What does this sentence mean?
Why Zero Points and Invalid element?
- Thread starter Sk8tr321
- Start date
What does this sentence mean?
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
^ I think I am getting better at this. Or worse.
"If someone does a double Lutz in one direction, followed immediately by a double Lutz in the other direction, that should be scored as a one solo jump, with the same base value as a quad becase it is just as hard as a quad."
"If someone does a double Lutz in one direction, followed immediately by a double Lutz in the other direction, that should be scored as a one solo jump, with the same base value as a quad becase it is just as hard as a quad."
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
A Flip to the right and a Flip to the left is the same Flip - just different directions.. I believe the ISU calls them 2 separate jumps without regard to difficulty.. I'm not arguing ISU's decision Just putting forth my own sense of what a jump is. To me it's the same thing as putting hands in the air a la Boitano. A variation on a theme. I know the ISU restriction, it's just my
interpretation of a jump one way and the same jump another way, as being the same jump. In Ballet, a Saute de Basque is a Saute de Basque regardless of which direction one turns.
A flip to the left and a toeloop to the left are two separate jumps. The definitions tell us that.
Well, how do you think they should be rewarded?
How about the double axels in the Rohene Ward program I linked above, should anyone do that in a competitive freeskate?
What if the opposite-direction jump is not immediately preceded or followed by a regular-direction jump of the exact same takeoff and number of rotations?
How should reverse single axel followed by regular double axel be rewarded?
How about double flip-reverse double lutz or double lutz-reverse single lutz combo?
Not the same jump. Still shows the same kind of opposite-direction jumping skill.
How about the double axels in the Rohene Ward program I linked above, should anyone do that in a competitive freeskate?
What if the opposite-direction jump is not immediately preceded or followed by a regular-direction jump of the exact same takeoff and number of rotations?
How should reverse single axel followed by regular double axel be rewarded?
How about double flip-reverse double lutz or double lutz-reverse single lutz combo?
Not the same jump. Still shows the same kind of opposite-direction jumping skill.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
Joe, I think that you and the ISU are on the same page here.
The ISU makes no distinction between a flip to the left and a flip to the right. A flip to the left is a flip, period. A flip to the right is a flip, period. Is that what you are saying, too?
Carol Heiss in the 1950s was the first female skater to land a double axel jump. Another one of her trademarks was doing a series of alternating clockwise and counterclockwise single axels. Heiss, incidentally, normally rotated her jumps clockwise and spins counterclockwise.
Wow that seemed just as far apart and it counted! Maybe it was closer but it seemed far apart.
I found an ISU document called "First Aid for Technical Controllers and Technical Specialists" which states on page 25:
Execution of spins in both directions (clockwise and counter clockwise) that immediately follow each other will be rewarded by counting this as an additional feature in all Levels. A minimum of 3 revolutions in each direction is required. A Spin executed in both directions (clockwise and counter clockwise) as above is considered as one Spin.
http://www.usfigureskating.org/content/First-Aid-Single_2007-08-15.pdf
It does not say anything about how far apart the spins can be.
Last edited:
ISU Communication No. 1459 says the same thing and no where does it say how far apart (or close together) the two spins must be.
Communication No. 1557 for 2009/2010 reads the same.
I am not sure if these are the official documents to be used but if they are, I believe it should have counted.
So what should Rachael do now?
I would think it close to impossible to do both directions on the same spot like a simple change of foot.
It is a cool feature but if it is only gonna count sometimes, depending on which controller is calling, it is risky business.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
Thanks for the info about Carol Heiss (my fave, the first champion skater I saw perform live. 
)
Here is the rule about "Spinning centres too far apart." (Scroll down to page 12.)
http://www.isu.org/vsite/vfile/page/fileurl/0,11040,4844-197593-214816-125742-0-file,00.pdf
This lays out the penalty, but does not give a specific distance for how far is too far.
)Here is the rule about "Spinning centres too far apart." (Scroll down to page 12.)
http://www.isu.org/vsite/vfile/page/fileurl/0,11040,4844-197593-214816-125742-0-file,00.pdf
This lays out the penalty, but does not give a specific distance for how far is too far.
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
My argument is about the rewards which are given for jumps in both directions which are executed in the same program one after the other. There is difficulty in executing such skills. Is the difficulty rewarded? I do not think so. It was rewarded in the 6.0 system which is shown in Rohene's program.
AFAIK, the ISU does give Base Values for same jumps in the different directions and each jump is counted as an individual pass in accordance with the Rules, and are judged separately. It does not consider the same jumps as one jump. I do believe it is the same jump and should not be counted as two separate jumps and above all to reflect the difficulty in doing different directional elements.
I have no power to change the ISU decisions but that doesn't mean I have to agree with them.
Not exactly. I am saying that a defined Flip to the left, and the same defined Flip to the right should be considered as one Flip. The ISU says it's two separate jumps and should be counted with the approved jump passes and with no regard to difficulty. The jumps have equal base values which if they were considered as one jump, the base value would have to rise. I just call it a Two Directional Jump.
You are aware that I have no power to change things so I live with the ISU decisions.
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
I think gkelly was wondering (as am I) why it has to be the same type of jump and why they have to be one after the other?
I'm not sure whther we can categorically say whether jumps in either direction were rewarded under 6.0 unless the judges spoke out about it at the time.
Have you read gkelly's thread from upthread, or mine, or mskater's (i think it was mskater anyway)? There have been many explanations and examples given of possible jumps and whether they are combinations, sequences or two separate jumping passes.
The rules are the rules and skaters have to do their jumps within them to get them called how they want them. If a skater did a 3Lz(clockwise)+3Lz(anti clockwise) then the two jumps would be called as a combination (take off edge of the second jump is the landing edge of the first jump).
There were other examples given for how the jumps might be called a sequence.
I'm struggling to understand why two jumps should ever be called as one. If you tried to write the rule down, what would be the justification for a jump in one direction followed by the same jump ni another direction to be called as one jump? Should a 3T+3T combination be called as one jump, since that is actually the same jump twice?
How would the rules mark two jumps called as one? What if the skater fell on the first one but then got up and executed the second one?
I'm just struggling to understand how it would work, or how two jumps regardless of how similar or identical they are would only ever be seen as one?
So how would such a change work? What base value would you give and how would you deal with some of errors I mentioned earlier?
Ant
That was an exhibition program, not a competitive program.
There was no official explicit reward under 6.0 for jumping in both directions (or, really, for anything -- each judge got to decide for him/herself what to reward).
Therefore it was rarely worth the risk to include opposite-direction jumps. I think Eldredge said at some point that was why he never included the reverse axel again after 1990 Nationals when the judges didn't seem to be impressed.
If you jump up in the air, rotate, and come down, you have done one jump.
If you jump up in the air again, rotate (in the same direction or in an opposite direction), and come down again, now you have done two jumps. There's no way you can argue that you have only done one jump. You have done two jumps.
They may be the same kind of jump, with the same name and the same kind of takeoff. They may be exactly the same, or there might be a difference in the number of rotations (e.g., quad toe-triple toe) or in the direction of rotation (e.g., clockwise axel into counterclockwise axel).
Or the skater might get into the jump in a completely different way. Would you want to argue that doing a double loop from back crossovers, a double loop from traveling threes, a double loop from the landing of another jump, a double loop out of a backspin are all the same jump, but if you do all of them in the same program, you have done four double loops.
If you do double loop from back crossovers and go right back up into another double loop, you've done a jump combination with two separate double loops. You'll get points for doing the jump twice, but you will also use up one of the three allowed jump combinations.
You want to say that if I do a double loop from any of those entries, put my foot down and change curve into a crossover in the other direction, and go up into another double loop in the opposite direction, I have not done an additional jump? I should not use up another jumping pass or turn this jumping pass into a combo or sequence? But I should get extra points for making the first jump more difficult?
I have not jumped into the air only one time. You seem to be arguing that we should pretend that I have.
The two times I jump up into the air have to be counted as two jumps. That may be in a combination, a jump sequence, or two completely separate jumping passes one right after another.
The base value wouldn't "have to" rise. The rules would have to be rewritten to reward it. The question is, how to rewrite the rules to give an appropriate reward.
It sounds like what you want to do is say that if you do the exact same jump (same kind of takeoff and same number of revolutions) TWO times, once clockwise and once counterclockwise, one right after the other, then that should be considered as one JUMPING PASS (stop saying it's "one jump" -- that is very confusing and misleading when you're talking about jumping up into the air TWO
TIMES ) and should be given a base value that is worth more than twice the value of the basic jump. And also that that jumping pass should fill a box for a solo jump and not use up a box for
Is that what you mean? Can you just explain that clearly without the misleading shortcut of saying that jumping up twice counts as one jump?
However, there are other ways a skater could demonstrate jumping skill in both directions that your proposal doesn't cover. If we want to reward jumping in both directions, why not come up with a plan that can also reward the reverse single axel-regular double axel sequence or the double flip-reverse double lutz combination?
Thanks for the info about Carol Heiss (my fave, the first champion skater I saw perform live.
Here is the rule about "Spinning centres too far apart." (Scroll down to page 12.)
http://www.isu.org/vsite/vfile/page/fileurl/0,11040,4844-197593-214816-125742-0-file,00.pdf
This lays out the penalty, but does not give a specific distance for how far is too far.
OK,
But the only place it talks about a penalty for distance is in combination with change of foot.
Spinning in both directions is in a separate section. There is a totally different dynamic when you are changing directions. The section titled Spinning in both directions says nothing about distance apart.
To quote that document:
"Execution of spins in both directions (clockwise and counter clockwise) that Immediately follow each other will be rewarded by counting this as an additional feature in all Levels. A minimum of 3 revolutions in each direction is required. A Spin executed in both directions (clockwise and counter clockwise) as above is considered as one Spin."
I guess one controller called it as a change foot and the other as "Spinning in both directions" and that is why she got credit at Cup of China but not at Skate America.
Correct me if I am wrong but there is a whole different dynamic when changing direction. I think doing the second spin in the other direction requires you to move to another spot so you can stop the momentum in one direction and start it in another. Has anyone ever done this close to the same spot like a change of foot? Based on the laws of physics I seriously doubt it.
I can understand the penalty when simply changing foot because it interrupts the flow of the combo if you hop to a different spot.
They probably need to clarify the rule since two controllers called it differently. If you watch the videos the distance apart is about the same if not exactly the same.
It is a nice feature and I would hate to see it goo away because if the rules.
But it's always done with a change of foot, so the change-of-foot guidelines do apply for that change.
I think the callers tend to be a little more lenient in the amount of total distance between spinning centers on each foot when there's a change of direction involved than if there isn't. And also more lenient when there's a change from backspin to forward spin than from forward to back. But they have to draw the line somewhere.
It's both. But the tech panel at Cup of China thought that it was done continuously enough to be considered one spin, and the tech panel at Skate America thought that there was enough disruption in the spinning motion to call it as two separate spins.
It depends on the type of spin.
Joannie Rochette has changed direction in an upright spin (starting at 1:32) without moving the center. (I do the same type of spin myself, with worse quality and without the difficult position variations, and I don't change center either.)
Here's Ilia Klimkin changing direction with camel spins pre-IJS, at 1:29; the centers are further apart there, but the motion is pretty continuous.
It's pretty common these days in pair spins (end of program at 4:30), but the dynamic of changing foot in pair combination spins is different than for single spins anyway.
Theoretically, yes. But changing directions on the same foot without putting the other foot down would be extremely difficult. I've only ever once seen a skater attempt that, not in competition, and it wasn't executed very well.
A skater could spin in one direction, put the other foot down to stop the spinning motion, and then push back onto the same foot to spin in the other direction. But touching the other foot down would make the two directions count as two separate spins and not one spin in both directions, same problem as the too-wide change of foot.
OK but that was was not much of a spin in the other direction and she just about stopped in between!
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2005
Going back to front doesn't draw that much leniency from tech panels - there's a rule for that as well and there were many instances in local and Regional comps here in Upper Great Lakes that spins were called 2 separate spins due to the distance between the back and forward spins. My coach is a TS and she's often beating on me about this distance in the change and has pointed out some spins that will/did get called as two separate spins.
Understood.
My daughter who is a skater just said the same thing to me on the way back from the rink just now. She was out in the ice when I typed that.
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
I think we have to conclude that different directional jumps are two separate jumps with the same definition or one jump in two parts,
The former would be just two more jumps in a program and skater would have to be aware their quota of jumps are fading, and there is no risk reward. I would say to skaters forget about the latter as being not useful in the CoP scoring. However same directional combos (much easier) are fine.
Sad to kill this because it did show excellence in skills, but I believe it is too complex for the CoP. While I'm all in favor of the CoP, I do think it needs to be updated.
.
The former would be just two more jumps in a program and skater would have to be aware their quota of jumps are fading, and there is no risk reward. I would say to skaters forget about the latter as being not useful in the CoP scoring. However same directional combos (much easier) are fine.
Sad to kill this because it did show excellence in skills, but I believe it is too complex for the CoP. While I'm all in favor of the CoP, I do think it needs to be updated.
.
Similar threads
