Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 LastLast
Results 121 to 135 of 145

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

  1. #121
    At the rink. Again. mskater93's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,192
    The other issue is where the camera is placed for the video feed. My one coach always instructs me to look for the camera when competing in order to determine where to count spin rotations from.

  2. #122
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,818
    ISU uses HD replays, not available at national competitions, which can make a difference as it allows the tech panel to zoom in their view down to the specific foot level.

  3. #123
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,818
    Quote Originally Posted by Bennett View Post
    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?
    I don't think the change came about as a result of a specific problem per say. My understanding is that this change is to be consistent with the visibility guidance in IJS. Under a "e" and "!" system, judges' hands were tied in terms of what they can do re such error, not only the GOE has to be negative under "e", they are also required to use -2 to -3 as the negative GOE prior to considering any positive aspects. But as in the case of UR, it is possible the error really doesn't look as bad as an "e" sign might suggest, therefore, the additional flexibility provided by the one sign system, all noted as "e", will allow individual judges to use their best judgment based on what they actually saw without replay so that the overall marking will better reflect what an informed audience would actually see as well. It won't help those fans who can't tell an inside edge from an outside but those who do will better comprehend and should be able to relate better to how the judges mark.

    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?
    Minor edge error should be between -1 and -2 but the overall GOE is not required to be negative.


    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."
    Yes, that's mostly correct except if a judge gives 0 as the overall GOE under !, there must be mitigating factors used to justify neutralizing the negative GOE as opposed to being "I did not think it was a wrong edge" - that explanation wouldn't work because the tech panel's determination in this case is considered accurate and a judge must follow such recommendation.

    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.
    I don't think so. My first reaction seeing the new communication was that it was a typo. But then, I quickly realized it wasn't due to the footnote. This point will undoubtedly be emphasized to the judges this upcoming season in the various meetings before the competition.

  4. #124
    Custom Title Joesitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    20,185
    Quote Originally Posted by wallylutz View Post

    Minor edge error should be between -1 and -2 but the overall GOE is not required to be negative.
    What is the difference between a minor and a major error so that an informed audience will understand?

  5. #125
    Custom Title Joesitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    20,185
    Quote Originally Posted by mskater93 View Post
    The 2 point disruption deduction is not a PCS mark "opinion". The most recent case of this being applied was Oda's LP at the Olympics with the skate lace and Zhang/Zhang in Torino Olympics.
    Thank you mskater. I was not aware of that.

  6. #126
    Custom Title Joesitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    20,185
    Quote Originally Posted by wallylutz View Post
    ISU uses HD replays, not available at national competitions, which can make a difference as it allows the tech panel to zoom in their view down to the specific foot level.
    It would be nice if the commentators all had one. Some of them question the Tech call. At least the serious spectator can trust a commentator.

  7. #127
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,818
    Quote Originally Posted by Joesitz View Post
    What is the difference between a minor and a major error so that an informed audience will understand?
    How about people who can see beyond the obvious (e.g. fall) and actually understand the subtlety and complexity of the technical challenges in this sport vs. another who demands that skaters be sent to the guillotine because such person is engulfed in: <<Mon dieu, c'est très sérieux!>>?

    Please note, I am not referring to any particular poster.

  8. #128
    Custom Title Joesitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    20,185
    Quote Originally Posted by wallylutz View Post
    How about people who can see beyond the obvious (e.g. fall) and actually understand the subtlety and complexity of the technical challenges in this sport vs. another who demands that skaters be sent to the guillotine because such person is engulfed in: <<Mon dieu, c'est très sérieux!>>?

    Please note, I am not referring to any particular poster.
    I could buy that see beyond the obvious, but it's just an opinion, and it all brings me back to the 6.0 System. I thought the CoP was about scoring what one sees and not look for some other way to score. So if one actually sees a Fall, the judge may think it was not a Fall but an accident. Hmmm, it seems to me that the CoP is a glorified 6.0 system.

    and just think although this particular skater Flutzes all the time, it is really just an accident, hmmm.

    but if the skater does not quite execute the perfect landing, the skater is doomed because it is an error and not an accident.

    I really think this CoP is the same as the 6.0 system. like it's judge by opinions and not by what one sees.

  9. #129
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    5,609
    Joesitz, I really struggle to understand where you're coming from here. If there is a fall, most judges give them automatic -3 (not all, but I'd wager 85% or more) and the skater gets an additional -1 overall. How much more should falls be worth? Should they negate the element entirely? That would suggest a fall on a single axel or footwork is better than a fall on quadruple toe jump, though.

    "Judges by opinions and not by what one sees." That suggests that everyone perceives the same things in the same way. We know that's not true - otherwise we'd only need one judge.

  10. #130
    Custom Title Joesitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    20,185
    ^^^^^
    I am a bit sarcastic when it comes to the three major errors, but it has nothing to do with the judges. It's the scoring I am complaining about. I know they have now made some changes and I will watch closely at competitions to see if it helps the situation.

    btw. How do you explain a skater who LANDS a jump but not quite within the accepted range, as compared with a skater who does NOT LAND a jump at all, and maybe, if he had landed the jump, it would not be in the accepted range? I suppose the rationale would be that he made the rotations that only a Tech Panel can decide. So give him a score for the rotations but NOT for omitting the LANDING.

    What is so terrible about an automatic deduction for missing the counter rotation takeoff, for not quite making the intended rotations and for not being capable of a proper landing?
    That all the spectators can understand.

  11. #131
    Skating is art, if you let it be. Blades of Passion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Hollywood, CA
    Posts
    3,995
    I didn't give much of a reply to this thread last month; I'll do so now:

    * The changes for the Level requirements on spins are EXCELLENT. I'm very glad that they listened closely here. Limiting it to one specific spin variation counting per program was absolutely needed. Removing the pointless change-of-edge (and change of direction) from Upright spins as a Level feature was very much needed too.

    * That said, I feel like skaters are still going to be attempting ugly positions in order to get all their spins to maximum Level. There needs to be a greater limitation on how many features can count in a program to can Levels. Currently that cap is 12 - Three spins that are Level 4. I have absolutely never seen a program where a skater doing every single spin as Level 4 was beneficial for being able to interpret the music. So, instead of the cap being 12 (again, three Level 4 spins), I think the cap should be 9. This provides a lot more variety. We would see skaters attempting either two Level 4 spins + one Level 1 spin, or three Level 3 spins, or a Level 2 Spin + Level 3 Spin + Level 4 spin. Variety is a good thing and if a skater wants to go over that cap, they are still free to do so. If they perform the extra variations well it will surely help with the +GOE on the spins.

    * Speaking of +GOE for spins, it needs to be increased to a full point per increment. They deserve as much of a bonus as any other difficult well-performed element.

    * Decreasing the -GOE on jumps is a really bad idea. I know they did it to facilitate the scoring of underrotated jumps, so that if a skater falls on an underrotated Triple jump they don't get the underrotation penalty while also keeping the full deduction an actual Triple jump incurs, but that's lazy. Underrotated jumps need to have separate GOE values and the -GOE for fully rotated jumps needs to be changed back to how it was previously. We absolutely can not see skaters falling on Quads, or having awful landings, and still getting a ton of points for them. With the new table a values, a skater receives 9.6 points for falling on a Quad Lutz!!! Just ridiculous.

    * Decreasing the +GOE value for jumps was a good idea, however. Especially on the Double Axel. The bonuses can become unbalanced given how many jumps there are in the Long Program. Quality should of course be recognized, but you don't need to over-reward what is basically repetition of one type of element in Figure Skating.

    * Spiral Sequences have FINALLY been properly looked at. Thank God! Well, in the Long Program they have at least. The rules for Spirals in the Short Program still need work. We need to stop rewarding catch-foot positions so much and we must change the rules so that the change-of-edge Spiral isn't the only way to get a Level 4 Spiral Sequence. The +GOE values should be the same for all levels of Spirals regardless. More variety, more variety.

    * The problems with CoP Step Sequences have at least been considered, but this new rule of a "choreography" Step Sequence in the Men's Long Program doesn't really help much. If every program has the first Step Sequence being an overwrought CoP Step Sequence and the second one is a "choreography" Step Sequence, we are still running into the problem of predictability. We know the exact order that every man will perform the two step sequences. If Levels are to be kept in Step Sequences, they should have a full +1 as the GOE value regardless of Level. There shouldn't be an overwhelming necessity for the skater to HAVE to get Level 4 if they want to receive full credit for the quality of the element. If you do that, and also add in the requirement of Step Sequences following a clear pattern (ie., no more twisting around in all directions in order to fulfill the requirement of a 100 different turns and steps), it should go a long way in fixing the problem.

    * There still needs to be a greater amount of variety allowed in the Long Program in terms of what elements can be performed. There should be a couple "free slots" for the skater to choose which element they want to do. For Ladies - 6 jumps, 3 spins, and 1 Step or Spiral Sequence should be mandatory. For Men - 7 jumps, 3 spins, and 1 Step Sequence. After that, the skaters get 2 free slots to do whatever they want with.

  12. #132
    At the rink. Again. mskater93's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,192
    They removed the spiral sequence requirement and the second step requirement (for Men) for the SP. How do the rules still need to be looked at for that then?

  13. #133
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    3,640
    IJS was moving into a thoroughly anti big jump system so it is good that maybe risk could be more rewarded because of course winners in mens skating really don't do quads anymore.

  14. #134
    Skating is art, if you let it be. Blades of Passion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Hollywood, CA
    Posts
    3,995
    Quote Originally Posted by mskater93 View Post
    They removed the spiral sequence requirement and the second step requirement (for Men) for the SP. How do the rules still need to be looked at for that then?
    Wasn't this just a proposal and not a sure thing?

    I haven't been paying attention lately if it did go through but, if so, then what is replacing those elements in the SP?

  15. #135
    At the rink. Again. mskater93's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,192
    It was not a proposal, it was a communication that can only be superceded by another communication. They were replaced with NOTHING.

Page 9 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
  •