A sliding scale for underrotations?

[Mathman]

The dreaded “<” seems to be completely dominating the outcome of competitions these days. The skater who gets away with underrotating wins. The skater who gets caught loses. Little else counts.

Fans post videos of jumps that 1000 people view over and over in slow motion and stop frame. 500 of the viewers say there is a clear underrotation and 500 are just as certain that there is not.

According to the rules of the ISU judging system, a jump with 2.74 revolutions gets the same base value as one with 1.76 revolutions. Both are “doubles.”

Quite a number of Golden Skaters (Joesitz, Blades of Passion and many others) have come up with suggestions about how to fix this.

1. Have a sliding scale of base values so that a legitimate triple attempt that comes up a little short will get more points than a double of the same type, but not as much as a fully rotated triple.

(By comparison, the "e" versus "!" is a sort of sliding scale for wrong edges.)

2. Take this out of the hands of the technical panel altogether. Have the judges spaced throughout the arena and let them judge the jump they see. Underrotation is a fault like many others to be taken into account in the GOEs.

What do you think?

[Bennett]

both sound nice!

[rallycairn]

MM, my only familiarity with the term "sliding scale" is with monetary matters, where it refers to different fees for different patrons, based on their ability to pay, such that those with lower incomes pay less for the same services.

It's boggling my mind to think of adding even more variable standards to the scoring system!

[Mathman]

Well, with both suggestions together the idea is that the judges could give -1 GOE to a moderately underrotated jump (say the present 0 to 90 degrees, everything else being equal), -2 to a worse one, and -3 to a terrible one. So a severely underrotated triple toe, for instance, would wind up with only 1.0 point.

This would not make the penalty for underrotation less severe necessarily, but it would take away the either-or aspect of the tech specialist's call.

The motivation for making the change, IMHO, would be this. When paying custormers go to a sporting event, they expect to see the team that performed the best end up the winner.

What they don't want to see is one skater skate well and lose, and another skater skate badly and win. Then afterward there is an announcement that because of some invisible fault, the first skater's points were taken off the board.

You don't like it? Well, the tech specialist knows a lot about skating and you don't, so too bad for you, like it or lump it. I guess I have to lump it. But I don't have to come back next time.

[rallycairn]

Well, with both suggestions together the idea is that the judges could give -1 GOE to a moderately underrotated jump (say the present 0 to 90 degrees, everything else being equal), -2 to a worse one, and -3 to a terrible one. So a severely underrotated triple toe, for instance, would wind up with only 1.0 point.

This would not make the penalty for underrotation less severe necessarily, but it would take away the either-or aspect of the tech specialist's call.

The motivation for making the change, IMHO, would be this. When paying custormers go to a sporting event, they expect to see the team that performed the best end up the winner.

What they don't want to see is one skater skate well and lose, and another skater skate badly and win. Then afterward there is an announcement that because of some invisible fault, the first skater's points were taken off the board.

You don't like it? Well, the tech specialist knows a lot about skating and you don't, so too bad for you, like it or lump it. I guess I have to lump it. But I don't have to come back next time.

This sounds like one good way to handle the UR vs. fall question. I do think a slightly underrotated triple jump probably has a good deal more rotation than an intended double jump -- obviously, the double could tend toward a single and be much less rotated than the underrotated triple, for example -- and I'd prefer to see more credit given to an almost-rotated jump than is currently given. Especially relative to a fall. So what if you get the right number of turns if you fall on your butt, or have to put a hand down to save yourself? To me, staying upright is part of the very definition of a properly-executed jump.

So, any system that gives at least partial credit to the just URed jump sounds great to me -- give more demarcations on the scale, as MM suggested, rather than so much either/or.

I'd also add more severe penalties for a fall, but that's just me.

And your rationale is spot on -- we can't keep having to-the-eye clean skates with reasonable levels of difficulty losing to skates with bobbles, stumbles, and falls. Casual fans are almost certainly turned off by apparently unexplainable results and the need to "check protocols" to see why the placings are what they are. Many rabid fans are turned off, too.

[enlight78]

it sounds like the protest to me is more against the fact that UR "clean" programs are loosing to programs with obvious mistakes. But hypothetically speaking would you want a 7UR triple program beating a 7 (4 hand down-3 step out program.) Even though to the audience the 7UR look bautiful; what about the skater that actually did triples. To ask the system to do this would be akin to seeing an athlete win a race, then found out he starting before the gun went off. The audience saw him crossed the line first he should be the winner. I think the punishment has to be harsh. Or the cheated jumps will become the new quad/fall.

[Tonichelle]

but if they fall, step out, or put a hand down they haven't completed a clean triple either... I think a flawed jump is a flawed jump, whether it's a barely there landing, or pre or post rotated jump.

[bekalc]

Underrotated jumps make the program not "clean" even if it looks clean to the naked eye. A sliding scale would be like rewarding people for bad technique.

I can be for the idea of saying a fall gets no points though.

[Mathman]

What is the rationale for giving full credit (as is presently the case) to a jump the is pre-rotated almost half a turn and underrotaed almost a quarter turn. Isn't this "rewarding people for bad technique."

I think that this should be a -1 or a -2, not a free ride as is currently the case.

What I find most objectionable with the present system is that two jumps can be absolutely identicle, both to the naked eye and as shown in slo-motion video replays, yet one gets downgraded and loses about four points, while the other doesn't and the skater gets a free pass to the podium.

In this case i think it would be much better if the judges had the option of saying, the first skater's jump was somewhat underrotated, I'll give it a -1 GOE. The second skater's jump, in my opinion, was maybe a little worse, so I'll give it a -2.

Another judge might think they were both about the same and give them both a -1.

I think this gives a more defensible measure of the difference between the two skaters' efforts.

[Tinymavy15]

i think the silding scale, and the judges spread out would both be good ideas. Another idea that I came up with would be to give the base vaule of the underroated jump, but take points off for execution.

[jp1andonly]

an UR is just that and thereby should be penalized. Coming up with ideas like this still won't make it easier on the general public to understand. As for the skaters...rotate your jumps or don't put them in...simple as that. Sorry if you are getting busted (yes, it does suck to think you have the jump and then realized you got dinged) its not helping you to be a better skater.

[Mafke]

But hypothetically speaking would you want a 7UR triple program beating a 7 (4 hand down-3 step out program.) Even though to the audience the 7UR look bautiful; what about the skater that actually did triples.

Yes, I do want a 7UR triple program to beat a stumblefest of completely rotated jumps. A hand down or step out is not "actually" a triple jump.

A skater who lands a slightly UR jump with nice flow out and speed is showing much better skating skills than the one who fully rotates a jump before falling on their *** or stepping out or wobbling around like a drunken bear.

JMO.

[Mafke]

I can be for the idea of saying a fall gets no points though.

Yeah, I'm all for eliminating deductions for falls and just giving 0 points for an element with a fall.

[Joesitz]

an UR is just that and thereby should be penalized. Coming up with ideas like this still won't make it easier on the general public to understand. As for the skaters...rotate your jumps or don't put them in...simple as that. Sorry if you are getting busted (yes, it does suck to think you have the jump and then realized you got dinged) its not helping you to be a better skater.

I think it will. The public (not us diehards) is already aware of scoring beyond their comprehension, but with the sliding scale, they don't have to question why a skater who skated clean gets lower scores than one who fell.

In Ice Dance, a fall is a catastrophe for scoring. Yet in Singles and Pairs, a fall is just a wrist slap of -1 and don't do it again. An UR is a judgement on a jump with a huge deduction. like it is better to fall than UR.

Falling to me, is an automatic incomplete jump (you didn't notice?). An UR is also an incomplete jump and a -1 to equal up the Fall is in order. Better still a -2 for lack of skills for a Fall or a UR on that particular jump.

The definition of a jump is in the take-off and the landing. The air turns are optional.

An UR does not distrurb the rest of the program but the Fall forces the skater to get up and find out where to begin again in place and music. Rather bothersome, don't you think? An UR just has the skater continue. These should also be reflected in the PC scores but are they? Point one out to me.

Don't get me started on the Flutz which is not a legal jump to begin with and is a planned error simply because the skater can not do a Lutz, but can get points. The Flutz, however, does put the skater into an easier position to make whatever he/she opted for air turns. The Lutz has a clear definition which is not a Flip.

[Ladskater]

MM, my only familiarity with the term "sliding scale" is with monetary matters, where it refers to different fees for different patrons, based on their ability to pay, such that those with lower incomes pay less for the same services.

It's boggling my mind to think of adding even more variable standards to the scoring system!

There is also sliding scale insulin - a term diabetics use. That is what I thought of when I saw this topic. I am not sure if such a system would work for figure skating.

Here is the info on Diabetes:

http://www.diabitieslife.com/diabete...le-insulin.htm