Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: rule changes to encourage variety and quality

  1. #1
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,753

    rule changes to encourage variety and quality

    In the Jenny Kirk thread, antmanb wrote:

    What i'd like is for some change that means it is worth the points for a skater to execute a blindingly fast, well centred scratch spin in their programme again,
    It is worthwhile at the end of a combination spin because it will increase the GOE (assuming it really is well centered) after the levels have already been gained.

    As a solo spin? I'm not sure how to reward a simple forward scratch spin with level features. If performed blindingly fast with good centering, it should earn +2 or +3 GOE. If we can make +3 GOE on a level 1 spin worth more than 0 GOE on level 3, that would be an incentive for skaters to master it.

    I've seen some pre-preliminary skaters who can do +1 and +2-worthy scratch spins, and all of them can do at least recognizable versions, so just doing the spin at all is not difficult. Sustaining it and keeping it centered are the hard parts, and those qualities are reflected in GOE.

    Some of the features that apply to other spin positions don't apply to scratch spins. By its nature the spin is going to accelerate, so that wouldn't be a feature in this position. If the spin is at all competent the basic upright position will be held for more than 8 revolutions, but not the exact same position; the arm and free leg positions are constantly evolving as the spin pulls in. Possibly holding the the final, fully-pulled-in position for 8+ revs could qualify as a feature, but at that point if it's truly being performed with blinding speed it would require slo-mo replay to count the revolutions.

    Some features that apply to other spin positions do or could apply to scratch spins, but in most cases it's not immediately apparent to skaters or tech panels that they would qualify, so these examples would need to be explicitly spelled out or reiterated to let skaters know they will be rewarded if they achieve them.
    *Backward entry is obvious, for back scratch spins or change-foot spin starting with the back spin. But that's only one feature.
    *Change of direction is another feature that can be used in a change-foot spin, but it's not likely to involve blinding speed.
    *Cross-foot position spinning with the other foot on the ice at the end of the spin is mentioned as a difficult variation of an upright spin. But it's not specifically a scratch spin.
    *Headless position is rewarded at the discretion of the caller. Right now it seems to depend on the speed of the spin in that position. Maybe write the guidelines to be clearer about how far back the head needs to be and for how long to achieve the feature regardless of speed, and let the judges reward speed with the GOEs.

    *How about difficult arm variation? Just raising both arms overhead is common and not difficult enough to warrant a level feature. I like to raise one arm and lower the other and then switch them in my back scratch spin -- adds interest and some difficulty, but probably not enough difficulty for a level. But clasping the arms behind the waist or over the shoulder, which requires shoulder flexibility and challenges the balance more, should probably qualify.

    *How about holding the free leg in the a la seconde or attitude position for 8 revs
    at the beginning of the spin before crossing the free foot over the spinning leg, or even holding the free foot crossed at the knee for 8 revs before lowering it?

    *How about 3 changes in speed, not just acceleration or deceleration, but accel-decel-accel as a feature?

    or a gorgeous long fast layback that doesn't end with a skater's blade over her head in some way. Maybe some automatic penalty if a skater slows down considerably getting into a difficult variation or edge change on a spin. BUt i don't really know how it would work in practice.
    I've seen so many laybacks that start out great and look like they will deserve +1 or +2, maybe even +3 in some cases, but then the final attempt at a Biellmann or (much less common in laybacks) change of edge causes the spin to wobble/travel and slow down. Well, there goes a + or two, although the final GOE might still end up at +1. And often the skater doesn't even get credit for that last feature, although the spectators still have to watch it.

    So if we can make it clearer to the skaters that they'll get a higher score for the spin if they only include as many features as they can do well and they'd be better off leaving off that last attempt, we'd see fewer bad Biellmanns.

  2. #2
    At the rink. Again. mskater93's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,163
    Accel-decel-accel is easy to achieve for a skater working on mutli-rev jumps. I have this exercise in my tool kit for working the free leg position for doubles. That wouldn't merit a level.
    I think the GOE versus level debate is a good one. How about removing all levels in spins so that as long as you achieve the MINIMUM for the spin to count as that specific spin, you get X points and it all hinges on the GOE from there? So, for example, as long as the layback achieves 8 revs in position, you generate a list of GOE gainers.

  3. #3
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,753
    Quote Originally Posted by mskater93 View Post
    I think the GOE versus level debate is a good one. How about removing all levels in spins so that as long as you achieve the MINIMUM for the spin to count as that specific spin, you get X points and it all hinges on the GOE from there? So, for example, as long as the layback achieves 8 revs in position, you generate a list of GOE gainers.
    I could live with that -- take the decisions away from the tech panel and give them back to the judges. Who would often disagree with each other, and the result would be an average.

    But in that case, instead of only 3 positive GOE points to work with I'd give them maybe 5. That would give room to reward an excellent spin with a couple of extra difficulty features more than a just competent spin with the same features. Or an excellent spin with several features more than an excellent simple basic spin.

    In any case, I would definitely also want to see skaters who choose to do one feature get a bump in the score compared to just doing the minimum. As it is now, doing one feature is a waste of effort because the spin will still be level 1 with the same base mark as doing none, and the extra difficulty makes it harder to maintain quality. Except for those features like holding 8 revolutions that represent quality in and of themselves.

  4. #4
    Banned janetfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    6,889
    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    I could live with that -- take the decisions away from the tech panel and give them back to the judges. Who would often disagree with each other, and the result would be an average.

    But in that case, instead of only 3 positive GOE points to work with I'd give them maybe 5. That would give room to reward an excellent spin with a couple of extra difficulty features more than a just competent spin with the same features. Or an excellent spin with several features more than an excellent simple basic spin.

    .
    I like that idea and believe it would reward the better spinners as well as giving us more variety. Lambiel's spins were as unique and enjoyable as Plushy's quads - but only one was rewarded fairly imo.

    Along with spins I think the Ladies spiral seqeunce has been literally destroyed by CoP requirements. Not only do they all look the same and last the same silly 3seconds, many have little relationship to the music.
    This may be a minor point but I see it - along with such similar looking spins as one of the major complaints against CoP.

    I am not sure how to improve this but I believe almost any change would be an improvement. Three positions done for three seconds could be varied. The time requirements need to offer something different and something that would give skaters and choreographers a chance to show some creativity.
    Last edited by janetfan; 11-05-2009 at 06:11 PM.

  5. #5
    Skating is art, if you let it be. Blades of Passion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Hollywood, CA
    Posts
    3,966
    I'm going to make a giant post sooner or later about everything that needs to be changed in CoP.

    Thoughts regarding this specific thread:

    The standard scratch spin should be judged as a level 2 upright spin. Increasing the speed of the rotation in the upright position counts as a difficult variation and holding that increase of speed for 8 rotations should count as the other feature.

    Adding a headless position to the end would be another difficult variation, making the spin level 3. Go into the spin with a back entrance and you're at level 4.

    The problem with the current rules is that achieving 8 rotations doesn't count as a feature for a scratch spin because the body isn't remaining in exactly the same position. ISU has actually listened quite a bit to previous suggestions I've made and the updated rules for spins they came out with this year has improved.

    There is still a long way to go, though.

    Spins should receive the same +GOE as jumps, no matter what level the spin is. Higher level spins should also receive greater -GOE, and judges should be very liberal with using those marks.

    There are many other things to be said but I will save it for later.

  6. #6
    Custom Title antmanb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    UK - Manchester
    Posts
    4,913
    Gkellly i always like your suggestion on the COP

    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    But in that case, instead of only 3 positive GOE points to work with I'd give them maybe 5. That would give room to reward an excellent spin with a couple of extra difficulty features more than a just competent spin with the same features. Or an excellent spin with several features more than an excellent simple basic spin.
    The more i think about it the more i like the suggestion of 5 GOE both positive and negative. It would be easier to come up with "mandatory" reductions or increases based on what it done, mixing up the levels and the quality.

    Actually we could extend that to the jumps as well so that we could address the UR penalty in the GOE which would then be much wider so that e.g. for me personally I'd have a fall on a jump together with any jump that lands forward (i.e. half a turn short of rotation) be -5 and be a really harsh penalty. And various degrees of underotation could slot into the -4 and -3 positions and then add into the scale where the other errors fit in. (also of course ditch the calling of underotated jumps as one less revolution.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post

    The standard scratch spin should be judged as a level 2 upright spin. Increasing the speed of the rotation in the upright position counts as a difficult variation and holding that increase of speed for 8 rotations should count as the other feature.

    Adding a headless position to the end would be another difficult variation, making the spin level 3. Go into the spin with a back entrance and you're at level 4.

    The problem with the current rules is that achieving 8 rotations doesn't count as a feature for a scratch spin because the body isn't remaining in exactly the same position. ISU has actually listened quite a bit to previous suggestions I've made and the updated rules for spins they came out with this year has improved.
    I like the idea of a standard scratch spin being worth level 2 straight off.

    I think the system could be tweaked for example if it is considered to be difficult to hold a spin position for 8 revs (even though it is blatantly easier to do 8 revs on a sit spin than 8 revs in a camel spin) then how about making the number of revs for an upright 12 or 15? Or maybe expressly stating that 8revs in an upright with the free leg held out (not comin in and crossing) counts (since i think that is harder than 8 revs in a sit spin).

    Ant

  7. #7
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,753
    If we take the power for determining difficulty in nonjump elements away from the tech panel and give it back to the judges, there will be a lot less consistency in what is rewarded.

    The tech panels have very detailed guidelines for assessing features, they have the opportunity to replay the video and discuss with each other, and all the tech specialists and assistant tech specialists are former high-level skaters themselves.

    There are still some gray areas where the panel members disagree, but that's usually because the skater's execution is ambiguous.

    If you just rely on judges to say "Oh, that looks difficult. I'll give it + for difficulty" along with +s for quality, then you're at the mercy of whatever each judge happens to think is difficult. Only in the most high-tech situations will the judges be able to have the ability to go back and individually replay whichever elements they want to review after the performance, since that requires greater video/computer resources than just having one replay at a time available to the tech panel as a unit.

    That can be both good and bad. There are some kinds of added difficulty that are not explicitly included as level features, or specifically not included (e.g., difficult transitions from one foot or direction to the other in spiral sequences, extended sections on one foot in freestyle step sequences). Judges who recognize that those add difficulty can reward them even if the rules don't spell out that they should. So a skater who includes such details can hope that at least some of the judges on the panel will recognize and reward the difficulty, whereas now s/he knows that they will not increase the level.

    Also on judging panels you're more likely to get individuals with lower levels of personal skating experience themselves, or in some cases none -- especially from smaller, newer federations that don't have a history of skating before the current generation of competitors. Even the most astute, well-trained judges without high-level skating experience who recognize everything they're taught to recognize will have more trouble evaluating how difficult an innovative enhancement is than a former skater who used to do those moves without the enhancements.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •