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

1. 0
Originally Posted by gkelly
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.
Originally Posted by wallylutz
According to ISU Communication 1611 Page 12, the new rule simply removes "!" as a notation, however in the case of a major edge error, the rule still says the GOE must be negative and should be penalized by between -2 to -3. This determination is now made by individual judges after being notified of the "e" sign.

I have two questions:

1. Why do they abandoned "!" after introducing it so recently? Were there any problems in using "!", which made them to decide to abandon it?

2. According to gkelly's post, the severity of the called edge error is decided by the individual judges. And according to Wallylutz's post, the rule says that a major edge error is subject to -2 to -3 negative GOE (that may or may not be cancelled out by positive qualities of the jumps that deserve plus GOEs). Then how much penalty do they recommend the judge to give if he/she decides that the called edge error is minor, just -1 or could be 0?

Correct me if I was not understanding correctly, but I thought that the judges did not necessarily have to give minus GOE for the edge error if it was given only the "!" mark, because "!" meant that it was "questionable."

In such a case, some judge might just give "0" and say "I saw the attention mark suggesting that the edge was questionable, but I did not think that it was a wrong edge, so I did not give any penalty for an edge error."

But now, a jump taken off from a questionable edge is going to be given "e" instead of "!." Because "e" used to mean more serious edge error than "!", I feel that the judges would feel that any jump with "e" mark must have a major edge error (more as a psychological effect due to the confusion stemming frrom the recent introduction and the quick abandonment of the "!" mark).

Then even if they are told that the individual judges could decide the severity of the edge error, I feel that they are compelled to give -2 or -3 for the edge error, even when the error is minor or just questionable.

#### Posting Permissions

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