Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 145

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

  1. #31
    More or less: more is more sequinsgalore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    3,703
    Thank Gods! I'm still in chock though (I really didn't believe ISU would have the balls to follow this through) Hopefully we will se more skaters taking higher risks from next season. Who thinks the next Mens World Champ will have a quad?

    By the way have you seen the base value for the choreo step/spiral sequences in the long program? It's only 2.0 point, but +GOE is +1, +2, +3 (instead of +0.5, +1.0, +1.5). This will hopefully reward quality over obscure level features.

  2. #32
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,801
    Quote Originally Posted by prettykeys View Post
    Overall, these changes look pretty good to me.
    Yeah.
    I'm still not sure what I think about the smaller GOE increments.

    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.
    I agree with wallylutz.

    I don't think it's inefficient -- I think it gives more flexibility.

    Suppose I'm a judge and Skater X does a triple axel that looks pretty iffy to me. It was kind of slow going in and coming out, and I think it was probably a bit underrotated but I can't tell for sure whether it was within the 90-degree allowance. I give it a -1. After the program, when the tech panel reviews the rotation, they add the < mark. I feel vindicated that I was correct in catching the underrotation and I leave in the -1.

    Later Skater Y also does a triple axel that looks pretty good. More speed going in, higher and covers more ice in the air, acceptable speed coming out with good extension in the landing position, and the rotation looked fine from my angle. I debate between 0 and +1. After the program, I see that the tech panel has added the < mark, so I realize it must not have been as well rotated as I thought, but everything else was still more than acceptable. Well, that decides me that I'd better not give +1 as the final mark, but I'll consider that +1 for the good qualities and -1 for the underrotation balance out to 0 as the final GOE.

    A judge who thinks that intermediate base mark is sufficient penalty for such an exciting attempt that looked clean in real time could choose to award the +1 anyway.

    Skater Z crawls into a telegraphed triple axel that is clearly well over 90 degrees short of rotation in the air, so I know it will get at least the < call and possibly <<. The skater struggles to control the landing but does manage to stay on one foot on a back outside edge holding a small circle for about a second before skating into the next strokes. Definitely cheated, but it was landed on one foot on the correct edge, so -3 seems overly harsh. I know right away I'm going to give it -2, and I won't change my mind regardless of whether the tech panel awards the intermediate base mark or the downgrade.

    All these cheated triple axels get the intermediate base mark, allowing the tech panel to distinguish between a successful jump, an attempted triple that was not quite there, and a double or a not-even-close attempted triple.

    GOE allows the judges to make finer distinctions between a jump that looked clean in real time, a jump that looked suspicious, and one that was clearly short (but still closer to triple than double).

    Now suppose that skater Y had done her clean-looking 95-degree short 3A out of a spread eagle entrance and into another spread eagle on the exit, perfectly timed with the music. I was going to give it +2 until I saw the < mark, so I'll give it +1 instead.

    Or if skater X also lightly touches her free toe to the ice on the landing I can give her -2. If skater Z loses her fight to hold that landing on one foot and puts her free foot down behind her, I can give her -3.

    And all those potential pluses or penalties could also apply to fully rotated jumps.

    Quote Originally Posted by sequinsgalore View Post
    By the way have you seen the base value for the choreo step/spiral sequences in the long program? It's only 2.0 point, but +GOE is +1, +2, +3 (instead of +0.5, +1.0, +1.5). This will hopefully reward quality over obscure level features.
    Thanks for pointing that out. Yes, I hope this will improve the choreography and encourage skaters to concentrate on the quality instead of just chasing levels.

  3. #33
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    28,117
    Quote Originally Posted by GoPC2018 View Post
    yeah, 0.2 will definitely change the outcome.
    It would be fun to go through some of last year's competitions and score them under the new rules and see if anything interesting happens.

    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly
    I give it a -1. After the program, when the tech panel reviews the rotation, they add the < mark. I feel vindicated that I was correct in catching the underrotation and I leave in the -1.
    Is that the sequence of events? Do the judges key in their GOEs, then afterward get a chance to change them if the tech specialist gives a call based on replay?

  4. #34
    Custom Title bekalc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    3,083
    My only concern is that we will see more messy Kostner 2008 programs being rewarded. I'd like to see the rules talk about PCS and in a factor at least for P/E about clean well executed programs-versus programs wtih all kinds of errors.

    But Wally Lutz thank your for mentioning that this is not all about Yu-na and Mao. I frankly think it was more than time for GOE to be lowered. It was especially unfair because someone with a +2 on a double axel, is getting over half the value. But a high quality triple axel with a +2 is not getting half the value. The new rules do allow triple axels and quads to get slightly higher GOE and I think thats a really good thing.

    My only qualm is I think that 3/3s especially for women should be allowed to get things like +2. Those are very difficult elements, and if its high quality-that should be rewarded.

  5. #35
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    28,117
    Quote Originally Posted by wallylutz
    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.
    However, in the 6.0 system if one judge were biased or careless that would be only one score among nine. In the present system a mistaken call by the tech team takes away 30% off the top and in addition influences all of the judges scores at once.

  6. #36
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    154
    Not exactly sure where to post this because it doesn't deal directly with quad & triple values or underrotation calls, but I thought these two comments, particularly #2, found on the final page, were interesting.

    Remarks:
    1. In both Singles and Pairs “Starting from the wrong edge” and “Unclear edge at take-off” in Flip or
    Lutz jumps will be identified by the Technical Panel to the Judges and in the Protocols with the sign
    “e”. Each Judge will then decide himself/herself on the severity of the error (major or minor error)
    and the corresponding GOE reduction. [my comment: No more ! calls????]

    2. In Jump Combinations/Sequences Half-loop (or “Euler”) (landing backwards) will be a listed jump.
    Consequently the units “half-loop + Salchow/Flip” and “any jump landed backwards outside + half-
    loop + Salchow/Flip” will become jump combinations of 2 or 3 jumps correspondingly.
    Half-loop
    will have the Base Value and the GOE values of the single loop jump and will be identified by the
    Technical Panel to the Judges and in the Protocols as “1Lo”. (Emphasis mine.)

    Does the highlighted phrase mean that jump sequences will now receive the same treatment as jump combinations? i.e., deleting the .80 factor for a jump sequence and become eligible for the 1.1 bonus proposed for jump combinations?

    How does this read to you all? JW

  7. #37
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,818
    Quote Originally Posted by GoPC2018 View Post
    They also took out i mark for jumps. That means the tech penal will be more lenient on edges?
    No, what this means is the Tech Panel will indicate whether a jump receives a generic edge call, which will now include both unclear and wrong edges. It's up to the individual judge to decide the severity of the error. Essentially, instead of it being a Tech Panel driven process, it's now turned into a shared responsibility.

  8. #38
    Medalist
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    84
    Quote Originally Posted by just wondering View Post
    Does the highlighted phrase mean that jump sequences will now receive the same treatment as jump combinations? i.e., deleting the .80 factor for a jump sequence and become eligible for the 1.1 bonus proposed for jump combinations?
    I think it means that this particular sequence -- linking two listed jumps with a half-loop -- is now no longer a sequence but a combination and would gain 1.1. But that does not change the value of other types of sequences, like stepping into an axel-type jump from the landing of another jump. That type of sequence would still be 0.8.

  9. #39
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    3,623
    I don't think any of these changes will bring the quad back in a big way. Not the increase in its value or the changing of GOE or anything because jumps done after the halfway point in a free skate are still valued at 1.1 bonus and then you might have the 1.1 value for combos. So its very possible that the triple axel doube toe or some combination of triple jumps and double jump that some do at the haflway point will make much more sense to do than a quad ever would. Also no quad usually means better PCS because of real things and just some percieved things.

  10. #40
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,818
    Quote Originally Posted by just wondering View Post
    Not exactly sure where to post this because it doesn't deal directly with quad & triple values or underrotation calls, but I thought these two comments, particularly #2, found on the final page, were interesting.

    Remarks:
    1. In both Singles and Pairs “Starting from the wrong edge” and “Unclear edge at take-off” in Flip or
    Lutz jumps will be identified by the Technical Panel to the Judges and in the Protocols with the sign
    “e”. Each Judge will then decide himself/herself on the severity of the error (major or minor error)
    and the corresponding GOE reduction. [my comment: No more ! calls????]

    2. In Jump Combinations/Sequences Half-loop (or “Euler”) (landing backwards) will be a listed jump.
    Consequently the units “half-loop + Salchow/Flip” and “any jump landed backwards outside + half-
    loop + Salchow/Flip” will become jump combinations of 2 or 3 jumps correspondingly.
    Half-loop
    will have the Base Value and the GOE values of the single loop jump and will be identified by the
    Technical Panel to the Judges and in the Protocols as “1Lo”. (Emphasis mine.)

    Does the highlighted phrase mean that jump sequences will now receive the same treatment as jump combinations? i.e., deleting the .80 factor for a jump sequence and become eligible for the 1.1 bonus proposed for jump combinations?

    How does this read to you all? JW
    Correct, there is no more "!" call, see post #37.

    They now clarify that half-loop will gain the full status of a listed jump when done in a jump combination/sequence. In other words, if a jump combo has three jumps which includes a half loop, that combo will take up the one and only 3 jumps combo slot available in the LP. If a two jump combo includes a half loop, it will count against one of the three allowances for jump combos in the LP. Half loop jump combo will not be allowed in the SP because SP jump combo has a requirement that it to have a Triple and Double as bare minimum and failure to meet the minimum required of rotation carries an automatic -3 GOE. Inclusion of half loop used to make a series of jumps an automatic jump sequence due to its status as a non-listed jump. Now, the rule simply says it "may" become a combo.

    Jump sequence will continue to receive a 0.8 factor, its definition has not changed, only the specific use of half loop and its implication has been changed.
    Last edited by wallylutz; 05-06-2010 at 09:09 PM.

  11. #41
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    250
    Quote Originally Posted by wallylutz View Post
    I think it would be rather foolish to hold such belief because you are assuming Yu-Na and her coach are static or something and that they won't react to these changes and adapt. The 3A that Mao did on the Japan SOI where she UR, two feet, and stepped out will receive exactly 6.0 - 3.0 = 3.0 which is less than the value of a Double Axel. Better than before? Yes, but not by much. The < sign being shown will also likely reduce the GOE of skaters prone to UR, not to mention, the value of the Triple Flip has been reduced.
    THIS.

    Now I want to see Yuna continues her competitive career, especially with these new rules.

  12. #42
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,818
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
    Is that the sequence of events? Do the judges key in their GOEs, then afterward get a chance to change them if the tech specialist gives a call based on replay?
    It depends on the kind of error involved. As you know, the < sign was not shown to judges in the 2009-2010 season but was in the 2008-2009 season but now, we are back again in the 2010-2011 season. ISU really struggled to keep this policy consistent... Judges are called upon to key in the GOE based on the real time assessment of the elements and the use of replay has to follow certain restrictions. Certain elements will go into what's a called "review process" and judges are generally notified when the status of an element is deemed contested. This is not just the jumps, any elements in the program can be reviewed, including the spins and step sequences. In most cases, the judges don't concern themselves with these because their job is to give GOE based on how they see it. In a few cases, such as when there is a potential edge call where there may be an implication of mandatory negative GOE involved, the review process by the Tech Panel will only take place after the skater finished skating. Therefore, the judges will only be notified the result of the contested edge call after the Tech panel had a chance to review it. At that point, the judges will have an opportunity to correct their marks, if necessary because an "e" call requires the GOE to be negative.
    Last edited by wallylutz; 05-06-2010 at 09:38 PM.

  13. #43
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    517
    Quote Originally Posted by wallylutz View Post
    Can we please stop talking about this based solely on Yu-Na or Mao? There are other skaters in this world you know. These changes look reasonable to me as a whole and I don't think it favors anyone in particular except that there is definite emphasis on higher technical difficulty as they should be. I, myself, have voiced concerns about the value of the Double Axel and its accompanying GOE for quite some time and I am glad to see this suggestion be considered and acted upon. As for reducing the value of GOE on Triples, note the GOE has been slashed across the board for all jumps, including Quads. In the past, negative GOE on Quad follows a factor of 1.6, creating an imbalance between the upside and downside risk. Now, both sides are equal and at a reduced factor of 1.0 Such change will likely encourage more skaters to try the Quads. As for reducing the GOE on Triples, there has been some comments that the GOE on Triples have been too high. For example, a 3T has a BV of 4.0 but +2 GOE means, the jump essentially equals a Triple Lutz at 6.0 Or, Double Axel + 3 GOE = 3.5 + 3 > Triple Lutz. Clearly, the is a point about reducing the value of GOE slightly and I agree with these changes as well. This will give a little more emphasis on the BV, which is more objective than the GOE. With the reduced importance of GOE, the overall score will be lower than years past but it should encourage skaters to have more difficult technical content and the overall score should reflect those higher degree of technical difficulty as well.
    I totally agree with you. Well said

  14. #44
    can't come down to Earth prettykeys's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,801
    Really great points and explanations from wallylutz and gkelly, thank you. I can now see that there are good reasons for the added complexity in the compounded penalties!

    And yes, I do like the adjusted GoE's because now it is less likely that they they can compensate for actual missed elements, and they are more balanced between different jumps now.

  15. #45
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,801
    Quote Originally Posted by wallylutz View Post
    In a few cases, such as when there is a potential edge call where there may be an implication of mandatory negative GOE involved, the review process by the Tech Panel will only take place after the skater finished skating. Therefore, the judges will only be notified the result of the contested edge call after the Tech panel had a chance to review it. At that point, the judges will have an opportunity to correct their marks, if necessary because an "e" call requires the GOE to be negative.
    Except now the "e" call no longer requires the GOE to be negative -- it's up to the judge to decide for himself/herself how much to reduce the GOE, and also of course to decide what else to give pluses for.

    So might something like this, which would have received an "e" call even last year, inspire a judge to give +2 for everything else about the combo and -2 for the edge change for a final GOE of 0?

    No? How about if it also had steps or a spiral preceding and an arm overhead on the double toe?

Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 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
  •