Bonus for innovative elements
Yesterday I read again the rules for COP and I noticed something, that before I didn't pay attention. The rule states that a bonus of 2.0 points should be given, if a skater executes an innovative or rare element. My question is, was this bonus ever given in these two years of COP? If yes, for which element?
I doubt it has been used - what is there to innovate? CoP is so prescriptive that you have execute the big multi-rotational jumps in order to fill your jumping passes and not lose points to your competitors. Spins - the same - the number is limited and you have to yank your leg over your head while changing edges again - there is no room for innovation. Having had to fill your program with teh mandatory 8 (or 7 for the ladies) jumping passes including three combos one of which (for poitns purposes) really should be a three jump combination, the four requried spins AND the two required footwork sequences....there's not much room left for innovative moves if you have to fill the rest with transitions and choreography and show some interpretation of the music.Originally Posted by gio
Ant
[CENTER]Moves I do not see as Innovative[/CENTER]
Another contorted position in a sitsspin
Another air turn in a some jump
Another acrobatic lift in Pairs
Joe
Ummm....it has ALWAYS been required to do that number of spins and step sequences in a program. The same number of jumping passes was pretty much required in the past as well. Ladies have always done at least 7 (except in the cases of Tara and Sarah at the Olympics, where they only did 6 because of completing two 3-3 combinations and not feeling they needed an additional 2Axle) and the Men have generally done at least 8.
If anything the new system has limited the amount of jumping a skater can do. I remember plenty of programs from the 80's that had 10+ jumping passes. Scott Hamilton's program at the 1983 Worlds (it's on Youtube) had 12 jumping passes. Skaters actually used to do a LOT of random double jumps and single axles before the 90's. In recent years before the CoP, people who messed up on a jump pass would often throw another one in at the end of their programs. You can't do that anymore...the new system forces skaters to NOT leave out choreorgraphy in place of an extra jump.
That's very true.
But the limit on jump passes also means that there's incentive to fill all of the allowed ones and to fill them with jumps that will earn the highest points possible (for that skater), so there's little incentive to do, say, a delayed single axel or split flip which would count as a single jump and even with +2 GOE not be worth as much as a decent double.
Plus the 0.8 multiplier for jump sequences limits the creativity that could be used in connecting jumps together. Better just to do a straight combination and get the full point value.
It would be easy enough to rewrite these rules to encourage more creativity in jump layout.
But that still wouldn't affect the innovative element bonus. It would have been more useful when the sport was younger and there were more new moves still to be invented. At this point it's hard to think of something totally new that no one has ever done before -- at best, just new variations on existing moves.
I can think of some things I've heard of or seen that were rare and notable 20 or 30 years or more ago that few if any skaters have done since. E.g., forward outside one-revolution jump (forward loop or half axel) landed on the forward outside edge without toe assist. Would the skater get credited with the bonus if s/he revived something like this?
Last year I saw a senior skater attempting a spin that changed rotational direction on the same foot, not at a change of foot. It wasn't done well and would drag down the GOE of the spin as a whole, so by the time I saw that skater compete, that move was out of the program. I don't think I'd ever seen that before or since, so maybe it would be worth the bonus.
I would predict that if the bonus does ever get used in the foreseeable future it will be for a new kind of pair move.
Otherwise, the best we can hope is that judges will be encouraged to reward new variations and combinations of existing elements in the choreography component. And that skaters will add variations to their spin or spiral positions, air position or landings of jumps, body positions during steps, etc., that add to a program theme even if they don't necessarily count as a feature for higher levels, and that those kinds of creativity will also add to the choreography component, and to the GOEs where appropriate.
!!!!! This skater should not only get a figure skating bonus but a mention in the physics books as well, in the section on "how to violate the law of conservation of angular momentum."
It was rotate, check out and change edge, rotate. Like the old paragraph loop figures, but much more compact.
Another analogy would be the twizzles in both directions on one foot that many of the dancers do in their side-by-side twizzles or OD step sequences. Again, the spin version covered less ice.
Last edited by gkelly; 11-03-2006 at 03:33 PM.
Name one competitive performance in the entire 10 years time before CoP was introduced that used a delayed single axle. Figure skating as progressed beyond such a basic move.
The point deduction on sequences is entirely valid, imo. It's much easier to do a Triple-Triple sequence than it is a Triple-Triple combination. However, I think the deduction should only be applied to the jumps that come after the first one in the sequence (at a .7 multipler). If someone is attempting a 3Lutz/2Toe and accidently has to take a step before the 2Toe, their Lutz shouldn't be downgraded...only the 2Toe.
I do also believe that something like a 3Toe/Half Loop/3Salchow should count as a 2-jump combination. Using a half loop as a connective jump for a combination should be entirely valid. As long as the skater is not taking any steps inbetween the jumps, it IS a combination.
John Baldwin Jr., long program at 1995 US Nationals. Not the big open vertical open axel a la Robin Cousins, but more a kind of stag position in the air, one leg almost parallel to the ice and the other bent.
Of course it is. The point is, that the second jump in a sequence OR a combination is more difficult than it would be if performed solo, and also a double-triple combo or sequence is more difficult than triple-double.The point deduction on sequences is entirely valid, imo. It's much easier to do a Triple-Triple sequence than it is a Triple-Triple combination.
I assume the reasoning for not giving extra credit for jumps performed in combination is because doing combinations allows the skater to include more jumps in total in the same number of jumping passes. You already get an advantage on jump content for doing more jumps (e.g., if you do three jump combinations, one of them with three jumps, vs. doing only one two-jump combo), so let's not give an additional bonus for the fact that they're in combination.
But that reasoning tends to encourage skaters to do the safest jump combinations they can pull off, and to avoid jump sequences unless they can't do combos ending with triples and want to fit in the full number of allowed triples within the limited number of jump elements allowed (particularly for the ladies who only get 7 jump passes).
It would make more sense to give a small bonus to the second (or third) jump in jump sequence and a larger bonus to the second or third in a true combination. Or at least full credit for sequences and a bonus for true combos.
If the skater accidentally has to take a step out of the landing of the 3lutz, that's a mistake on the landing of the 3lutz and should be reflected with a negative grade of execution for the lutz (if the 2toe never happens or happens only after too many steps for the two jumps to count even as a sequence). So call that a sequence, worth less than a combination, or if there are too many intervening steps call it a two separate jump passes.However, I think the deduction should only be applied to the jumps that come after the first one in the sequence (at a .7 multipler). If someone is attempting a 3Lutz/2Toe and accidently has to take a step before the 2Toe, their Lutz shouldn't be downgraded...only the 2Toe.
But if the skater *chooses* to do, for example, a controlled 3lutz, falling leaf, 2toe sequence (as Michelle Kwan used to do ca. 1993-94), the 2toe should still be worth more than a 2toe in isolation (quality and resultant GOE aside).
Also, what if the skater does 2axel, falling leaf, 3toe? Why downgrade the 3toe when it's the hardest jump in the sequence and obviously more difficult than a 3toe in isolation?
I do also believe that something like a 3Toe/Half Loop/3Salchow should count as a 2-jump combination. Using a half loop as a connective jump for a combination should be entirely valid. As long as the skater is not taking any steps inbetween the jumps, it IS a combination.[/QUOTE]
Yes, another way to encourage combinations or sequences of half loop-salchow or half loop-flip (whatever you want to call them, I agree it's a semantic quibble which word is more applicable in that case, and whatever the number of revolutions in the salchow or flip) would be to classify them the same as loop and toe loop combinations, ignore the half loop for scoring purposes, and give both jumps full credit.
That would match my experience of doing both kinds of combinations with single jumps, but I'll defer to those who do doubles and triples whether the half loop does indeed reduce the difficulty. Certainly it reduces it less than a falling leaf or mazurka or other half jump combined with a turn and/or step before the second jump.
Again, if we call these combinations with the same value as straight toe loop and loop combinations, or if we call them sequences worth slightly less than combinations, the value of the final jump should not be reduced compared to what it would be worth in isolation.
If the half loop were obviously thrown in as a mistake with a 2salchow added to cover it up, that should be evident enough to be covered by a reduction in GOE compared to an obviously planned and well-controlled half loop-2sal.
This rule might be in place in case someone lands a quad loop or something like that. That sure would be "rare" and even unique. (It says innovative or rare, so being rare should be enough.) In fact, when a woman lands a quad of any kind or a combo with 3A it can IMO be considered rare. Each has been executed only once in senior competitions. (Ando did the quad once. Asada did a 3A-1T combo.)
I thought both Ito and harding had done the 3A in combination at least once in competition?
Tonya did a 3a 2t combo. Ito was first lady to land 3a in comp, Olys and pros.as for Ito combos???
Do they give extra points in Junior competiton? I watched a video of Caroline Zhang and she did a spin I had never seen before. It looked almost like a backwards biellmann. I don't know how she did it!!
Could you imagine some one doing an upside down biellman; bringing the head down to the free leg instead of bringing the free leg up above the head.
Based on examples presented here, it seems like this feature hasn't been implemented when it should have. When I/B land their 3A, is that not rare? They should get two extra points for that.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks