Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 145

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

  1. #46
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,818
    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    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?
    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. If the error is as obvious as the one Nicole Bobek made in her SP at the 1995 Worlds, it would be very difficult to justify that an edge error like that should be considered minor therefore, anyone who doesn't give a negative GOE to that particular jump could be subject to some pretty serious questioning I think. The upside of this rule change is the flexibility since instead of relying on the judgment of the technical panel, which isn't always 100% reliable despite all the tools at their disposal, now the judges can weight in with greater control than before. The downside of course is the possibility of this being abused.

    To answer your question re: the youtube link from Bobek's 1995 Worlds SP, the correct answer should be: "It has to be negative GOE." Justification: The new rule still demands that a major edge error must receive a mandatory negative GOE. In the case of Bobek's 3Lz, it clearly was a major error as the starting edge was clearly inside as opposed to outside. Therefore, regardless of the features in that combination, the only acceptable answer in this case, even if we apply the 2010-2011 rule is that it has to be negative GOE. Personally, I think the error is so severe that the high end of the penalty, which is -3, should be used. Looking at the mitigating factors, there are now 8 positive aspect bullets for jumps as opposed to 6, another new addition this year. This element looks as follows:

    1) unexpected / creative / difficult entry
    2) clear recognizable steps/free skating movements immediately preceding element
    3) varied position in the air / delay in rotation
    4) good height and distance
    5) good extension on landing /
    creative exit
    6) good flow from entry to exit including jump combinations / sequences
    7) effortless throughout

    8) element matched to the musical structure

    4 bullets is considered +2 while +3 requires 6+ bullets. Therefore, the mitigating factors should add to +2. -3 +2 = -1, which also fits the mandatory negative GOE requirement. It would seem -1 is the most appropriate answer in this particular case.

  2. #47
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    311
    If you are a soccer player, hit the goal post and get 0.5 score. If you hit the post twice, it's the same as scoring a goal!! yay~~

  3. #48
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    422
    This gives good chance for YuNa. I am pretty sure she can land 4T<.

  4. #49
    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?

  5. #50
    Custom Title Joesitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    20,185
    Quote Originally Posted by magicalwords View Post
    I don't understand why they would lower the scale of GOE for triple jumps? Why lower BV for 3F? Some of the things they do.. I will never understand.
    I'm with you on that! But we have to understand that the CoP was rushed into finalization to prevent fraudulent ordinals. I believe what these present revisions are all about is an attempt to correct some of the CoP's rushed regulations. Let's give it a chance and see if it works better.

  6. #51
    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. #52
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    27,124
    Quote Originally Posted by ehdtkqorl123 View Post
    If you are a soccer player, hit the goal post and get 0.5 score. If you hit the post twice, it's the same as scoring a goal!! yay~~
    I think the idea is that figure skating is not soccer. Figure skating is more like horseshoes. If you get close, that's worth 1/3 of a ringer.

  8. #53
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,586
    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.

  9. #54
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    27,124
    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.

  10. #55
    leave no stone unturned seniorita's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,579
    Quote Originally Posted by Medusa View Post
    Yeah, well. Thank God! Or thank ISU.
    Sorry to interrupt but I ve missed medusa 's comments sooooo much!!!

    First time I did read the communication all by myself, usually i was bored and was reading the resumes here instead , I m so proud of me.
    Last edited by seniorita; 05-07-2010 at 08:33 AM.

  11. #56
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    290
    I am confused. Are these rules ratified already? What about the congress agenda for June in Spain? Are these two different things?

  12. #57
    On the Ice
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    29
    Um, Korean media strated whining again. It's all about Yuna and Mao. As if the world revolves around Yuna and Korea.

  13. #58
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    250
    Quote Originally Posted by sodessss View Post
    Um, Korean media strated whining again. It's all about Yuna and Mao. As if the world revolves around Yuna and Korea.
    Here you are again.

  14. #59
    On the Ice
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by sodessss View Post
    Um, Korean media strated whining again. It's all about Yuna and Mao. As if the world revolves around Yuna and Korea.
    Vent your anger or whatever somewhere else. You said you are a Japanese learning Korean in Korea. What's up with that hatred? Perhaps you should go back to Japan and have some better time at home. You are wasting other users' bandwidth.
    Last edited by Queens Guy; 05-07-2010 at 10:31 AM.

  15. #60
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    747
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
    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)
    Some double jumps like 2l has inc BV too right? So if male skater can't land 3a/3t, can he choose 3a/2t/2l/2l (BTW how many double jumps can he put in a combo)

    Remmeber Plushy used to do 4t/3/3, can they add another 2l and make it a 4t/3/3/2 ?

    I know this thread is just about jumps, but there are some changes to spins also?

Page 4 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
  •