Bona Fide Member
A sliding scale for underrotations?
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?
Dreaming and dancing
Bona Fide Member
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.
Last edited by Mathman; 11-22-2008 at 11:38 PM.
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.
Originally Posted by Mathman
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.
Yeah! Lets get this party started.
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.