Let's form an EXACT consensus on what a "cheated" jump is

Kurt did that on ice explanation - spray painting the ice. Seemed that the landing cheat allowance was based on the take of blade position. And the GoE was based on the take of blade pre-rotation and exit???? So "it seemed" that even if there was some pre-rotation they compared that to the landing angle of the blade, not the angle it "should have" been - that is marked in GoE - but the actual angle it was on take of (pre-rotated or not) designated the landing angle?

I also wonder if the "pre" is counted as the point where the WHOLE blade leaves the ice, or the point when it starts lifting off the ice - just the edge has left? Like the TP could still be touching, but the rest of the blade - including the edge of course - has left the ice, if that would be the point where it counts? It is an edge jump (Axel) so once the edge is no longer being used, just "tipping toward the toe" it starts counting as being in the air. I would be "inclined" to believe this, because the edge is not being used at that point. Where as the landing is touching with the toe, is the point where the skaters are feeling / using the ice again. ???? I am only thinking this to account for some of the pre-rotation I see but does not seem to effect the scoring.??? i.e. Evan's Axel - some of them anyway.:scratch:

Seanibu,

Not sure what your whole explanation means. But, I mean, come on. If *I* can pick up on such an incredibly blatant cheat as half a turn on the ice before takeoff, so should the judges. If you basically take off for a triple axel backwards, it's a 3-revolution jump, not 3 1/2. Therefore, it's not even an axel at that point, and should be severely downgraded, if not marked a zero (for doing a jump that basically doesn't exist). But, under no marking system will there be perfection because humans are still responsible for the scores, and will still show their bias.

Kasey said:

Seanibu,

Not sure what your whole explanation means.

Click to expand...

It was Kurt's explanation and the question that arose in my head form His. ???? The only thing I explained was my question.

Kasey said:

But, I mean, come on. If *I* can pick up on such an incredibly blatant cheat as half a turn on the ice before takeoff, so should the judges. If you basically take off for a triple axel backwards, it's a 3-revolution jump, not 3 1/2. Therefore, it's not even an axel at that point, and should be severely downgraded, if not marked a zero (for doing a jump that basically doesn't exist). But, under no marking system will there be perfection because humans are still responsible for the scores, and will still show their bias.

Click to expand...

Yah, I got that, - all of it - but is the landing angle of the blade based on the angle the blade "take off" was "supposed to be" OR than "it actually" was?

I see pre-rotations, but is it when the blade starts leaving, or when it has totally left. The toe tends to be the last thing to leave and there is some rotation (1/8th maybe) with the toe still on the ice sometimes, but the edge is off.
Which is when edge jumps start "counting" take off, Blue or Magenta?

So when do they say "that is the angle" we base the landing rotation on?
Blue is what they should have, Magenta is what they did. Is Blue what they base the cheat on, even if they did the orange?


What do they base the landing angle on, the actual take off angle, or what it "should have" been?

An Axel that was meant as a 3a but was landed forward after 3 rotations (1080 opposed to a 1260), I would think, would be downgraded to a 2a and scored as such - if they didn't do a face plant / eta, maybe even if they did, lol - under CoP. ????

With the dios I feel no one will answer because it is to specific, but at least some will know what the question is.

blue dog said:

don't you get credit now for a fully-rotated two footed triple?

if that's the case, then oksana won lillehammer without contest. she "landed' seven triples to six...but then again, she had an extra jumping pass, and cut out a spin...

Click to expand...

With lots of two footed run outs. She had the ability to two foot her landings and quickly move on, and with that waif smile. Clever cheats for the 6.0 system.

Nowadays they give partial credit for the fully rotated jumps regardless of how badly they land them. They also give partial credit for the rotations if there is a fall.

Joe

Joesitz said:

It seemed to me that Zuranthium was using Lysacek as an example of what he/she wanted to discuss but it came off as an opinion. of Lysacek.

Jow

Click to expand...

I have no opinion of Lysacek in relation to this thread.

I was simply using him as an example because he fit the criteria and I knew people had just seen him at the Nationals.

I DO strongly feel that underrotated jumps should have their own point values. Currently, underrotating a jump will result in a bigger penalty than if you nearly fell (-3 GOE) on the jump. That by itself is unfair but it becomes worse when people fall on underrotated Triples/Quads....like poor Miki Ando only getting .5 points for her Quad attempts. Additionally, if someone had a Quad Toe + 2 Triple Toes planned in their program, and the Quad is underrotated but landed just fine, it is now worth ZERO points.

I'm really into Math and fairness, you see. So it's only natural that I strive to see the Code of Points become the best that it can be.

~Z

I have formed an exact consensus with myself, that whenever I take off for my Salchow from a more acute angle (over-rotating before the jump) than right angles to the original line of travel, and/or land in any other position than in line or at least parallel to my original line of travel (under-rotating after the jump), I have cheated.
I am, however, at peace with my cheating, as long as I land on my blade, and not something else.....