Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 145

Thread: Base values of quads and triple Axels raised, new 1/4-1/2 rule for under-rotations

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    28,640

    Base values of quads and triple Axels raised, new 1/4-1/2 rule for under-rotations

    Thanks to gkelly for posting this on the "New Rules" thread.

    Here are the new base values and GOE guidelines for the 2010-2011 season (ISU Cimmunication 1611).

    http://www.isu.org/vsite/vnavsite/pa...v-list,00.html

    The value of quad toe was raised to 10.3 (from 9.8), tripe Axel to 8.5 (from 8.2). Base value of double Axel lowered to 3.3 (from 3.5).

    Jump under-rotated by 1/4 to 1/2 revolution gets 70% of base value. Jump under-rotated by more than 1/2 gets downgraded to next lower jump.

  2. #2
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Texas, United States
    Posts
    4,971
    I think we'll be seeing a lot more 3-3 attempts from the ladies because of this rule, which is especially favorable to Mao and Mirai. I expect Miki will bring 3lz-3lo back now that it will be worth more than 3lz-2lo even if it is downgraded.

  3. #3
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    1,713
    -Overall less emphasis on jumps
    -Greater emphasis on difficult jumps and attempts
    -Less penalty on fall/errors

    I don't understand why they reduced the base value of triple flip...?

  4. #4
    Custom Title prettykeys's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,803
    Quote Originally Posted by Wrlmy View Post
    -Overall less emphasis on jumps
    -Greater emphasis on difficult jumps and attempts
    -Less penalty on fall/errors

    I don't understand why they reduced the base value of triple flip...?
    Not really sure, but they also slightly decreased the base value of the 3S and increased the 3Lo.

    Overall, these changes look pretty good to me.

    I'm still a little confused about the whole Base< and GoE deal. For example, an underrotated 3A has a base value of 6.0, but since it's underrotated there's also a possible -1 to -2 GoE. It seems like an inefficient way of going about things, to compound penalties like that.
    Last edited by prettykeys; 05-06-2010 at 06:20 PM.

  5. #5
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,819
    Quote Originally Posted by prettykeys View Post
    I'm still a little confused about the whole Base< and GoE deal. For example, an underrotated 3A has a base value of 6.0, but since it's underrotated there's also a possible -1 to -2 GoE. It seems like an inefficient way of going about things, to compound penalties like that.
    It shouldn't be confusing because nothing new re: the GOE grading of these jumps have changed per say. In the past, when a 3A was downgraded, whether the judge knew about the < sign or otherwise, there is an expectation that the judge will penalize the jump through negative GOE accordingly. The compounded penalties have two purpose:

    1) It spreads the penalties of an UR or downgraded jump between the Technical Panel and the judges, thus mitigating the problem of any potential irregularity in judgment or error. In the 6.0 system, any determination of UR rested entirely on the individual judges, therefore, someone who is biased for whatever reasons could turn a blind eye on a mistake.

    2) An UR jump that receives < can still have different degree of UR. On one end, the jump could have been superb and really didn't deserve any other penalties aside from the UR and maybe due to positive mitigating factor, the jump could still get positive if not neutral GOE so the two phase system allows this flexibility to exist. On the other hand, another < jump could be so obviously cheated and that the skater really isn't close in mastering the said jump, giving such jump a 70% value without further penalty would in effect encourage future behavior where the skater may hope to get lucky with 70% of the value of a difficult jump. Therefore, a penalty in the form of negative GOE will dampen such desire to cheat the system. The latter can't be more clear in the case of Mr. Morozov who openly told the press that he intended his skater to do 3/3 in Vancouver so that even an UR happens, she will not lose many points. As it turned out, his skater got destroyed using such stupid strategy.

  6. #6
    Custom Title Joesitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    20,185
    Quote Originally Posted by prettykeys View Post
    Not really sure, but they also slightly decreased the base value of the 3S and increased the 3Lo.

    Overall, these changes look pretty good to me.

    I'm still a little confused about the whole Base< and GoE deal. For example, an underrotated 3A has a base value of 6.0, but since it's underrotated there's also a possible -1 to -2 GoE. It seems like an inefficient way of going about things, to compound penalties like that.
    Well let's hope with the new leeway of 1/2UR is ok that we will not be seeing too many URs. I'm actually happy with that. I am of the opinion that a Fall is much more serious than an UR.

    Was there anything (I haven't read it all yet) about Falling in a program which to me is a complete loss of the Landing of a Jump?

  7. #7
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    2,616
    This makes sense. I always thought an underrotated triple should be worth more than a clean double.
    Last edited by PolymerBob; 05-06-2010 at 07:17 PM.

  8. #8
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    747
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
    Thanks to gkelly for posting this on the "New Rules" thread.

    Here are the new base values and GOE guidelines for the 2010-2011 season (ISU Cimmunication 1611).

    http://www.isu.org/vsite/vnavsite/pa...v-list,00.html

    The value of quad toe was raised to 10.3 (from 9.8), tripe Axel to 8.5 (from 8.2). Base value of double Axel lowered to 3.3 (from 3.5).

    Jump under-rotated by 1/4 to 1/2 revolution gets 70% of base value. Jump under-rotated by more than 1/2 gets downgraded to next lower jump.
    I see more ladeez attempting the 3a, and more men attempting the quad. So what is the base value of 4s or 4 flip?

    Anyway why only 0.7 and not 0.75 when they complete a 3.38 rotations for a 3a? j/k
    Last edited by rtureck; 05-06-2010 at 04:11 PM.

  9. #9
    Custom Title Joesitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    20,185
    I'm immediately hit with the term Downgraded, and there is no penalty for Disrupting the Program if a skater makes the air rotations and falls. Bleh. If a skater takes off on a wrong edge, then the skater is doing another jump - intended or not.

    Raising or lowering the values of the jumps is just a scoring gimmick. Joubert will be happy for this.

    I agree that they did something with the URs which more often than not do not disrupt the program. A UR of more than 1/2 will be easier to see, and it does not comply with the definition of a jump, and most fans will agree with the Specialist. Hopefully, when the next lower jump is not scored as an over rotation.

    Thanks MM. I'll download these over the weekend for ready references.

  10. #10
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    28,640
    Here are the new base values for triple jumps:

    3T = 4.1 (under-rotated 2.9)
    3S = 4.2 (under-rotated 2.9)
    3Lo = 5.1 (under-rotated 3.6)
    3F = 5.3 (under-rotated 3.7)
    3Lz = 6.0 (under-rotated 4.2)
    3A = 8.5 (under-rotated 6.0)

  11. #11
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,928
    Quote Originally Posted by Joesitz View Post
    and there is no penalty for Disrupting the Program if a skater makes the air rotations and falls.
    Yes there is. It's called the fall deduction, which has already been in place since about 2005.

  12. #12
    Custom Title Joesitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    20,185
    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    Yes there is. It's called the fall deduction, which has already been in place since about 2005.
    I'm very much aware of the penalty for falling since 2005. You should know I have been complaining about it for many years.

    My point was it was a simple -1 for losing the entire landing of a jump and disrupting the flow of the program. The penalty of -1 compared to the penalties listed by MM of the UR are a huge difference and the UR does not disrupt the program in most cases.

    Do you actually agree that losing the entire landing of a jump is less serious than an underrotation?

  13. #13
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,928
    Do you actually agree that losing the entire landing of a jump is less serious than an underrotation?
    No I don't, if we're talking about a minor rotation with no other errors. And if there are other errors there are means to penalize the underrotated even further.

    But whether the penalties for falling only or underrotating only depends which jump you're looking at. In many cases, the penalty for falling was already much greater than the penalty for underrotating. For singles, doubles, and downgraded triples, after the fall deduction the failed jump attempt resulted in net negative points -- the skater would have scored better not attempting the jump at all.

    Now let's look at the new scale of values. The underrotation penalty is now less severe because the base< score is closer to that of the fully rotated jump than the downgraded<< jump. That will help the skaters who can stand up on moderately underrotated jumps without disruption. You should be happy about that.

    The negative GOE penalties are also less severe, both for falls and for underrotations, and the falls will still receive the fall deduction.

    Judges will now be shown the < signs, so it's more likely than it was in the last two years that they will give -GOE for borderline jumps that looked OK in real time but receive the base<, although they're not required to do so.

    Let's compare fall on a fully rotated jump, with -3 GOE and fall deduction, vs. intermediate base< with -1 deduction.

    Under the new scale of values,

    Falling on single jumps or doubles up to 2F still results in a negative net value (worse than not trying the element at all).

    Fall on 2Lz or any triple, including 3A, does result in some positive points, but in all those cases the skater would earn more points for a < jump with -1 GOE.

    Fall on rotated 4T or 4S earns exactly 0.1 more than 4T< or 4S<, respectively, with -1 GOE.

    So this is a big improvement in terms of rewarding almost-rotated landed jumps better than falls on fully rotated jumps.


    And of course, many -- maybe most -- falls will happen on underrotated jumps, which will receive the lower < or even << base mark and then also -3 GOE and the fall deduction.

  14. #14
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    28,640
    Quote Originally Posted by Joesitz View Post
    My point was it was a simple -1 for losing the entire landing of a jump and disrupting the flow of the program. The penalty of -1 compared to the penalties listed by MM of the UR are a huge difference and the UR does not disrupt the program in most cases.

    Do you actually agree that losing the entire landing of a jump is less serious than an underrotation?
    Besides the -1 deduction there is also the -3 GOE (formerly mandatory). So, for instance, if you fell on a triple toe you would get 0 for your element (4.0 - 3.0 GOE -1 penalty).

    Under the new rules, for a typical 3T jump, I think it will go something like this.

    Fall on landing (but fully rotated in the air). 4.1 base - 2.1 GOE - 1.0 deduction = 1.0 total.

    Moderate under-rotation (<) 2.9 base - 0.7 GOE = 2.2 total.

    Severe under-rotation (<<) 1.4 base - 0.4 GOE = 1.0 total.

    If you both under-rotate and fall, you end up with negative 0.2.

  15. #15
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,819
    Quote Originally Posted by Joesitz View Post

    My point was it was a simple -1 for losing the entire landing of a jump and disrupting the flow of the program. The penalty of -1 compared to the penalties listed by MM of the UR are a huge difference and the UR does not disrupt the program in most cases.

    Do you actually agree that losing the entire landing of a jump is less serious than an underrotation?
    The nature of the errors are different, it's difficult to compare falling vs. UR directly. You could fall on a fully rotated jump, which means you have mastered the jump (e.g. Quad Flip) whereas the UR could mean the skater is not even close to mastering the required rotations to call the said jump a Quad or Triple. The latter could be a very serious consideration given that a Quad Toe is worth 10.3 whereas a Triple is only 4.1 If UR is not severely penalized, there would be a surge of bogus claims re: skaters who claim to be able to land Quads for example. Using an example, if a skater severely UR a Quad Toe attempt, it wouldn't be fair to give him 10.3 of BV - 3 for GOE - 1 for falling because that would equal 6.3, a value greater than the Triple Lutz even though the Quad is more like over rotated Triple Toe. If so, a program could be filled of bogus Quad attempts with 6 or 7 falls and still end up having a total TES equal to 6 or 7 Triple Lutzes combined. Clearly, I don't believe you think that makes any sense.

    Sometimes a fall isn't as bad it seems. The encouragement should be focused on getting the skaters to learn the proper technique and fully rotate their jumps as opposed to encouraging gaming behavior. So to answer your question, yes, I think UR can be a much more serious problem than a fall.

Page 1 of 3 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
  •