Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 45

Thread: videos on UR calls

  1. #16
    Dreaming and dancing Bennett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Watching the sunset
    Posts
    2,793
    I don't know where this video is coming from and if this boy is supposed to be a textbook jumper. But it sounds like that.
    Single Loop jump by a little boy:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KalZR...eature=related
    If we look at the slow-mo, the jump has a significant amount of prerotation. Does he jump any more than a 1/2 turn?
    I also wonder if he actually prerotates more than elite skaters. Could it appear a lot more visible than that of 3 loop just because it's single?
    I think that the point I am trying to make is that prerotation is necessarily involved in the loop.
    Last edited by Bennett; 02-03-2010 at 10:07 AM.

  2. #17
    Custom Title antmanb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    UK - Manchester
    Posts
    4,913
    Quote Originally Posted by sk8rdad View Post
    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.
    I agree with this completely, however, I think the main issue I have is with the rules as they are curerntly written. I don't understand the logic of, for example, lambiel practically sitting down and putting a hand down on a quad that was less than 1440 degrees rotated (but not more than about 45 degrees short), receiving far more points than a quad that is about 1340 degrees rotated but is landed on one foot with some flow out.

    It's a difficult one to try to fix and whenever i try to think of a fix i created more problems that need fixing, but one thing i'd like to see is a cumulative -GOE with a maximum scale of greater than 3 (probably more closer to 5 or 6) so that if you under-rotate and fall on a triple flutz, you are hitting the maximum.

    Ant

  3. #18
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    27,063
    Quote Originally Posted by sk8rdad View Post
    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.
    That's quite true, but the question is not what the skaters should do to avoid penalties under the current rules. The question is whether or not the ISU should revise the rules.

    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.
    I agree. That is why I think the rotation should be measured by full-blade-on-ice.

    Others disagree. I do not know what the ISU rules say about this issue.

    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?
    In the videos that you posted I tried to look at the boot. I agree it is hard to come up with an unambiguous determination of the precise moment of first kissing the ice, and the exact alignment of the boot at this moment.

    However, if you watch the first two videos of Mao's tripe Axel over and over, it starts to become clear that her toe touched down first at almost 180 degrees of underroation,. then almost instantly the blade settles down at about 120 degrees of underrotation, then there is a very quick skid on the ice to about 90 degrees of pre-rotation. IMHO it is this 90 degrees that is most apparent in real time.
    Last edited by Mathman; 02-03-2010 at 10:18 AM.

  4. #19
    Dreaming and dancing Bennett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Watching the sunset
    Posts
    2,793
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
    However, if you watch the first two videos of Mao's tripe Axel over and over, it starts to become clear that her toe touched down first at almost 180 degrees of underroation,. then almost instantly the blade settles down at about 120 degrees of underrotation, then there is a very quick skid on the ice to about 90 degrees of pre-rotation. IMHO it is this 90 degrees that is most apparent in real time.
    The prerotation is pretty visible.

    But another issue that I've been wondering is whether or not the deeper edge at the takeoff should be deducted in counting the total amount of rotation esp. in the cases of edge jumps. I feel that that is the part of mechanism of the edge jumps.

    Besides, if we compare Sal and Lutz, Lutz needs a greater amount of revolution than Sal. Isn't this also a part of the mechanism of the jump? Jumps become difficult in the oder from sal, toe loop, loop, flip, lutz, to axel, partly because of the amount of revolution needed.
    Last edited by Bennett; 02-03-2010 at 10:40 AM.

  5. #20
    Custom Title antmanb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    UK - Manchester
    Posts
    4,913
    Quote Originally Posted by sk8rdad View Post
    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.
    Pre-rotation is a difficult one especially when discussing the mechanics of a jump. I winder what old-school teachers make of the new judging system.

    Petkevich in his book on figure skating technique talks about the toe-loop and salchow being "half rotation" jumps when done as singles. Even with the best technique in the world on the toe-loop the correct technique is from the RBO bend the right knee, stretch back with the left foot, plant the left toe pick in staright back with the foot upright, then draw the right skate back to the left foot and pick it up off the ice and kick through with it. Now while this all happens in a fraction of a second, unless you have weird joints that means that you HAVE to be twisting on the left toe pick as the right foot draws back to and kicks past the picking foot. Technically when your toe pick leaves the ice it will be facing forward. So when did you jump? When the weight transfered to the left toe pick, when the right skate left the ice? Or when the toe pick left the ice? For the toe-loop I think the rotating on the toe pick is the correct and accept technique, what is not allowed is where the skater reaches back to pick in and turns out the left leg and let's the left side of the their body release the check to allow for the left toe pick to go into the ice pointing forwards. The grey area for me though, is when i watch nearly all elite skaters do multi revolution toe loops they rarely plant teh left toe pick in straight back, there is an element of turn out in the pick, so while they're not all the way to forwards they are often round towards 90 degrees.

    I think the main issue with all of this is that people have been skating for over 100 hundred years and developing technique over that time period, before people started using the closed backspin air position it seemed that triple jumps would be impossible let alone quads. Coaches have always had varying degrees of tolernace of pre and under-rotation and I think that simply means the judging system is not going to always appear right to everyone.

    The downgrade issue is a hot topic because it is the jump error that is penalised the most - more than a fall, more than a cumulative number of minor errors.

    Ant

  6. #21
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    141
    Quote Originally Posted by antmanb View Post
    I agree with this completely, however, I think the main issue I have is with the rules as they are curerntly written. I don't understand the logic of, for example, lambiel practically sitting down and putting a hand down on a quad that was less than 1440 degrees rotated (but not more than about 45 degrees short), receiving far more points than a quad that is about 1340 degrees rotated but is landed on one foot with some flow out.

    It's a difficult one to try to fix and whenever i try to think of a fix i created more problems that need fixing, but one thing i'd like to see is a cumulative -GOE with a maximum scale of greater than 3 (probably more closer to 5 or 6) so that if you under-rotate and fall on a triple flutz, you are hitting the maximum.

    Ant
    ITA and I think we have the current rules because they were the ones that the majority could agree on when the system was created. I certianly wouldn't be opposed to increasing the GOE range and defining it so that for falls on an element the element is scored zreo. The current system is basically a seven point scale so the question becomes should it be even around the zero GOE point or asymetric.

    We can debate what the rules should be but until the ISU decides to revise those rules the current ones are what the skaters have to work within and any skater who expects to do well needs to focus their energies on reducing the possibility of having a call go against them. If the system changes down the road then the skaters revise their priorities.

  7. #22
    Custom Title chapis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    México
    Posts
    573
    Quote Originally Posted by Bennett View Post
    The prerotation is pretty visible.

    But another issue that I've been wondering is whether or not the deeper edge at the takeoff should be deducted in counting the total amount of rotation esp. in the cases of edge jumps. I feel that that is the part of mechanism of the edge jumps.

    Besides, if we compare Sal and Lutz, Lutz needs a greater amount of revolution than Sal. Isn't this also a part of the mechanism of the jump? Jumps become difficult in the oder from sal, toe loop, loop, flip, lutz, to axel, partly because of the amount of revolution needed.
    yes, the 1/2 prerotation in the loop its ok, then that 1/2 rotation count like turn, 3loop is actually 2.5 spins in the air

  8. #23
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    27,063
    Quote Originally Posted by sk8rdad View Post
    We can debate what the rules should be but until the ISU decides to revise those rules the current ones are what the skaters have to work within and any skater who expects to do well needs to focus their energies on reducing the possibility of having a call go against them.
    It is certainly the case that skaters, coaches and fans have little input into the ISU decision-making process. Still, I don't think we should give up.

    The IJS, as you note, rewards skaters who can work the system. When the system started giving extra points for a Biellmann position, skaters filled their programs with Biellmann's, come hell or high water. When Jeff Buttle figured out that he could score more points by falling on a quad than by standing up on a triple, he choreographed a fall on a quad into his program.

    At present the hammer of CoP justice falls heavily on underrotators, while letting other miscreants, equally culpable, slide. We may not be able to do anything about it, but we can at least raise our feeble banner of protest at the distortions that the judging system is causing.
    Last edited by Mathman; 02-03-2010 at 03:50 PM.

  9. #24
    End subjectivity,reduce PCS, fix the COP! schiele's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Turkey
    Posts
    633
    Quote Originally Posted by sk8rdad View Post
    I certianly wouldn't be opposed to increasing the GOE range and defining it so that for falls on an element the element is scored zreo. The current system is basically a seven point scale so the question becomes should it be even around the zero GOE point or asymetric..
    I agree with most of the comments you all are making, however I still find this too harsh. While i agree that the penalty on underrotation is too askewed especially compared to a fall, giving 0 points for a badly executed element (fall) is simply too black and white and again will distort risk taking terribly.. The system also must ensure that skaters are encouraged to push forward and not working the system and remaining safe.

  10. #25
    Custom Title Joesitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    20,185
    We are never aware of what the Tech caller sees in real-time or in his special video box. We do know his call is final and remains part of the score. To say that the Caller is incompetent or biased can not be proven easily. He has 2 other panelists to back him up in real time.

    Why there is so much fuss about URs which do not disrupt the program, and are not as terrible as a Fall which does indeed disrupt the program and a wrong-edge-takeoff which loses the name of the jump are less serious are much more serious, imo.
    Last edited by Joesitz; 02-04-2010 at 07:36 AM. Reason: omitted a key word in my prose

  11. #26
    Dreaming and dancing Bennett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Watching the sunset
    Posts
    2,793
    Jen's blog on this issue. She uses the same analogy as Mathman does, and vice versa. This is the 4th most often read article of hers.

    http://trueslant.com/jenniferkirk/20...for-the-sport/

  12. #27
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    141
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
    It is certainly the case that skaters, coaches and fans have little input into the ISU decision-making process. Still, I don't think we should give up.

    The IJS, as you note, rewards skaters who can work the system. When the system started giving extra points for a Biellmann position, skaters filled their programs with Biellmann's, come hell or high water. When Jeff Buttle figured out that he could score more points by falling on a quad than by standing up on a triple, he choreographed a fall on a quad into his program.

    At present the hammer of CoP justice falls heavily on underrotators, while letting other miscreants, equally culpable, slide. We may not be able to do anything about it, but we can at least raise our feeble banner of protest at the distortions that the judging system is causing.
    ITA that we shouldn't give up. The reality from the athlete perspective is that the need to work within the current rules. The fact is that the rules do change and change quite frequently. In the opinion of the coaches I know far too frequently. The biggest issue from a coaching standpoint is the never ending changes to footwork rules and the endless "clarifications/changes" in dance. From a skater perspective the current rules regarding jumping are fairly well accepted and most of the skaters I know simply strive to eliminate any possibility of a call going against them.

  13. #28
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    27,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Bennett View Post
    Jen's blog on this issue.
    I think this is pretty much everybody's take.

    Quote Originally Posted by sk8rdad
    ITA that we shouldn't give up. The reality from the athlete perspective is that the need to work within the current rules. The fact is that the rules do change and change quite frequently. In the opinion of the coaches I know far too frequently.
    Taken as a whole, I think the changes tell an interesting story. I think the time line went something like this (someone please correct me if I am remembering wrong.)

    When the CoP first came out there were no specific deductions at all, it was just assumed that the judges would mark skaters down for obvious errors in the GOE. The first mandatory deduction was the one point fall deduction, tacked on because the ISU felt that, well, really, if you fall down, that's pretty bad. Everthing else properly falls to the discretion of the judges.

    But in practice the judges were too lax and never gave out much in the way of negative GOEs. So the ISU decided to take some of that power out of the hands of the judges and give it to the technical panel. First the "e" call, then the "<." Accompanying these calls were instructions to the judges that they could not give positive GOE, that they must give a certain amount of negative GOE, etc.

    Then they decided (after a lot of protests) that they had gone too far, so they lightened up with the "!" and with allowing the judges more leeway even on < calls.

    For people who like figure skating politics and conspiracy theories , one way to imterpret all this is as a power struggle between Cinquanta and the National Federations. The supposed reason for implementing the CoP in the first place was because the National Federations were forcing their judges to cheat. The tech panel, on the other hand, is (in principle) beholden only to the ISU, not to any individual federation. So...take the power out of the hands of the judges and give it to the tech specialis, Speedy wins. Give some of the power back to the judges, Speedy loses, federatipn chiefs win.
    Last edited by Mathman; 02-04-2010 at 02:33 PM.

  14. #29
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,579
    Mathman, I think your recollections are more or less acurate for edge violations but not for downgrades.

    I can't find documentation, so I'm relying on memory.

    As I recall, for the first year or two of the new system, jumps that were short of rotation were called as if they were the same takeoff with one less rotation. E.g., a cheated triple lutz would be called as a double lutz. So the downgrade penalty existed from the start. I'm not sure what the instructions were to judges about what kinds of GOEs to give in that situation.

    This led to some problems with the Zayak Rule. IIRC, at one of the fall competitions Michael Weiss did a quad toe that was downgraded to triple toe, and he also did two triple toes in combination. Therefore his last combination didn't count.

    I don't recall any such examples, but you can see how it would be a problem for anyone who attempted a triple axel combination and had it downgraded to a double axel in the short program, where a solo double axel would also have been required and no repeats are allowed.

    Meanwhile, Skate Canada had already instituted the < symbol for downgrades in domestic Canadian events. That allowed calling a jump as what it was intended to be, so that the computer wouldn't disqualify "repeat" jumps that the skater might have no way of knowing in real time whether they were considered repeats, and it gave a visual way of indicating in the protocols why the element received a lower base mark. The ISU then adopted that notation ca. 2005-06.

    In other words, there was never any time under any version of this system when underrotated jumps were not harshly penalized in the base mark. The changes have been in the notation, the boxes that they filled for the computer program, and the rules about whether judges are alerted which jumps are downgraded and whether they're required to give negative GOE.

  15. #30
    Custom Title Joesitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    20,185
    There is far too much emphasis to downgrade URs, and when the UR does not disrupt a program, it is disaster for the skater. A simple -2 would more than suffice the jump and avoid the Zayak rule. If the UR does disrupt the program with a Fall, then we have an UR and a Fall. If the UR has a wrong edge takeoff and a Fall, what are the penalties issued in scoring?

    Scenario

    Attempted triple Lutz with a wrong edge takeoff followed by
    2-l/2 air rotations due to UR followed by
    a Fall because of lost balance on the landing

    With the above scenario, how is the attempt scored? What can the judges judge? if the penalties are automatic.

    Simple solution, imo, would be to give equal automatic deductions to each of the big jumping errors.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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