Figure Skating's Three Jumping Errors and Penalties

As I see it, there are three major jumping faults judged at competition time:

a) Wrong Edge Takeoff - Does it fulfill the definition of the jump? Is it habitual with some skaters? or is it just a fluke in one competition?

b) Underrotation - Is it short on the air rotations according to current rules. What if the landing seems to be solid and does not interfere with the rest of the program?

c) Falls - Do they interfere with the rest of the program? Has any Fall ever been judged as a wrong edge takeoff, or/an underrotation at the same time?

BIG QUESTION Are current PENALTIES satisfactory as of now or should there be a review of the penalities by the appropriate ISU committees?

(btw - if you can think of other faults in jumping, please list and explain.)

This is in the ISU rulebook

http://www.sportcentric.com/vsite/vfile/page/fileurl/0,11040,4844-191592-208815-140518-0-file,00.pdf

(If you're referring to it already... sorry )
If I understand correctly, multiple penalties may be applied per element (page 23).

The precise definitions for singles and pairs skating follow p. 109 and take some time to read through! Here's p. 110-111:

In marking the GOE the following must be considered:

a) jumps: the height, length, technique and the clean starting and landing of the required jumps, in the case of pairs, credit must be given to the jump of each partner according to its merit;

b) jump combination/sequence: the perfect execution of the jumps in relation to their difficulty, each jump must be given credit according to its merit;

c) lifts/twist lifts: ...;
d) throw jumps: ...;
e) death spirals: ...;
f) spins: ...;
g) step and spiral step sequences: ....

Click to expand...

I'm aware of the ISU's Rules Books. What I am asking, in a discussion mode, is whether you agree with the penalties as handed out? If you find the penalties 'fit the crime'. That's ok. If you think some penalties are way off from what they represent, then let the discussion begin.

Some fans think a wrong edge takeoff is habitual and is not a legal jump. It's not easy if not impossible for a skater to lean in the air as one would in back outside edge and then change that edge to a back inside edge while maintaining the back outside lean. Then jump.

Some fans think an UR should be judged for proper take-off; and solid landing as well for the landing edge. The Penalty seems to be only on the landing edge and nothing else is credited. The whole jump for scoring is jeapordized for an error on one part of the jump.

Some fans think, as Falls in Skate Dance are heavily penalized, why not in Singles?

Sorry. I answered one of your many questions in the previous post.

If the idea is to give an illusion of full accountability, there really doesn't seem to be any way of doing it other than the way it is, with all edges, rotations, etc., etc., fully defined and scored.

Actually the problem is basic to any performance art/sport/whatever: mastery of existing technique vs. the (potential and rare) introduction of new techniques. The system works very well in judging the first and very badly in judging the second. Since both have their place (SP vs LP), my one hope would be that the LP were judged more loosely. I like the precise mechanics, of course, but sometimes I just want to see someone skate -- and, once in a blue moon, come up with something that hasn't been done yet. And not necessarily an extra rotation on a jump.

In the end, what I'm least comfortable with is not the way the jumps are scored, but the way footwork (figures ? ) is largely NOT.

As regards a fall: some falls disrupt a program entirely; others (depends on the skater, I guess) are immediately swept away by the rest of the skate. In the perfect world, this too would be taken into account.

THe whole business of underroatation and the obsession with flutzing and liping has made me seriously have a distaste for the competitive part of the sport. I can't really see the logic in messing with all the skaters when for decades we have had olympic champions who were guilty of all of the above. The "Clean Program" has become a thing of the past, becuase even when the skater says on his/her/thier feet, they are bound to get one underrotation or wrong edge call, which makes it not that clean after all.

It makes me sad to see the skaters getting right frustrated after the skate of their life, only to learn that 4 out of the 7 jumps were not ratified.

I don't really have any soultions, but something has to change.

Tinymavy15 said:

The "Clean Program" has become a thing of the past, becuase even when the skater says on his/her/thier feet, they are bound to get one underrotation or wrong edge call, which makes it not that clean after all.

Click to expand...

I think the "Clean Program" was the explicit target for destruction in going away from 6.0. They have made figure-skating open-ended (higher, faster, stronger...) -- unfortunately, at the cost of restricting the set of allowed movements.

I have a question. Why people want to see the "Incorrect" techniques? I think what COP is pushing is to make skater to learn "the right basic". If you can't do the triple luz with right tech from start to landing, then they shouldn't put it on the program.I think that is what COP is telling. I rather see a correct double jump than UR,OR, wrong edge, or fall triple. And what about going forward and pusing the envelope? Well..you can go forward when you have a right technique.Oh by the way,how consistent the judge and the caller are is another matter..but please can skater do the "right " techniques? You can go for whatever you think you an do, but if you can't do with Incorrect techniques, they should be penalized... and I don't think current system is that harsh...

Joesitz said:

BIG QUESTION Are current PENALTIES satisfactory as of now or should there be a review of the penalities by the appropriate ISU committees?

Click to expand...

Mostly I think the existing penalties are appropriate, but I think that underrotations of slightly over 90 degrees in otherwise good jumps, or especially in one jump of a jump combination, are too harshly penalized. We've discussed this before. It might be preferable either to make the cutoff for downgrading a jump more lenient than 90 degrees (would be complicated to implement fairly) or else keep the downgrade and required GOE reduction but don't require that the final GOE of the element must be negative if there are enough other positives to outweigh the underrotation reduction.

(btw - if you can think of other faults in jumping, please list and explain.)

Click to expand...

There are several other errors in jumping that are fairly common.

Off the top of my head, in approximate order of severity:

Bad air position

Bad check/uncontrolled landing edge

Brushing the free foot on the ice in the process of checking it back

Landing on the wrong edge (this is often seen in jumps that land with no speed, often slightly underrotated, and wobble from inside to outside edge of the landing blade and sometimes back again)

Stepping immediately onto the free foot because of inability to hold the landing edge after landing

Touching one hand to the ice on landing

Touching the free toe to the ice on the landing (often on jumps that are slightly or not-so-slightly short of rotation, in which case there is more than one error)

Prerotating the takeoff (most commonly seen in the "toe axel" error on an intended toe loop; also some skids on axel takeoffs result in the skater making a half turn on the ice before taking off)

Touching both hands to the ice

Stepping/flipping/stumbling/falling out of the landing, usually with a half turn

Landing on both blades or initially on the wrong foot followed by a step to the intended landing edge (often on underrotated jumps)

Tinymavy15 said:

THe whole business of underroatation and the obsession with flutzing and liping has made me seriously have a distaste for the competitive part of the sport...

The "Clean Program" has become a thing of the past, becuase even when the skater says on his/her/thier feet, they are bound to get one underrotation or wrong edge call, which makes it not that clean after all.

Click to expand...

That's not exactly true. There are clean performances with no calls: Buttle at Worlds, Abbott's LP and Kozuka's SP at the GPF, and Joubert's SP at CoR are a few recent examples. It's more accurate to say that pristine-clean performances, with positive GOEs across the board, are not very common among skaters doing the hardest elements. But when has that ever been the case? If we compare to the past, there were just as many skaters falling, two-footing landings, stumbling, cheating on the rotations or flutzing/lipping. They just weren't getting called on some of these things. What we have now is a narrower definition of what a clean program is, which means fewer programs fall into that category. I don't know that the quality of the skating has deteriorated at the top level overall, and it wasn't that high to begin with among the more average skaters.

I do agree that technical callers have become overzealous with URs and edge calls, and I would rather not see such calls made unless the mistake is really glaring. If it's questionable or minor, let it slide. And as has been discussed endlessly, I think UR needs to be penalized less harshly: make it a bad triple or a regular double, but don't combine both. It's not fair.

Joesitz said:

c) Falls - Has any Fall ever been judged as a wrong edge takeoff, or/an underrotation at the same time?

Click to expand...

I can think of at least one example off the top of my head: Caroline Zhang's 3Z at CoC in 2007:
http://www.isufs.org/results/gpchn07/gpchn07_Ladies_FS_Scores.pdf

She received 1.09 for the jump, minus one point for the fall, so she only got 0.09 in the end (if the jump hadn't received a 2nd-half bonus, she would've probably incurred an overall negative score).

I think the wrong-edge penalties are okay as they are, although I'd prefer to see only (!) calls and no (e) calls -- I want the individual judges to evaluate whether a jump is correct-edge take-off or not, and evaluate the severity of that flaw against the merit of the rest of the jump. I think it's silly to have a small tech panel determine the edge, instead of having ten extra pairs of experienced eyes spotting this, not to mention the tech panel (e) call takes away the judges' ability to evaluate the jump as a whole. It's silly that one faulty aspect of a jump should have this special "status" compared to other aspects, like landing security, or in-air position, or height, or distance, etc.

I think that the -1 penalty for falls is too light. Skaters should not be encouraged to attempt risky jumps that they have no hope of landing. A bad fall mars the flow and presentation of the program more than anything else, and should be marked as so. I'm not sure whether giving 0 credit to a jump with a fall is too harsh, but I do think that across the board of -1 for all falls is too lenient (I am aware that a fall on a jump also gets -3 GOE, but considering that a bad flutz can also get you close to -3 GOE, the additional -1 for the fall seems too light).

I think that the under-rotation penalty is way too severe, especially for jumps that look rotated to the naked eye (of most of the spectators), and which result in a solid landing and no break of form or flow to the program. So many championships and major placements have been determined by questionable UR calls on some jumps and not others. This is the most controversy-courting, and fan-repelling element of CoP Judging right now. It has to be changed some how. I think something similar to (!) for UR's should also be instituted, so that the tech panel with the slow-motion videos can warn judges of a potential UR, but not force their hands. And also, judges would be handing out a range of GOE's, from -3 to +3, that balance any under-rotation issue with other merits or flaws of the jump. And all this would be done with the base value of the jump attempted. If someone attempts a quad toe and clearly under-rotates, then the judges can give -3 across the board (-3 GOE on a quad is really costly), but it would still have the base value of a quad. After all, it's much harder than a 3T!

Just to get the numbers on the table, here are the errors that, according to the rules, the judges cannot ignore and must give negative GOE to. Applied, for instance, to a triple Lutz (base value 6.0), it works out something like this.

1. Starting or landing on two feet, -2, -GOE. Skater earns 3.0 to 5.0 depending on other features of the jump. Most likely 4.0.

2. Stepping out of landing, -2, -GOE. Skater earns 3.0 to 5.0. Most likely 4.0.

3. Touch down with both hands, -2, -GOE. Skater earns 3.0 to 5.0. Most likely 4.0

4. Wrong edge (e), -1 to –3, -GOE. Skater earns 3.0 to 5.0. Most likely 4.0.

5. Fall on landing, -3, -GOE plus –1 fall deduction. IIRC, they changed the rule that formerly required an overall –3 GOE, and now allow a fall to be tempered by other (good) factors. Skater earns 2.0 to 4.0 – most likely 2.0 after fall deduction.

6. Underrotation, base value 1.9 (instead of 6.0), additional –1 to –3 GOE, -GOE. Skater earns 0.9 to 1.6. Most likely 1.3.

7. Underrotation and fall. –0.1 to +0.6. Most likely, -0.1.

Other errors are folded into the overall GOE.

Actually, I like the proposal of Mafke. A jump that is satisfactory in every aspect earns full base value – but this is very hard to accomplish. GOEs range from –5 (many errors) to +1 (no errors plus something extra), instead of -3 to +3.

Buttercup said:

I do agree that technical callers have become overzealous with URs and edge calls, and I would rather not see such calls made unless the mistake is really glaring. If it's questionable or minor, let it slide. And as has been discussed endlessly, I think UR needs to be penalized less harshly: make it a bad triple or a regular double, but don't combine both. It's not fair.

Click to expand...

I so agree. If we have to watch slo-mo 3 times to see the underotation, the skater should not be getting called on that. Some underroations are obvious and they should be marked so, but others....come on.

gkelly said:

Mostly I think the existing penalties are appropriate, but I think that underrotations of slightly over 90 degrees in otherwise good jumps, or especially in one jump of a jump combination, are too harshly penalized. We've discussed this before. It might be preferable either to make the cutoff for downgrading a jump more lenient than 90 degrees (would be complicated to implement fairly) or else keep the downgrade and required GOE reduction but don't require that the final GOE of the element must be negative if there are enough other positives to outweigh the underrotation reduction.

Click to expand...

I can not agree on UR penalties. I don't see them mar the overall package as much as a Fall and then give credit for the air rotations before the fall and who knows the skater could have been headed for a UR. So, I guess we assume the skater would have made the appropriate air turns. As to my big beef, on WETs, I wont go into that except to say I believe jumps should follow the exact definition and forget the lean. Penalties are not sufficient.

However, I dig your list of 'other jumping errors' and I'd like to add the Zayak Rule of no score for a repeat.

feraina said:

I think the wrong-edge penalties are okay as they are, although I'd prefer to see only (!) calls and no (e) calls -- I want the individual judges to evaluate whether a jump is correct-edge take-off or not, and evaluate the severity of that flaw against the merit of the rest of the jump.

Click to expand...

I agree.

But actually, I do not see what the "!" call accomplishes in the first place. If the tech panel calls "!" then each judge is supposed to make his or her own evaluation of whether the edge was OK or not and weigh the quality of the edge in with other factors in determining the GOE.

If there were no call, the judges still would each evaluate the edge, etc., etc. I do not see how it assists the judges for the tech specialist to say, well, maybe there was a slight wrong edge, maybe not -- your call.

Similarly, if a judge sees a terrible Flutz ("e") and wants to nail the skater for it, that judge does not have to ask the technical specialist for permission to do so -- it is already within the judges' prerogative.

Mathman said:

But actually, I do not see what the "!" call accomplishes in the first place. If the tech panel calls "!" then each judge is supposed to make his or her own evaluation of whether the edge was OK or not and weigh the quality of the edge in with other factors in determining the GOE.

Click to expand...

"!" call serves no purpose except to preserve the facade that the tech panel is still doing something useful regarding edge calls, and that whoever came up with the idea in the first place (giving the edge calls to the tech panel instead of the judges) was not a complete moron. The point is that once the "!" is in place, it soon becomes obvious to everyone that it is a fine system and much less controversial than the "e" call, and that eventually all edge calls will become "!" instead of "e" (as it's already starting to happen).

Similarly, we need something transitional to "ease" us out of the crazy under-rotation penalties. Not because skating needs the transitional call, but skating officials do.

feraina said:

Similarly, we need something transitional to "ease" us out of the crazy under-rotation penalties. Not because skating needs the transitional call, but skating officials do.

Click to expand...

Bravo! Let's get out of the present state of penalties for URs. It's all based on the landing; not like other errors in judging whereas a wrong edge takeoff gets a wrist slap but is compensated with easy air turns and easy landings.

There is no compensation for a UR. No consideration is given for a proper takeoff, and none for air position, and none for landing with flow albeit 46 degrees short of the rule. It is penalized in full.

ortrique said:

I have a question. Why people want to see the "Incorrect" techniques? I think what COP is pushing is to make skater to learn "the right basic". If you can't do the triple luz with right tech from start to landing, then they shouldn't put it on the program.I think that is what COP is telling. I rather see a correct double jump than UR,OR, wrong edge, or fall triple. And what about going forward and pusing the envelope? Well..you can go forward when you have a right technique.Oh by the way,how consistent the judge and the caller are is another matter..but please can skater do the "right " techniques? You can go for whatever you think you an do, but if you can't do with Incorrect techniques, they should be penalized... and I don't think current system is that harsh...

Click to expand...

I suppose it always boils down to what the coach and skater feel are worthwhile risks and whether the skater is a habitual wrong-edge-take-off skater or under-rotator or whether they do it only occasionally.

The current rules have not been in place long enough for us to see skaters in Junior and Senior competitions who have only ever skated and learned to skate under the current system. It will be interesting to see what happens over the next 10+years to see if e.g. the technical level in jumps does actually take a step back again if skaters actually do decide to take out jumps that they cannot do properly.

Mathman said:

Actually, I like the proposal of Mafke. A jump that is satisfactory in every aspect earns full base value – but this is very hard to accomplish. GOEs range from –5 (many errors) to +1 (no errors plus something extra), instead of -3 to +3.

Click to expand...

So do I. The positive GOE criteria are not particularly clear or easy to substantiate and really a good jump gives you that +1 impression rather than how is a +1 different from a +3. The -5 for errors works much better to my mind because it gives you enough room to give marks so that you can say a fall on an otherwise fully rotated true outside edge triple lutz gets you more points than a fall on a wrong edge take off triple lutz that was a little short on rotation.

Joesitz said:

I can not agree on UR penalties. I don't see them mar the overall package as much as a Fall and then give credit for the air rotations before the fall and who knows the skater could have been headed for a UR. So, I guess we assume the skater would have made the appropriate air turns. As to my big beef, on WETs, I wont go into that except to say I believe jumps should follow the exact definition and forget the lean. Penalties are not sufficient.

Click to expand...

I think you can tell whether a jump that a skater falls on was fully rotated or not - the skaters feet always hit the ice first, even they put hands down or fall down a split second later - the feet have always hit the ice first and you can tell how far round they are on the rotation.

Ant

antmanb said:

So do I. The positive GOE criteria are not particularly clear or easy to substantiate and really a good jump gives you that +1 impression rather than how is a +1 different from a +3. The -5 for errors works much better to my mind because it gives you enough room to give marks so that you can say a fall on an otherwise fully rotated true outside edge triple lutz gets you more points than a fall on a wrong edge take off triple lutz that was a little short on rotation.

Click to expand...

The positive GoEs are whimsical. If a skater does any element ,especially jumps, by definition: proper take-off, whatever rotations, solid landing with flow, there is no need for +GoEs. The skater has done what he was supposed to do and deserves full base values. . If he embellished any, let it show in the PC scores. If he can not perfect the element by take off - air turns - landings, then dinge that skater for not doing the jump properly and use uniform deductions for all 3 parts of the element (jump). Let's keep this from becoming a sissy sport.

I think you can tell whether a jump that a skater falls on was fully rotated or not - the skaters feet always hit the ice first, even they put hands down or fall down a split second later - the feet have always hit the ice first and you can tell how far round they are on the rotation. Ant

Click to expand...

Maybe someone can. Maybe the Caller could declare his air turns were correct if he knew what air turns were supposed to be in that fallen jump.
For me, a Fall is an incomplete jump regardless and is far more serious than an underrotation. Many URs are landed solidly and and should get credit for the take-offs, and the flow out of the landing, but they do not get the partial credits that other errors get. Back to Falls: They ruin a program!!! The skater was not able do that jump and should be penalized to the hilt!

Joesitz said:

The positive GoEs are whimsical. If a skater does any element ,especially jumps, by definition: proper take-off, whatever rotations, solid landing with flow, there is no need for +GoEs. The skater has done what he was supposed to do and deserves full base values. . If he embellished any, let it show in the PC scores. If he can not perfect the element by take off - air turns - landings, then dinge that skater for not doing the jump properly and use uniform deductions for all 3 parts of the element (jump). Let's keep this from becoming a sissy sport.

Click to expand...

Many people would already tell you it is a sissy sport! Frankly for me avoiding the label of "sissy sport" is the last thing figure skating needs to worry about. I think the +1 for GOE on jumps would be useful because you can use it to differentiate that some people while doing the jump textbook perfectly can be beaten by someone who does the element by it's definition but even better (higher, better flow into and out of the jump, shorter preparation or difficult entry etc).

Joesitz said:

Maybe someone can. Maybe the Caller could declare his air turns were correct if he knew what air turns were supposed to be in that fallen jump.
For me, a Fall is an incomplete jump regardless and is far more serious than an underrotation. Many URs are landed solidly and and should get credit for the take-offs, and the flow out of the landing, but they do not get the partial credits that other errors get. Back to Falls: They ruin a program!!! The skater was not able do that jump and should be penalized to the hilt!

Click to expand...

I agree with a lot of what you say Joe - I wonder what would happen if they experimented with giving 0 points for a jump that ends in a fall?

Ant

antmanb said:

I wonder what would happen if they experimented with giving 0 points for a jump that ends in a fall?

Click to expand...

When the CoP first came out there was no specific penalty for a fall -- it was just scored as a bad jump. Then they decided to give the 1 point deduction on top of negative GOEs.

The result, as I recall, was that there was a certain amount of debate about what consitutes a fall. A lot of skaters were evading the fall penalty by acrobatic contortions that did just manage to keep their behinds from thudding onto the ice.

IIRC the eventual outcome was, "if it looks like a fall and quacks like a fall, it's a fall."