videos on UR calls

[vlaurend]

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.. . .
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.

Yes, I competed under IJS for the first time in summer 2005 (which may have been using the new 2006 season rules) and I remember landing a double salchow with good control and outflow and then seeing it marked as a "1S" with -3 GOE on my scoresheet because it was underrotated. I was told at that time that the -3 GOE was standard for downgraded jumps, even if there were no other flaws in the jump. It was *painful* and I'm glad they got rid of that mandatory -GOE rule for downgraded jumps.

[vlaurend]

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.

Because the whole point of IJS was to DEFINE figure skating elements so that they could be MEASURED objectively. Just think. . . If you don't downgrade a jump that is just over 1/4 turn underrotated, then at what point will you downgrade it? 1/3 turn? 1/2 turn? Will you score an overrotated double as an underrotated triple? Will there be a fixed % decrease in the value of each jump depending on exactly what degree it was underrotated? Let's say they did that. . . How would you like seeing a whole slew of 3-1/2 revolution "quads" (and what would they call them anyway?) and 3 revolution triple axels (would they call them two-and-a-half-axels?). The point is that when you want to DEFINE something, you must draw the line somewhere. It's just like law.

I wouldn't have a big issue with flutzes being scored as flips or lips being scored as lutzes, but then you run into the balanced program element issues. If a skater flutzes (and some skaters only do it sometimes, so they aren't expecting to take off on the wrong edge) and that lutz attempt gets called as a flip, that is going to result in zero points for the final flip in the program if there were also two flips. That is not a fair punishment for a slight change of edge on a jump takeoff. When you look at the value of a flutz after -GOE, it is going to be less than the value of a flip, so it's fair, IMO.

As for falls, how could anyone find it fair to negate an entire element just because the skater falls at the end of it? That's like saying your life was worthless because you died at the end. But seriously. . . A jump is made up of the takeoff, the rotation in the air, and the landing. There is no way that a fully rotated triple axel with a bad landing (i.e., loss of balance on landing that leads to a fall) should get the same score as a waltz jump. Only the best skaters in the world can fully rotate a triple axel, whether they stay upright on the landing or not.

If your major concern is what disrupts the program for the viewers, you might prefer ice shows and exhibitions, where they never attempt anything very difficult and hardly ever fall.

[Mathman]

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?

For the UR, the base value is reduced from 6.0 points to 1.9 points.

For the fall alone the judges would take off -3 GOE and for the wrong edge they would take off -2. However, the lowest you can get is -3, so if the skater got -3 for the fall they judges cannot take off any more for the wrong edge.

After factoring, this results is a loss of 1.0 point in GOE, bringing the total for the element down to 0.9 points.

Then they apply the extra -1 point fall deduction.

Grand total for the element: negative 0.1 points.

[champs]

Because the whole point of IJS was to DEFINE figure skating elements so that they could be MEASURED objectively. Just think. . . If you don't downgrade a jump that is just over 1/4 turn underrotated, then at what point will you downgrade it? 1/3 turn? 1/2 turn? Will you score an overrotated double as an underrotated triple? Will there be a fixed % decrease in the value of each jump depending on exactly what degree it was underrotated? Let's say they did that. . . How would you like seeing a whole slew of 3-1/2 revolution "quads" (and what would they call them anyway?) and 3 revolution triple axels (would they call them two-and-a-half-axels?). The point is that when you want to DEFINE something, you must draw the line somewhere. It's just like law.

Do you actually really need to draw a line for underrotation for a judging system to work?

Every time I look at people arguing "that looks rotated enough to me" "no, that looks underrotated" on every figure skating discussion board and not reaching any definite conclusions, I always wonder why the line must be drawn at all, especially by a crew consisting only of three members. Why can't the tech panel just decide the levels of spins/spirals/step seqs and let the individual judges decide how much to add or subtract from the base value of the attempted jumps, taking rotation into his/her GOE evaluation? I bet individual judges also have differing evaluations of how bad the underrotation of a certain jump attempt appeared to his/her eyes, in real time and with a close look at the slo-mo playback. I mean, what are so many people sitting at the juding panel for? Not to take varying opinions into account?

For this matter, instead of allowing the judges to choose a GOE value from a set of only 7 possible values (---, --, -, 0, +, ++, and +++), I say give them more freedom so that wider aspects of jump quality can be accomodated and distinguished.

I rarely follow all these judge system discussions so my opinion above may have been addressed and repeated and even torn completely to shreds, so I apologize in advance if this is just another rehash.

[Bennett]

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

Then do the tech specialists start counting the rotation of 3 loop at the take off and ratify it if it has at least a 2 and 1/4 revolutions in the air, instead of at least 2 and 3/4 revolutions?

[gkelly]

Do you actually really need to draw a line for underrotation for a judging system to work?

Yes, you have to draw a line between double and triple.

Logically, it would make more sense to draw that line at 180 degrees short rather than 90.

It would then be necessary to build in the potential for sufficient penalties that a jump that is significantly underrotated but not downgraded and has no other errors would be worth more than a jump that is significantly underrotated but not downgraded and has multiple other errors.

So if judges have 3 grades of negative execution to award, which they can apply for underrotations if they see them, and the tech panel determines fall deductions, then also allow the tech panel to apply an additional deduction for moderately cheated jumps. Then the worst jumps will get downgraded to the lower basemark and -3 and fall deductions; the bad jumps that were not quite 180 degrees short and had other errors would get the cheat deduction, -3 GOE, and fall deduction if applicable; jumps almost 180 short with no other errors would get the cheat deduction and average -2 GOE; jumps a little over 90 degrees short with no other errors would get the cheat deduction and GOEs of -1 from judges who saw the cheat, 0 from those who didn't, and +1 from those who didn't see it and saw other aspects of the element to reward.

[schiele]

http://www.iceskatingintnl.com/curre...%20skating.htm
I know these articles are not favourites with some ppl but nice article overall.. Sums up some of the points discussed here.

[kareliz]

I think it is reasonable to take off points for an under rotated jump. But I think the penalty is too severe. To only value the jump as a double, instead of an under rotated triple does not seem right.

I know the system is already complicated, but couldn't they have a value for an under rotated triple that was a little higher than for a triple that literally turned into an unintended double - a pop? To me the pop is a bigger mistake.

In other words, a double jump has a base value, a triple jump has a base value, and so would an under rotated triple, because even though it is not perfect, it is still harder than a double jump.

[Mathman]

http://www.iceskatingintnl.com/curre...%20skating.htm
I know these articles are not favourites with some ppl but nice article overall.. Sums up some of the points discussed here.

Rossano strikes again! Thought-provoking as usual.

As I read it, the thrust of the main body of the article is that the IJS lacks a coherent translation of the relative difficulty of various on-ice accomplishments to the number of points that these accomplishments earn. Thus, the IJS is not necessarily absurd in principle, it's just that the "ISU minions have squandered its potential."

However, the first three paragraphs point to even more profound difficulties.

The system that has been created provides neither accurate, precise nor repeatable measurements, nor does it include a completely defined absolute standard on which to score performances.

The question then becomes, is this possible even in principle? To me, the key word is "repeatable." If the exact same performance gets a different score on Wednesday than it did on Tuesday, how can we claim that we are "measuring" anything?

[Joesitz]

For the UR, the base value is reduced from 6.0 points to 1.9 points.

For the fall alone the judges would take off -3 GOE and for the wrong edge they would take off -2. However, the lowest you can get is -3, so if the skater got -3 for the fall they judges cannot take off any more for the wrong edge.

After factoring, this results is a loss of 1.0 point in GOE, bringing the total for the element down to 0.9 points.

Then they apply the extra -1 point fall deduction.

Grand total for the element: negative 0.1 points.

tee hee, no emoticons for this?

Catch me wondering where the points went, as Murphy says, if it can happen, it will. Can you imagine a contestant wondering why he got a minus score? IJS knows, they approved of these silly deductions.

[Joesitz]

Because the whole point of IJS was to DEFINE figure skating elements so that they could be MEASURED objectively. Just think. . . If you don't downgrade a jump that is just over 1/4 turn underrotated, then at what point will you downgrade it? 1/3 turn? 1/2 turn? Will you score an overrotated double as an underrotated triple? Will there be a fixed % decrease in the value of each jump depending on exactly what degree it was underrotated? Let's say they did that. . . How would you like seeing a whole slew of 3-1/2 revolution "quads" (and what would they call them anyway?) and 3 revolution triple axels (would they call them two-and-a-half-axels?). The point is that when you want to DEFINE something, you must draw the line somewhere. It's just like law.

I presume you are saying that an UR can only be measured objectively by a downgrade. Yes? and that a wrong-edge-take off from lutz to flip with its easier rotations and landings should not change the name of the jump that didn't happen. Apparently you believe there are flaws in the definitions of the elements. Yes? and although Landings of a jump are program disruptive, the Fall of the element should remain program attempted, and the air rotations should be considered as a teaching tool with points. Yes?

Now as Scott Hamilton says: All jumps turn the same way in the air (even counter rotation jumps) and land the same way. Only the Take-Off is different and that's what gives the jump a name. in It's obvious to me, but you can clarify it with Scott, if you like.

My major concern is to give the big Three Errors equal penalties. To me, one error is as bad as another. Why give partial credit to an error.We are talking about Senior Skaters
Failing that, we will just relax and enjoy wrong definitions. No need to send in the clowns. They are already here. (sorry, not emoticons on this page.)

[chapis]

Then do the tech specialists start counting the rotation of 3 loop at the take off and ratify it if it has at least a 2 and 1/4 revolutions in the air, instead of at least 2 and 3/4 revolutions?

yes.

[Bennett]

yes.

Then regarding Sal and Toe Loop, are they like 2 and 1/4 revolutions in the air and then would they DG only when it is two revolutions or less in the air?

[chapis]

Then regarding Sal and Toe Loop, are they like 2 and 1/4 revolutions in the air and then would they DG only when it is two revolutions or less in the air?

honestly I dont know, I know about the loop because call me attention too much prerotation then I search about it, but I want to know about the sal too, then if someone else know it please tell us, however I will try search it.

[Bennett]

honestly I dont know, I know about the loop because call me attention too much prerotation then I search about it, but I want to know about the sal too, then if someone else know it please tell us, however I will try search it.

It feels that Sal involves significantly less revolutions than Loop when actually doing it. But I do not know how judges count the # of revolutions when they assess URs.