What if the "flutz" and "lip" jumps were ratified?

[Mathman]

I have a question that pertains to all this. In the case of skaters who cannot really do a triple Lutz at all, but who instead flutz badly on every attempt -- can such skaters usually do a double Lutz correctly?

[Joesitz]

I don't get this. Or at least I think that I don't get this.

So why reinvent a new jump - why not just call the Flutz a Flip and the Lip a Lutz and therefore force the skater to either learn a real Lutz / Flip - or reduce their number of possible Triple jumps because of the Zayak-rule. A woman could still do 6 Triples, if she can do all the other usual Triples. If Asada relearnt her Salchow and couldn't correct her Flutz - she still would have a 7-Triple program.

By the way, I am against the "!" - the "e" is alright, because the judges have to take off points. But a "!" basically tells the judges: take GOE off if you don't like the skater, don't take GOE off if you do like the skater.

Good points. I would call a flutz a flip and a lip a lutz. Problem with that is the Zayak Rule, and the poor senior skaters, yes seniors, that do not do a proper lutz or flip will screw up their jump passes.

I was thinking, they could take away the names of the lutz and flip and call them ToeOff I and ToeOff II . Doesn't matter how they take off. All jumps turn in the same direction. It's the air rotations and the landings that matter. There would be no intererence with Zayak and no need for 'e'. Btw, what is the 'I'? That little notation flew by me.

[gkelly]

I have a question that pertains to all this. In the case of skaters who cannot really do a triple Lutz at all, but who instead flutz badly on every attempt -- can such skaters usually do a double Lutz correctly?

Well, it's not that common for skaters who can consistently land triple flutzes to show us their double (f)lutzes on purpose. The best bet is looking a little earlier in their careers, before the triples were quite ready.

Here are a few examples I could find. See what you think.

Preston's triples may not always have been flutzes, but at least sometimes they were:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyESOAmaKkY @1:04

Earlier in her career, double lutz combination at 3:37
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_naiwRyPnY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mI--bSAViTk
First jump combination is double lutz-triple toe

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYary0GW4ME
Double lutz @ 2:40

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjvFdh84v4g
Double lutz @1:07

[Mathman]

I was thinking, they could take away the names of the lutz and flip and call them ToeOff I and ToeOff II . Doesn't matter how they take off. All jumps turn in the same direction. It's the air rotations and the landings that matter. There would be no intererence with Zayak and no need for 'e'.

That is exactly the proposal of the Coaches' Committee.

Btw, what is the 'I'? That little notation flew by me.

I think this new designation '!' means a slight flutz or lip, while an 'e' means a severe one. This is a new rule refinement for the 2008-09 season.

The difference in scoring is that if the tech panel gives an 'e', then the judges must give at least a -1 GOE no matter how good the other features of the jump are.

If you get a !, then the judges can use their discretion about how to balance the slight wrong edge with other factors in giving an overall GOE.

[Joesitz]

^^^

OK - We must save embarassment to the Seniors. Oh those beautiful air turns and those beautiful landings, even if it may technically be another jump. Good and complete air turns and perfect landings are what the base score is all about. Isn't it? That's what they should be!! and no additional +s for them. Let the +s go to something special and not to the correct definition which is already covered in the base values.

As for the 'I', I can't go along with evaluating a mistake.

[gkelly]

^^^

OK - We must save embarassment to the Seniors.

The same rules apply to juveniles too. Except they're doing doubles instead of triples. And all levels in between.

As for the 'I', I can't go along with evaluating a mistake.

Then skating isn't the sport for you, because the judging is all about evaluation. And the skaters make a lot of mistakes.
You might prefer to stick to watching exhibitions.

And the ! notation is an exclamation point.

[Mathman]

Here are a few examples I could find. See what you think.

Thanks for these clips. Here's what I think -- I am in awe at how quick a person's eyes have to be to serve as a figure skating judge or (especially) a technical specialist.

For Karen Preston , I thought the first one, though really quick, was definitely a slight flutz at the last minute. I could easily forgive a spectator who missed it. In the second clip, I couldn't tell.

For Nicole Bobek , the first clip showed a definite flutz (more obvious than Preston's). The second clip, I couldn't tell.

For Tara , it wasn't so much that she switched over at the end of the approach, but rather the whole jump was done on the flat. I thought her technique was the worst of the three (she was very young at the time, of course).

I guess my question was, which is the more common scenario: (a) The skater never learns how to do an outside edge take-off at all, and her coach just rushes her up through all the triples as fast as possible regardless. Or (b) The skater learns the single and double Lutz properly, but when it comes time to crank out that last revolution, something has to give -- and that something is the quality of the take-off edge.

These clips seem more like (a).

[gkelly]

I guess my question was, which is the more common scenario: (a) The skater never learns how to do an outside edge take-off at all, and her coach just rushes her up through all the triples as fast as possible regardless. Or (b) The skater learns the single and double Lutz properly, but when it comes time to crank out that last revolution, something has to give -- and that something is the quality of the take-off edge.

These clips seem more like (a).

I think (a) is true, but in the cases of Bobek and Lipinski I understand the impetus for rushing came from the skaters rather than from their coaches.

[Mathman]

I think (a) is true, but in the cases of Bobek and Lipinski I understand the impetus for rushing came from the skaters rather than from their coaches.

Interesting. Bobek's and Lipinski's coaches weren't exactly pushovers (Carlo Fassi and Richard Callaghan.)

This makes me think that the ISU really does need to look at this issue. Are skaters and coaches just routinely blowing off the Lutz jump in training, expecting to get by by faking it?

[mskater93]

Fassi wasn't always Bobek's coach. She was on the coaching carousel for a while, so he may have inherited that.

The "!" designation is for more a flat than a change of edge before the take off and whether a "!" is called over an "e" at any level is the discretion of the tech panel. I was at a competition two weeks ago where one panel was particularly harsh on edge calls (even at the Intermediate and Novice levels) and even some skaters who have never had an "e" call got one for jumps that should probably have gotten a "!". The panel was CONSISTENT in their application of both designations, so it wasn't a case where they were after certain skaters, just trying to provide areas for improvement.

[gkelly]

Interesting. Bobek's and Lipinski's coaches weren't exactly pushovers (Carlo Fassi and Richard Callaghan.)

It may have been when Bobek was between coaches, but I'd heard she taught herself the double lutz by watching more advanced skaters.

I had also heard that a big part of the reason that Lipinski and Jeff DiGregorio parted ways after 1996 Jr. Worlds (i.e., almost a year after the clip shown above) was because she wanted to put the triple lutz in her program and he didn't want her to.

That's what I was referring to.

[Mathman]

Compared to all the other decisions that go into scoring a figure skating program, deciding whether a jump was a correct lutz, correct flip, intended lutz left the ice from an inside edge, or intended flip left the ice from an outside edge is minuscule. It's almost never going to be the primary deciding factor....

And all the other decisions by the technical panel and the judges (the referee in figure skating does not make any decisions that factor into scoring -- I think you used that word to mean "technical specialist") are still going to be arguable. If you flatten out the difference between lutz and flip and remove that as a point of discriminating between skaters, then some other arguable decision or combination of many on the part of both panels -- number of revolutions in jumps, levels of elements, whether an element failed to meet the definition of an allowable to fill an available element slot, whether to reward or penalize the quality of an element with both good and bad points with positive or negative GOE or just 0s, how to score the various program component criteria, etc. -- will end up being the deciding factor(s). And anyone who disagrees with the final result will find plenty of individual decisions to argue against...

Another utterly convincing post. Everything you said is the exact truth and I cannot find a single point to argue about.

And yet … try as I might, I am not able to shake off the feeling that the CoP is ignoring the forest for the trees. I feel that the sport is contracting inward instead of reaching out; that is compromising the immediacy of the connection between the performer and the audience.

I was watching Olympic gymnastics just now. It used to be like this. A 9.8 meant really good and a 9.9 meant really, really good. If the judges – those scalawags and scoundrels – gave my favorite a 9.7, I could throw a sofa pillow at the TV because anyone with common sense can see that she was not just good (9.7) but really good (9.8).

Under the new scoring system the score comes up and she got a 13.56 for that routine, folks. Yes, the commentator can tell me whether 13.56 is really good or really really good. But that’s not the point. She got a 13.56 not because she was good or really good, but (as we find out the next day by looking at the protocols) because she got 2.93 points for doing a triple whatzit with a reverse whozit but she lost 0.87 points for flummoxing her pterodactyl, and when the computer added it all up it came to 13.56.

To quote Tom Hanks in Big: What’s the fun of that?

[Joesitz]

[B]MY LAST WORDS ON THIS ]( but you'ver heard all this before)

If one checks out the descriptions of the authorized Jumps in Figure Skating, one will find that:

1. All the Jumps rotate in the same direction (unless a skater performs the same jump to his opposite side as well.)

2. All the jumps land on a back outside edge (unless they are performing the few jumps which skaters do not do at the triple rotation level)

3. What remains, is that ALL JUMPS, from their descriptions differ because of the defined take-offs.

It seems to me that if the take-off on a jump is not correct, then the jump didn't materialize.

Yes, the directions of the air rotations for a Triple Flip are the same for a Triple Salchow and the back outside landings are the same, and the take-off inside edges are the same, too. But to rock over to a back outside edge while taking-off, is not in conformity with the description of the jump. It's absolutely wrong jump. It goes against the Name of the Jump!! No point in evaluating something that was not correct to begin with.

Personally, I see no harm for skaters leaving out a Flip or Lutz from their routines if they can not perform the jumps. There are plenty of ways to increase their points in CoP. It's a sport and harshness is applying the rules.

[gkelly]

If one checks out the descriptions of the authorized Jumps in Figure Skating, one will find that:

1. All the Jumps rotate in the same direction (unless a skater performs the same jump to his opposite side as well.)

This is not true. There is currently no requirement for skaters to rotate all their jumps in the same direction. There is also no official reward for doing jumps in opposite direction, with or without any requirement to do the same jump in both directions.

Sonja Henie used to rotate her lutzes clockwise and her axels (which would have been downgraded and therefore not count even as singles) counterclockwise. If a skater were to do the same today, without sufficient revolutions to be counted as singles or better, they would get full credit for both jumps but no reward in the technical score. Judges might find a way to reward it the program components if they noticed and were suitably impressed.

2. All the jumps land on a back outside edge (unless they are performing the few jumps which skaters do not do at the triple rotation level)

This is also not true.

Here's the latest version of the "First Aid for Technical Controllers and Technical Specialists":
http://www.usfigureskating.org/conte...%202008-09.pdf

Look under Jumps-Clarifications. The last entry is "Landing on another foot," which states that "All jumps may be landed on either foot" and "The call goes for the jump, independent of the landing foot. Judges will reflect this in the GOE if necessary."

If you intentionally land a counterclockwise jump on the left foot, it will be on a left back inside edge. Similarly for a clockwise jump landed on the right foot.

It's perfectly legal to do this on purpose and be rewarded if you do it well.

It is rare, but I have seen skaters under the new system do one-foot axel or one-foot double salchow, landing on the left back inside edge, in combination with a regular double salchow immediately following. The combinations are just called as 1A+2S or 2S+2S.

A one-foot axel or any other jump intentionally landing on the back inside edge of the other foot performed as a solo jump would just be called as 1A or whatever jump it was.

It's also a not uncommon error to land a jump on the back inside edge of the wrong foot and immediately change feet to recover from the error, or to land on the back inside edge of the usual landing foot and immediately change edge to back outside if any flow can be salvaged out of the landing. These would be penalized in the GOE as errors.

[Mathman]

This is not true. There is currently no requirement for skaters to rotate all their jumps in the same direction.

I don't think Joe is saying that you must rotate one way or the other, but rather that one jump cannot be distinguished from another by the rotation in the air. Or, for that matter, by the landing foot or landing edge.

If this is correct, then the only way to tell whether the jump you just did is a Lutz, a flip, or a toe-loop, is the take-off edge.