Yes you can. From last season the judges giving the GOEs are no longer informed whether a jump is downgraded or not. So if they do not see it they might well give positive GOEs. The most famous and controversial case happened in the ladies SP at the 2009 GP final where. yuna's 3Lz3T was downgraded b the technical panel but almost every judge gave her GOE+1 and +2. Further, but only very theoretically, according to communication 1557 an under rotated jump is o longer an error for which the final GOE must be in the minuses.
Mid-point base value may be given to URed jumps
- Thread starter Bennett
- Start date
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2009
Cracks me up since it's completely irrelevant to the topic. LOL. Mao didn't get UR or DG on her 3As, and actually she got DG'd on her 3F, the jump Yuna made.
This is very fair.
☆Genie;481375 said:
Yes.
If the judges think that your jumps looked fine, then they can give you positive GOE.
Last edited by a moderator:
The cheating talk makes it sound like a skater is thinking, 'Oh, I'm a little tired, so I'm going to save my energy and underrotate this jump now.' I seriously doubt that's what's happening. From what I understand, a skater who intentionally tries not to complete the number of revolutions is probably going to mess up her landing. Underrotations should be punished, but not more than falls, and they should not be considered 'cheating' when they're involuntary.
M
mylastduchess
Guest
Well there is underotated jumps, and severly underotate jumps will those two have the same point value, cause I see that getting abused.
In my opinion, under-rotation should not be punished to the extent that it actually discourages skaters to try higher level jumps. Downgrade is enough of punishment for it. Once you take away GoE based on aesthetic of the whole jump and other techniques, even the best jumpers will have a reservation about high level jumps they do well. The same applies to more difficult triples like Lutz or combinations for ladies. (As to the example of transition you are using, one should learn more techniques to make a better transition and get GoE. So, taking GoE away from the transition for under-rotation is like punishing others for your own shortcomings.)
Any change, if at all, is to encourage honest skaters to try higher level jumps yet prevent dishonest ones to take advantage of it. Taking GoE for under-rotation actually can end up hurting honest, good skaters more than punishing dishonest ones.
I am guessing that even if a mid-point is awarded for under-rotation, it will be sensible enough to prevent a situation that high level jumps such as 3A is to be an escape fom flutz for example. Yes, there still will be skaters who want to take advantage of it. But, I think it is about embracing a lesser evil.
A good idea in text, but I'm worried that it might give too much power to the tech caller. Perhaps there could be several tech callers with equal say (not the little hierarchy of now)?
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
The Tech Caller is supposed to be part of a Troika with equal powers. A majority decision is enough for action.
IMO, the whole concept of URs should be changed to an automatic deduction of 2 points and forget all those silly calculations
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2010
If this intermediate score rule were to be ratified...
We will soon witness skaters practicing cheated jumps as daily routines.
After all, it would be stupid to perform a clean triple-double when you would receive a higher score with a cheated triple-triple.
Heck, infamous cheaters of the past might even make huge money giving lessons around the globe.
This proposed new rule is not only a bad morality but also a shear stupidity.
In soccer, you don't get rewarded a half point for hitting the post or the crossbar.
In basketball, you don't get points for shot attempts that rattles the rim but fails to go through it.
For the Japanese Federation, it would make far more sense to push for a creating a new discipline called Ice Jumping, if they were in such desperation to hand their skaters gold medals.
We will soon witness skaters practicing cheated jumps as daily routines.
After all, it would be stupid to perform a clean triple-double when you would receive a higher score with a cheated triple-triple.
Heck, infamous cheaters of the past might even make huge money giving lessons around the globe.
This proposed new rule is not only a bad morality but also a shear stupidity.
In soccer, you don't get rewarded a half point for hitting the post or the crossbar.
In basketball, you don't get points for shot attempts that rattles the rim but fails to go through it.
For the Japanese Federation, it would make far more sense to push for a creating a new discipline called Ice Jumping, if they were in such desperation to hand their skaters gold medals.
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2003
- Country
-
Strictly speaking, it's probably the US and Europe pushing the rule.
- Joined
- May 15, 2009
As far as I know if you hit the post in soccer you also don't receive a half-point penalty.
There are a couple of ways to look at this. It seems right now the ur penalties are too harsh.
Many think this is holding the sport back as it is safer to do a 3x2 than to push for a 3x3.
If ISU wants to encourage the sport to keep moving forward then they have to be careful not to make the penalties for urs on jumps so costly as to prevent skaters from taking bigger risks.
Is it fair to say a slightly ur'ed 3x3 is more difficult than a 3x2 jump?
If ISU is willing to give points for rotations when a skater falls why can't they give a few points for a slightly ur'ed jump that the skater has landed?
I think the jump scoring right now needs some adjustment. I doubt if it will kill skating to make a change on urs. If the change turns out to be bad and leads to widespread cheating, stock market crashes and atonal music in elevators then ISU can make another adjustment in a year or two.
I think rule changes make the most sense at the beginning of an Olympic cycle as it will give skaters time to adjust - of course unless they change it again.
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2009
The penalty analogy doesn't work. Either you get the value of the goal (one point on the scoreboard) or you don't. Right now, in figure skating, you either get the value of the fully rotated triple jump (+/- GOE) or you get another, lower value.
That said, your follow-up is bang on. A fully rotated jump that ends in a fall shouldn't be worth points, if they're gonna be that harsh. Pushing the sport forward means making the penalties for risk taking smaller.
I like DesertRoad's idea of a two tiered UR system, a la edge calls.
That said, your follow-up is bang on. A fully rotated jump that ends in a fall shouldn't be worth points, if they're gonna be that harsh. Pushing the sport forward means making the penalties for risk taking smaller.
I like DesertRoad's idea of a two tiered UR system, a la edge calls.
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2010
I really don't see a UR call as penalizing a skater.
Like hitting the post in soccer, it is just points she/he leaves on the table IMO.
I also think encouraging skaters to do bigger moves should be done by rewarding such with higher points for success, not with giving out obscure intermediate points despite failures.
Current IJS does a pretty good job at this, as we have seen from the Olympics where skaters across disciplines and skill levels planned their programs wisely.
Besides, I don't agree to those who say that skating is not moving forward.
Vancouver Olympics displayed the best overall performance level in history IMO, with skaters showing wisely constructed programs tailored to their capabilities, hence resulting in well-executed and clean performances.
Even in terms of big jumps, Asada went for 3 triple axels for the first time in history, and Yuna Kim did the best 3Lz-3T ever done in Olympics, not to mention all the ladies like Lepisto, Leonova, and Sarah Hecken performing triple-triples.
Takahashi went for a quad, because he felt he needed it to win Gold, and he would have won if he had succeeded.
For Plushy, it was not a question of what he landed, but how he landed them IMO.
During the Olys, the only skater I saw getting screwed by UR calls was Rachel Flatt.
IMO, she was an exception, not the norm.
Rachel just had a terrible draw, and was unlucky to skate before Rochette.
It was politically and sentimentally correct for JoRo to medal, and they were not going to let Rachel beat her easily.
Mirai had a better luck, and judges didn't hold her down.
Thank goodness that JoRo skated well and deserved the bronze medal :thumbsup:
I do agree with you that ISU needs to toughen the rules against falls.
I think skaters should get zero points for falls, even for fully rotated jumps.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2009
Racheal wasn't gonna beat Rochette unless the latter bombed. Her UR calls weren't do to political expediency.
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2009
Surely it will make men`s skating be more manly. Not like with the current Olympic champion.
- Joined
- May 15, 2009
After seeing multiple mistakes from Rachael and Miki in the SP not get hit very hard I can see no way that ISU was protecting Joannie.
If anything Mirai - who skated so early in the SP - should have been several points ahead of Rachael and Miki after the SP.
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2008
Marai was the one that got screwed over. Her PCS score deserved much better and I would have giver her 30ish in the SP and 63-65 range for the FS. Also how the hell did she get level 2 for her spiral sequence and spins is beyond me?????? =(
It's definitely a case of the tech caller dealing under the table with skate canada to keep boo-hoo girl Rochett on the podium.
But regarding the underrotation call, i think it would be much easier just to give mandatory -2GOE for < jump than doing all these silly calculation.
Similar threads
