
    Where is the thread?

    As far as I heard, they started talking about the rules change to restrict overall Bielmman positions in one program right after the Olympics. And to think of the news were coming from Russia.

    It was suspeciouse that in old spec(and I might say the one had been modified from the initial/first CoP spec) has to put up Bielmman position explicitly for one critirial as to raise the level.

  12. #102
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,929
    [QUOTE=mzheng]
    It was suspeciouse that in old spec(and I might say the one had been modified from the initial/first CoP spec) has to put up Bielmman position explicitly for one critirial as to raise the level.
    I'm not sure what you found suspicious.

    2003-04
    http://www.isu.org/vsite/vfile/page/...-0-file,00.pdf
    In the original definitions of levels, ISU communication 1224 (dated August 5, 2003), there were at that time three possible levels for all elements, and the Biellmann was listed under Layback spins as a feature for level 3 but not for level 2.

    2004-05
    http://www.isu.org/vsite/vfile/page/...-0-file,00.pdf
    Communication 1263, dated June 20, 2004, adds the increase of speed criterion for both levels 2 and 3, but Biellmann is still only listed for level 3 under laybacks. (Increase of speed is also mentioned as an example of a difficult variation for camel and sitspins but is not specifically listed under the level charts except for laybacks.)

    Also, there is a clarification under the difficult spin variation examples that Biellmann is considered a variation of an upright, not a camel, spin. (I.e., going from another upright variation, such as layback, to a Biellmann position does not make the spin into a combination spin, unless of course there are other camel or sit variations included, but going from camel to Biellmann does make it a combination -- this is necessary for determining what kind of spin is being performed but doesn't by itself affect the levels.)

    For spirals, several examples of difficult variations are given:
    Twisting the upper body affecting the main body core and balance, bending or pulling the upper body towards the skating leg, moving
    free leg from behind to the side of the body while maintaining free leg height, obtaining the Bielmann position.
    For spins, the examples given are:
    *sit spin (broken leg) – changing the weight distribution by bending the leg to the side or behind the main body core.
    *camel spin with the upper body turned upwards app 180% (upside down position)
    *camel spin – body arched where head and free foot are almost touching (doughnut spin)
    *upright spin – where from the hips to the skating foot it is straight and the upper body is bent down towards to ice.
    2005-06
    http://www.isu.org/vsite/vfile/page/...-0-file,00.pdf
    Communication 1319, May 23, 2005, marks the introduction of four levels for singles/pairs elements. The assignment of levels is simplified by just listing the number of features required to achieve a certain level for a certain type of element, and separately listing the possible features. Thus the Biellmann becomes available as a layback feature for the new levels 2 and 3 in addition to level 4 (which is pretty much equivalent to old level 3).

    Among many other clarifications and rule changes, there is a note that, for the ladies' short program required layback element:
    The position of a “Biellmann Spin” can only be taken and considered as a feature to increase the Level after having successfully rotated these required 8 revolutions in the layback-position (backward or sideways).
    Under the level definitions, the Biellmann listing notes
    Bielmann position after 8 revolutions in layback spin (SP only)
    In other words, in the ladies' short program only, the Biellmann will no longer count as a feature unless at least 8 revolutions of layback and/or sideways leaning have already been performed. In the long program or in combination spins, it just counts as a difficult variation same as any other difficult variation, with the same number of required revolutions in position as any other variation.

    2006-07
    http://www.isu.org/vsite/vfile/page/...-0-file,00.pdf
    In communication 1384, April 20, 2006, the level descriptions are simplified so that all level 2 elements must have 2 features, 3 for level 3, and 4 for level 4.

    http://www.isu.org/vsite/vfile/page/...-0-file,00.pdf
    In communication 1396, July 12, 2006, the number of Biellmanns in a program are limited:

    Remark: Bielmann [sic] positions counts as a feature that can increase the Level only in one spin in the Short Program and in two spins in Free Skating. While doing that, the first spin(s) is (are) taken into account.
    Those are all the rule changes/clarifications about Biellmanns. Which of them is suspicious to you?

  13. #103
    Custom Title Joesitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    20,185
    I think the main questionable rule changes are the timing of such changes. In the words of Oliver Stone, 'who benefits' from these changes, and how much practice was involved with certain skaters (Pairs) before these rules came into being?

    It's definitely skepticism but then, so what? If one is brought up to accept the hierarchy, that is one thing; if one is brought up to question the hierarchy, that is another.

    Those who have full faith and trust in the authority, have nothing to worry about. It's people like Stapleford who took the risk. The punishment is severe if you don't believe.

    Joe

  14. #104
    Go NJ Devils
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    2,700
    The year after the Olympics are the traditional time for major changes to be made in the gymnastics world. I think the limitations that were made at the beginning of the Olympic season, particularly in pairs, were the ones I'd cast doubt on. I think the ISU should have waited until the current season to ban the same jump used in combination and the limitations on lifts.

  15. #105
    MY TVC 1 5 SeaniBu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Watching the Wheels
    Posts
    4,984
    OK, "dumb o' SeaniBu," but is it possible that some of these decisions are made to prevent "unfair advantages" as seen by the said rule changers. As a way to keep things more evenly matched per say - closer events? I see some of the skepticism and how it can look like it is clearly giving someone else an advantage with timing of instigation, but could it be that is the intent not to give advantages but it happens that way in the outcome for unseen reasons? Or it might have lessened the advantage and we see only the outcome?

Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 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
  •