The Failed Quad

While thinking of Miki's quad I got to think more about the judging of everyone's quad.

example: A skater attempts a quad and he falls on the quad. a) The Tech Spec calls the jump as having 4 air turns before the fall or b) he calls the jump incomplete 4 air tuns before the fall.

His score for a) is 9 less 1 one for penalty but how does the GoEs fit in? or do they?

His score for b) is 4 (downgraded) and then -1 for overrotation and then -1 penalty. for the fall.

How powerful the Tech Spec is!

It seems to me that the risk of making 4 air turns is just about worth taking. However, for me, in the esthetic sense, it looks more like sloppy skating being rewarded. Agree?

Joe

Yup.

IMHO - don't give any points to a failed jump, but don't count it as a jump either; this way, skater may attempt the jump later in the program.

The Quad is called as a "quad + fall"... and a quad can be repeated 2X in a Long program. There would be a GOE -3 for the technical execution of the element + -1 point from the total.

In the CPC system we must allow opportunity to push the sport to a higher level of performance and not simply promote beautiful skating, otherwise the sport may come to a halt in its development.

Joesitz said:

His score for b) is 4 (downgraded) and then -1 for overrotation and then -1 penalty for the fall.

Click to expand...

That -1 for overrotation is the only part that I am still confused about.

The judge sees a quad. He is just about to enter his GOE mark for the quad. Is it -1 / -2 for a slight underrotation, or do other (positive) factors mitigate the penalty, in the judge's opinion?

Then the tech specialist hollars out "TRIPLE TOE!" Does the judge then take back his mark and say, oops, I thought it was an underrotated quad, but now I will mark it as an overrotatied triple?

Or does the judge mark what he sees and leave it up to the computer to sort it all out?

PS. No, wait a minute, I said that wrong. What I was asking about was the case of a downgraded quad without a fall.

If it is downgraded and there was a fall, too, then you get nothing: 4.0 base value, -3.00 GOE (mandatory), -1 penalty for the fall = a total of 0 for the element.

Is that right?

Then you can try it again later in the program, but it is scored as a sequence with no second jump, so you only get 80% of the base value, (80% of either 9.0 points or 4.0 points, depending on whether the second attempt was downgraded, too.) Is that it?

(PPS. In this post I am trying to get straight in my mind what the rules say. I am not offering an opinion as to what I think the rules ought to be.)

Coach said:

The Quad is called as a "quad + fall"... and a quad can be repeated 2X in a Long program. There would be a GOE -3 for the technical execution of the element + -1 point from the total.

In the CPC system we must allow opportunity to push the sport to a higher level of performance and not simply promote beautiful skating, otherwise the sport may come to a halt in its development.

Click to expand...

It seems you are expessing more air turns as a means of pushing the sport to a higher level, yet you more than likely agree to eliminate the multiple air turns of the Walley or the multiple air turns of inside axels.

Your observation does push the sport to a higher level but so does adding one or two more barrels for barrel jumping. JMO.

Joe

Mathman said:

That -1 for overrotation is the only part that I am still confused about.

The judge sees a quad. He is just about to enter his GOE mark for the quad. Is it -1 / -2 for a slight underrotation, or do other (positive) factors mitigate the penalty, in the judge's opinion?

Then the tech specialist hollars out "TRIPLE TOE!" Does the judge then take back his mark and say, oops, I thought it was an underrotated quad, but now I will mark it as an overrotatied triple?

Or does the judge mark what he sees and leave it up to the computer to sort it all out?

Click to expand...

Good questions. And there is no answer. What did the skater do? He underrotated a jump which then became an overrotated jump. It seems to me he did neither a quad nor a triple. Ah yes, the attempt was there. hmmmm.but the attempt was for the quad not for the triple.

Joe

I disagree with the penalty for over rotation. Not by itself. If you do a triple toe and over rotate it, that's bad technique (I would assume) and so you should be penalized. However, if you under rotate a quad toe, that's what it is. It's not an over rotated anything, it's an under rotated quad toe. So if the ISU wants to call that as a triple toe, that's fine. But it is a 5 point penalty already. Why on earth would you take more points off on top of it? This makes the penalty for under rotating an otherwise clean jump 6+ points whereas the penalty for a fall is only 4 points. That seems counterintuitive to me.

Joesitz said:

While thinking of Miki's quad I got to think more about the judging of everyone's quad.

example: A skater attempts a quad and he falls on the quad. a) The Tech Spec calls the jump as having 4 air turns before the fall or b) he calls the jump incomplete 4 air tuns before the fall.

His score for a) is 9 less 1 one for penalty but how does the GoEs fit in? or do they?

His score for b) is 4 (downgraded) and then -1 for overrotation and then -1 penalty. for the fall.

How powerful the Tech Spec is!

It seems to me that the risk of making 4 air turns is just about worth taking. However, for me, in the esthetic sense, it looks more like sloppy skating being rewarded. Agree?

Joe

Click to expand...

Interesting observation. However, that is how it has always been in figure skating. At one time it was the triple axle. Any skater who made the attempt and did not land it perfectly got higher marks. It is always about some risk taking. That is what adds to the drama on the ice.