Base values of quads and triple Axels raised, new 1/4-1/2 rule for under-rotations | Page 5 | Golden Skate

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

Joined
Jun 21, 2003
joesitz said:
I'm not talking about the differences in an error. I'm talking about a complete loss of a part of an Element. If someone does not land a jump he has not completed the Element.

That is an interesting way to look at it. We can divide the deftition of a particular jump element into three parts, take-off, rotation in the air, and landing. So for example, a triple Lutz, by definition, comprises:

1. Take-off with toe-pick assist off a back outside edge.

Of you cheat the edge, then you have not satisfied the definition of the element., a triple Lutz.

2. Rotate three times in the air.

If you cheat the rotation you have not satisfied the definition of the element, a triple Lutz.

3. Land on the BOE of the opposite foot.

If you fall on the landing, then you have not satisfied this part of the three-part definition.

So which is worst, to fail on the first part, the second part, or the third part? For skating purists, I think a good case could be made for saying "no credit" if you don't do 1, 2,and 3.
 

Bennett

Record Breaker
Joined
Nov 20, 2007
[Re: Dai's 4F at Torino Worlds]
It wasn't fully rotated.

Say it gets the base< score for a quad flip (8.6) and straight -2 GOE (in 1.0 increments for quads, so 2.0).

So 6.6. More than a pretty good triple flip, less than a triple axel.

That sounds bad. Was that that rotated in the begin with? Wouldn't it have gotten << instead of <?

I hope that this won't set an example as a strategy to take. I think it great to save a slightly UR jump. But how many times has he ever landed that Flip in practices? It does not sound right to get 6.6 for the jump you barely have yet.
 

Tinymavy15

Sinnerman for the win
Record Breaker
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
That sounds bad. Was that that rotated in the begin with? Wouldn't it have gotten << instead of <?

I hope that this won't set an example as a strategy to take. I think it great to save a slightly UR jump. But how many times has he ever landed that Flip in practices? It does not sound right to get 6.6 for the jump you barely have yet.

who cares how many times he landed it in practice. The flip was fully rotated, but double footed.
 
Joined
Jul 11, 2003
That is an interesting way to look at it. We can divide the deftition of a particular jump element into three parts, take-off, rotation in the air, and landing. So for example, a triple Lutz, by definition, comprises:

1. Take-off with toe-pick assist off a back outside edge.

Of you cheat the edge, then you have not satisfied the definition of the element., a triple Lutz.

2. Rotate three times in the air.

If you cheat the rotation you have not satisfied the definition of the element, a triple Lutz.

3. Land on the BOE of the opposite foot.
So which is worst, to fail on the first part, the second part, or the third part? For skating purists, I think a good case could be made for saying "no credit" if you don't do 1, 2,and 3.


If you fall on the landing, then you have not satisfied this part of the three-part definition.
I think you can divide any element into the sum of its parts. A spin element has an entry, the actual spin and its ending as do jumps. (I do not feel that step sequences are elements, but I am no doubt the only one. To me they are part of the PCs makeup.)

If you cheat a rotation, then you will be looking at a UR when you do land unless you fall.

Taking off on the wrong edge, you will lose the name of the jump but get credi for full rotations and easier Landings. Those rotations are not from a counter rotation take-off which is the essence of that particular jump. The penalty is basically a wrist slap like a Fall compared to the penalty for a UR.

Falling and wrong edge take=offs are advantages for some skaters and they make good use of them.

To answer your question: Falling on the Landing is the easiest for the skater. Falling on the other two parts could very well be serious.










.
 
Last edited:

Willywu

Rinkside
Joined
Jan 9, 2008
That sounds bad. Was that that rotated in the begin with? Wouldn't it have gotten << instead of <?

I hope that this won't set an example as a strategy to take. I think it great to save a slightly UR jump. But how many times has he ever landed that Flip in practices? It does not sound right to get 6.6 for the jump you barely have yet.

IMO it sounds about right for the quality of that attempt.
 

brianjyw

Rinkside
Joined
Mar 16, 2010
That is an interesting way to look at it. We can divide the deftition of a particular jump element into three parts, take-off, rotation in the air, and landing. So for example, a triple Lutz, by definition, comprises:

1. Take-off with toe-pick assist off a back outside edge.

Of you cheat the edge, then you have not satisfied the definition of the element., a triple Lutz.

2. Rotate three times in the air.

If you cheat the rotation you have not satisfied the definition of the element, a triple Lutz.

3. Land on the BOE of the opposite foot.

If you fall on the landing, then you have not satisfied this part of the three-part definition.

So which is worst, to fail on the first part, the second part, or the third part? For skating purists, I think a good case could be made for saying "no credit" if you don't do 1, 2,and 3.

ITA. The base value of a jump is mainly determined by the 2nd part of a jump, which makes me believe that a skater must be given a credit for completing the second part of a jump unless there is a rule stating that no points should be given if there are any errors such as UR, wrong edge or fall.
 
Last edited:

Tinymavy15

Sinnerman for the win
Record Breaker
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
But Jeff was bashed so much for doing the same at Torino Oly.

i think he was bashed because he added the quad knowing he would not land it, but figured a fall on the quad would get him more points than the alternative. This was shocking because before CoP, a skater would never fall as stratgey, a fall pretty much was a final blow. Since then the rules have changed so falls on quads make them pretty much worthless.
 

Bennett

Record Breaker
Joined
Nov 20, 2007
Yeah.
I'm still not sure what I think about the smaller GOE increments.



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.



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.

Thanks for your great analysis.
 

Bennett

Record Breaker
Joined
Nov 20, 2007
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.
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.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 11, 2003
If a fall is severly penalized, then would it advance FS? We praise skaters' guts attempting extremely hard jumps such as 3a for women and 4 for men. Shouldn't we give them a break if we want to see more skaters attempting difficult jumps?
A Fall disrupts the Flow of a Program which I consider a serious mistake in Technique. It's just my opinion. I'm not terribly interested in more difficult jumps. At some point in their lives all skaters will see the limitations of rotating in the air, and most skaters today can not execute the maximum rotations anyway. Perhaps someday one and only one skater will execute a Quint. Should that accomplishment retire the rest of the skaters? and maybe the Sport? Is the Sport all about Jumps? I suggested a change of the SP to be the Skaters' selection of 5 elements to be judged without music. But the Fans of Artistry objected . The LP is not enough for them. They need artistry in the SP too. I want to see High Technical and let the Artistry rule in the LP.
 
Joined
Jul 11, 2003
ITA. The base value of a jump is mainly determined by the 2nd part of a jump, which makes me believe that a skater must be given a credit for completing the second part of a jump unless there is a rule stating that no points should be given if there are any errors such as UR, wrong edge or fall.
If the sole judgement of a jump is on the air rotations only (not unlike barrel jumping and skate boarding) then why should the skater not do different jumps? He can just jump up and rotate
any which way to the music. No?
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
If a fall is severely penalized, then would it advance FS? We praise skaters' guts attempting extremely hard jumps such as 3a for women and 4 for men. Shouldn't we give them a break if we want to see more skaters attempting difficult jumps?

I am always suspicious of using the rules to encourage or discourage skaters from doing this or that. Let's give more points for Biellmanns. Then the next year everyone is awkwardly wrestling their foot up over their head.

I think the purpose of the scoring rules is to determine who skated the best. I am leery of asking the scoring system to serve double duty by also encouraging risk (or discouraging it).

Joesitz said:
The sole judgement of a jump is on the air rotations only (not unlike barrel jumping and skate boarding) then why should the skater not do different jumps?

That's the beauty of pro skating. A good showman can do a double toe-loop and make the audience think he did a quad Lutz! :laugh:
 
Joined
Jul 11, 2003
.I think the purpose of the scoring rules is to determine who skated the best. I am leery of asking the scoring system to serve double duty by also encouraging risk (or discouraging it).
Well, if a competition determines who is the best with a thank you for the Rules, then Kwan never deserved to win a championship. IMO, the rules are there for organization purposes - some are worthy, some are not. Bring back the Triple Toe Wally! I'm in the mood for another counter rotation jump, but will not accept of Triple Toe Loop as an attempt.

We are in agreement about Risks. No way should a skater take risks. If he can't land a Quint 9 out of 10 times during practice, just leave it out. Aside from the iminent injuries, I can not say that a Fall should only get a -1 deduction.:cool:
 

brianjyw

Rinkside
Joined
Mar 16, 2010
A Fall disrupts the Flow of a Program which I consider a serious mistake in Technique. It's just my opinion. I'm not terribly interested in more difficult jumps. At some point in their lives all skaters will see the limitations of rotating in the air, and most skaters today can not execute the maximum rotations anyway. Perhaps someday one and only one skater will execute a Quint. Should that accomplishment retire the rest of the skaters? and maybe the Sport? Is the Sport all about Jumps? I suggested a change of the SP to be the Skaters' selection of 5 elements to be judged without music. But the Fans of Artistry objected . The LP is not enough for them. They need artistry in the SP too. I want to see High Technical and let the Artistry rule in the LP.

A fall is severely penalized alrealdy. You get the maximum deduction of GOE points and automatic deduction of 1 point plus lower PCS scores as well. So basically you end up with zero point or even worse. Hard to believe? Please look up protocols of previous competitions.

I think there are more than enough penalties for ruining the third part of a jump plus distrupting the flow of a program, dont you agree?
 

hurrah

Medalist
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
A fall is severely penalized alrealdy. You get the maximum deduction of GOE points and automatic deduction of 1 point plus lower PCS scores as well. So basically you end up with zero point or even worse. Hard to believe? Please look up protocols of previous competitions.

I think there are more than enough penalties for ruining the third part of a jump plus distrupting the flow of a program, dont you agree?

IMO, before this new measure was introduced, a fall was not penalized enough in relation to the severity with which under-rotated jumps were penalized. And also, the problem was (and might well continue to be) is that PCS was very subjective, and some skaters would continue to get pretty good PCS even when he/she fell even more than once, while other skaters would get bad PCS even if they didn't fall even once but lacked general speed or what not.

And of course, there was the problem of the subjectivity with which under-rotation calls were made. It was apparent that even television commentators who were former skaters could not understand why some jumps were called on under-rotation.

As long as PCS and under-rotation calls can seem to be subjective, then it should be that there are measures in place where a fall is guaranteed to be more penalized than under-ration. Because a fall is a fall is a fall---there's nothing controversial about saying 'Skater A fell on a jump'. There's never going to be a television commentator who says, 'Let's watch that in slo-mo and see if he/she fell or not. Ummm. That LOOKS like a fall, but we'll have to wait and see what the tech caller makes of it.'

However, the controversy surrounding under-ration calls will continue to cause problems.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 11, 2003
IMO, before this new measure was introduced, a fall was not penalized enough in relation to the severity with which under-rotated jumps were penalized. And also, the problem was (and might well continue to be) is that PCS was very subjective, and some skaters would continue to get pretty good PCS even when he/she fell even more than once, while other skaters would get bad PCS even if they didn't fall even once but lacked general speed or what not.

And of course, there was the problem of the subjectivity with which under-rotation calls were made. It was apparent that even television commentators who were former skaters could not understand why some jumps were called on under-rotation.

As long as PCS and under-rotation calls can seem to be subjective, then it should be that there are measures in place where a fall is guaranteed to be more penalized than under-ration. Because a fall is a fall is a fall---there's nothing controversial about saying 'Skater A fell on a jump'. There's never going to be a television commentator who says, 'Let's watch that in slo-mo and see if he/she fell or not. Ummm. That LOOKS like a fall, but we'll have to wait and see what the tech caller makes of it.'

However, the controversy surrounding under-ration calls will continue to cause problems.
Super Post, Hurrah. under rotation calls are such miniscule mistakes compared to a Fall and yet the proponents of UR deductions enjoy the controversy. They believe it is a huge mistake not to land a jump properly, but a no-landing-Fall is not a big mistake. And it is worse for the viewer who can actually see a FALL, but can not actually see a UR.

Just give Falls, URs and Wrong Edge Takeoffs a flat minus 3 points equally and be done with it. The viewers will understand that.
(although I believe a WET is a total loss of a jump. I don't care how many rotations he makes because he is unable to execute a counter rotation.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
(although I believe a WET is a total loss of a jump. I don't care how many rotations he makes because he is unable to execute a counter rotation.

Other people feel the same way about not doing the rotations and about falling. If you go off the wrong edge, that should be a total loss of the jump. If you don't complete the rotations, that should be a total loss of the jump, too. If you fall on the landing, that should be a total loss of the jump.

In each case you didn't really do the listed jump.
 

janetfan

Match Penalty
Joined
May 15, 2009
Other people feel the same way about not doing the rotations and about falling. If you go off the wrong edge, that should be a total loss of the jump. If you don't complete the rotations, that should be a total loss of the jump, too. If you fall on the landing, that should be a total loss of the jump.

In each case you didn't really do the listed jump.

You guys are tough on Monday mornings ;)

What about a step sequence? If a skater falls during a step sequence should they get zero credit for it?

How about Johnny's sloppy spin in Vancouver? Did he get any points for that ?
I do remember Yuna's botched layback in Torino and think she got no credit for it.

Some might say such a strict penalty on the lutz will result in fewer skaters trying it. On the other hand - if they take off on the wrong edge it really isn't a lutz.

Such a dilemma for the CoP :think: :biggrin:
 
Last edited:
Top