videos on UR calls

**Bennett** · 02-02-2010, 09:33 AM

Interesting!

**Mathman** · 02-02-2010, 12:08 PM

Very interesting. I watched the first 8 videos. They all seemed underrotated to me, by about 120 degrees. (Except for the 2A in #7. That looked OK.)

Mao's technique on her triple Axel is remarkably consistent. About 150 degrees of pre-rotation on the take-off and about 120 degrees underrotation on the landing. Sometimes she gets lucky with the caller, sometimes not.

If the person who posted these videos is trying to show that there is no difference between an underrotated jump that is downgraded and an underrotated jumpt that is ratified, I think he made his point.

**janetfan** · 02-02-2010, 12:23 PM

Are you saying "judges are human"?

But what a way to lose a competition - with a jump that was considered good at your last event - but suddenly it is unacceptable. Or with a jump that was good in your SP but is found to be no good a day later in your LP.

Maybe Jenny posted the vids

**thumbyskates** · 02-02-2010, 03:41 PM

I think the poster was trying to show that the same jumps are being downgraded/ratified at different comps, as mentioned.

However, I disagree. I agree with everyone of those calls, except for perhaps #8, the JGPF double Axel downgrade...that one could be close.

Why does everyone get so upset about this? If you can't do a jump, don't do it. If you're not really doing a triple, you shouldn't really get the points. It's cheating. The TS's are not out to get skater's, they are doing their job. It is a panel of 3, not 1. It's not a conspiracy. It makes me so angry, as both a skater (not high-level, I'll admit) and an official, that people think judges/TS are out to get skaters.

I repeat. If you can't do the jump, don't. You won't get the call. There will always be disagreements on if it was close or not, but everyone is entitled to an opinion...and the video reply may have been in a different spot on all those calls. If you're jump is that close that at some angles it's correct and at others it is not, it is a risk you must be willing to take as a skater to include the jump.

Just my 2 cents, even though I know I'll get bashed for it.

**miki88** · 02-02-2010, 03:47 PM

Originally Posted by Mathman

Very interesting. I watched the first 8 videos. They all seemed underrotated to me, by about 120 degrees. (Except for the 2A in #7. That looked OK.)

Mao's technique on her triple Axel is remarkably consistent. About 150 degrees of pre-rotation on the take-off and about 120 degrees underrotation on the landing. Sometimes she gets lucky with the caller, sometimes not.

If the person who posted these videos is trying to show that there is no difference between an underrotated jump that is downgraded and an underrotated jumpt that is ratified, I think he made his point.

Do the tech panel see the jumps in slo-motion or in real time? Because if in real-time, sometimes the jumps may seem much higher at the angles the tech is viewing at some events and at other events it may not. When I watch Mao's 3A in real time, the ones that tend to get ratified is where she had more height in those jumps compared to those that get downgraded. This is why I think Ito always does great axels, because she has so much height and speed into them.

**gkelly** · 02-02-2010, 04:01 PM

Do the tech panel see the jumps in slo-motion or in real time?

While the program is in progress, they see the actual jumps in real time. The tech specialist calls the intended jump, and if there is any question about the rotation (or takeoff edge, or what the skater actually executed), then any one of the three members of the panel can call "Review."

After the program, they go back and look at the video replay of the elements they wanted to review. For some kinds of calls, including checking landings for downgrades, they can use slow motion. For other kinds of calls they're only allowed to watch the replay in real time.

So it's possible that some jumps that upon scrutiny look as though they should have been downgraded escaped downgrading either because none of the panel members thought it was suspicious during the program and called for a review or because they did review the jump but at least two of the panel members thought it was sufficiently rotated or couldn't be sure and so gave the skater the benefit of the doubt.

Maybe a "strict" panel is more likely to call for reviews on many of the jumps, and a more lenient panel lets them go without review if they look good in real time during the program.

**Mathman** · 02-02-2010, 04:05 PM

There is a school of thought that holds that all we need to do is get more camera angles, some nice computer tomography, a grid under the ice and sensors on the skates, then we could tell the difference between 89 degrees and 91 degrees.

I don't think so. 89 degrees from what to what? If you look at the whole jump, I do not think that the take-off base line is at all well-defined. The skater is twisting, curving, jumping, picking at all sorts of angles at the same time. Is the base line perpendicular to the shoulders? The hips? One is tempted to say, it is the straight line that the skater is traveling on down the ice, except that line is anything but straight.

Is it the angle of the blade when it leave the ice? That is almost never straight "backward?" If one part of the blade leves the ice before another, should we start from the instant when the skater's weight is no longer being supported by the blade (when is that?) If the skater does a little dance on her toe pick after the other blade is entirely off the ice (as we saw recently in the Mirai Nagasu slo-mos), is that taken into account? Then all of the same questions come up again on the landing. In the videos there are many degrees of rotation between the time the tip of the toe touches tha ice and the time when she has actually "landed" on her landing edge.

I think Miki88 makes a good point, that jumps that are good-looking for other reasons, like exceptional height, give the illusion of being less underrotated than jumps that have other flaws as well.

To answer Thumbyskates question, why do skaters attempt these jumps when they can't do them, I think the answer is clear. Half the time they get away with the underrotation anyway, so why not?

**Mathman** · 02-02-2010, 06:34 PM

Originally Posted by thumbyskates

Why does everyone get so upset about this? If you can't do a jump, don't do it. If you're not really doing a triple, you shouldn't really get the points. It's cheating.

I think what upsets a lot of people is that the scoring system is so lax on other errors. If you can't do the jump without falling, don't do it. You are not doing a jump at all, and you shouldn't get any points. It's cheating.

If you can't do the jump without two-footing the landing, why should you get any points? If you can't do the jump without putting your hand down or wildly swinging around fighting for balance, then you shouldn't get any points. If you take off from the wrong edge on a "Lutz," why should you get any points?

To me, that is the problem. In the CoP nobody cares about all that, just about underrotations.

**thumbyskates** · 02-03-2010, 12:27 AM

Originally Posted by Mathman

I think what upsets a lot of people is that the scoring system is so lax on other errors. If you can't do the jump without falling, don't do it. You are not doing a jump at all, and you shouldn't get any points. It's cheating.

If you can't do the jump without two-footing the landing, why should you get any points? If you can't do the jump without putting your hand down or wildly swinging around fighting for balance, then you shouldn't get any points. If you take off from the wrong edge on a "Lutz," why should you get any points?

To me, that is the problem. In the CoP nobody cares about all that, just about underrotations.

That's a fair analysis!! However, 2-footing does get a deduction. It is not cheating if you complete the rotation. I think the most important part of a completed jump is the rotation. The rest is on how you do it and that is reflected in GOE. I agree though, that there should be different marks for completing a "flutz" or a "lip"...jumps called exactly those names on the report card with very low points...not worth it to waste a jump, type deal.

**antmanb** · 02-03-2010, 04:41 AM

Originally Posted by thumbyskates

I think the poster was trying to show that the same jumps are being downgraded/ratified at different comps, as mentioned.

However, I disagree. I agree with everyone of those calls, except for perhaps #8, the JGPF double Axel downgrade...that one could be close.

Why does everyone get so upset about this? If you can't do a jump, don't do it. If you're not really doing a triple, you shouldn't really get the points. It's cheating. The TS's are not out to get skater's, they are doing their job. It is a panel of 3, not 1. It's not a conspiracy. It makes me so angry, as both a skater (not high-level, I'll admit) and an official, that people think judges/TS are out to get skaters.

I repeat. If you can't do the jump, don't. You won't get the call. There will always be disagreements on if it was close or not, but everyone is entitled to an opinion...and the video reply may have been in a different spot on all those calls. If you're jump is that close that at some angles it's correct and at others it is not, it is a risk you must be willing to take as a skater to include the jump.

Just my 2 cents, even though I know I'll get bashed for it.

As a skater you should know that it isn't as black or white as - if you can't do the jump don't do it. I can do many jumps (singles only!) in practice. Sometimes skating a different rink, on different ice causes mistakes. Sometimes if i'm nervous and i'm a little tentative i revert to old bad habbits (like toe-waltz jump), sometimes when the ice has been freshly cut and i'm used to skating on cut up crappy public session ice i'll have more speed than i'm used to and i'll pre-rotate my salchow past the acceptable point. You need to get mileage out of your jumps in different situations, with idfferent ice, in different rinks and in different pressure situations. If you don't you will never truly "get" the jump.

Let's not forget it's the fans that obsess over these calls, not the skaters.

Ant

**Bennett** · 02-03-2010, 06:38 AM

Originally Posted by Mathman

Mao's technique on her triple Axel is remarkably consistent. About 150 degrees of pre-rotation on the take-off and about 120 degrees underrotation on the landing. Sometimes she gets lucky with the caller, sometimes not.

So do you start counting the rotation after the prerotation ceases?

To my bare eyes, they often look fully rotated. Is this because I start counting during the prerotation?

**Mathman** · 02-03-2010, 08:06 AM

Originally Posted by Bennett

So do you start counting the rotation after the prerotation ceases?

To me, that is where the ambiguity arises. We discussed it before on another thread, but no one was able to come up with a definitive answer as to where we should start counting the rotation from. That is why, in my opinion, the idea that one jump is underrotated 89 degrees and another 91 degrees is bogus.

To my bare eyes, they often look fully rotated. Is this because I start counting during the prerotation?

I don't think so. I believe that the reason most of these jumps look OK in real time is that the skater touches down with the toe-pick first, with a lot of underrotation -- maybe 135 degrees. But then she swivels so fast that by the time the whole blade is on the ice, bearing her weight, it is OK. (In the videos of Mao's triple Axel, even then she appears to be a few degrees short.)

I feel that the correct way to measure it should be from where the take-off blade (not the picking foot) is enough off the ice that the skater's weight is not on it, to the point in the landing where again the exit edge is bearing her weight. This convention seems correct in terms of the physics of the jump, plus it is something that could be accurately measured by sensors in the boot. I don't know what the ISU rules say about this, however.

That's a fair analysis!! However, 2-footing does get a deduction. It is not cheating if you complete the rotation. I think the most important part of a completed jump is the rotation. The rest is on how you do it and that is reflected in GOE.

Well, I think you could say that two-footing the landing is a different kind of cheating. I think all parts of the jump should be graded consistently -- incorrect takeoff, incomplete rotations or bad body position in the air, improper landing -- I wouldn't want to single out one error as being immensely more heinous than another. Under 6.0 judging, a jump was not "ratified" if the landing was two-footed , hands down, etc. (although it was not clear how the judges took this into account in the final marks.)

IMHO the fairest way to judge the severity of an error is by how much it disrupts the flow of the program. A slight two-foot where you just brush the ice is not as bad as coming down plop with all your weight on both feet.

**janetfan** · 02-03-2010, 08:38 AM

I agree with this post and several others you have made here.
There does seem to be some ambiguity about pre-rotations and URS. A two footed landing can atleast be seen although there are differences in that too as you pointed out.

Some of this will always be a matter of preference. I don't mind the second jump of a 3x3 being slightly UR'ed especially if it is so close that it requires replay to determine it.
On the other hand, seeing a completed second triple where the skater has to step out awkwardly or put their hand down seems worse to me.

I am aware that the rules should be followed but this is a case where I don't see much logic in the rules.

For me the error should be punished by how much it effects the presentation and flow of the program. Needing instant replay to see something sort of proves that it did not effect the flow of the jump or the program.

The current rules might work better for me if the penalties matched the disruption of the performance.

**Bennett** · 02-03-2010, 09:01 AM

Originally Posted by Mathman

To me, that is where the ambiguity arises. We discussed it before on another thread, but no one was able to come up with a definitive answer as to where we should start counting the rotation from. That is why, in my opinion, the idea that one jump is underrotated 89 degrees and another 91 degrees is bogus.

I don't think so. I believe that the reason most of these jumps look OK in real time is that the skater touches down with the toe-pick first, with a lot of underrotation -- maybe 135 degrees. But then she swivels so fast that by the time the whole blade is on the ice, bearing her weight, it is OK. (In the videos of Mao's triple Axel, even then she appears to be a few degrees short.)

I feel that the correct way to measure it should be from where the take-off blade (not the picking foot) is enough off the ice that the skater's weight is not on it, to the point in the landing where again the exit edge is bearing her weight. This convention seems correct in terms of the physics of the jump, plus it is something that could be accurately measured by sensors in the boot. I don't know what the ISU rules say about this, however.

Dr. Mathman, thanks so very much for your informative explanation. I truly appreciate your kindness in taking your precious time for answering my question out of your busy schedule.

If you do not mind, would you be so kind as to let me ask one followup question?

I believe that the reason most of these jumps look OK in real time is that the skater touches down with the toe-pick first, with a lot of underrotation -- maybe 135 degrees. But then she swivels so fast that by the time the whole blade is on the ice, bearing her weight, it is OK.

How would you see the rotation in the moment of the toe touch-down? The toe is just a small point or the center of pivot. So it is difficult for me to determine where the toe is pointed at the moment of the touch down. Only when the blade lands on the ice, I could see the direction/degree of the UR. To see the rotation in the moment of the toe touch-down, are you looking at the direction of the skater's body or at the skate boot?

At the last moment of takeoff, the skate gets into a deeper curve to create the momentum to take off, esp. in the case of the edge jump. Also in the case of any jump, the first moment of the touch down involves a deeper curve than the moments afterwards. But I am not too sure if these moments need to be included in counting the # of rotations.

**sk8rdad** · 02-03-2010, 09:15 AM

I have said this before but it's worth repeating. If a skater doesn't want their jumps downgraded they must not leave any doubt in the mind of the technical call that the jump was rotated. If the jump is not clearly rotated then the technical caller is going to review it and the skater must live with the decision that that particular technical caller makes on that particular day.

Thread: videos on UR calls

Thread Tools

Display

Slow-motion videos of DGed jumps and ratified jumps

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions