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

1. 0

Go Ad-Free! Become a GS Supporter!
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.

2. 0
Originally Posted by brianjyw
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.

3. 0
Originally Posted by brianjyw
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?

4. 0
Originally Posted by brianjyw
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).

Originally Posted by Joesitz
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!

5. 0
Originally Posted by Mathman
.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.

6. 0
Originally Posted by Joesitz
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?

7. 0
Originally Posted by brianjyw
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.

8. 0
Originally Posted by hurrah
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.

9. 0
Originally Posted by Joesitz
(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.

10. 0
Originally Posted by Mathman
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

11. 0
Originally Posted by janetfan
You guys are tough on Monday mornings
Well, thankfully I personally am not one of those mean "other people" referred to in post 99.

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
There is a solution, but I get run off the board every time I bring it up. The "newjump" taking the place of both the Lutz and the flip, worth 5.5 points with +1 GOE feature for clear outside edge.

Edited to add: PS. Here is the big advantage of the Newjump. If you want to earn the extra point for a true outside edge, the burden is on the skater to exhibit the correct edge beyond doubt. If it is sloppy or inconclusive, no bonus for you, sister.

The way it is now, the burden is on the tech panel and the judges – did she or didn’t she just barely wobble back onto the correct edge at the moment of take-off? Only slo-motion knows for sure, and sometimes he is in doubt, too.

Take the game out of the hands of the officials and give it back to the skaters, I say!

12. 0
Originally Posted by Mathman
Well, tahnkfully I personally am not one of those mean "other people" referred to in post 99.

There is a solution, but I get run off the board every time I bring it up. The "newjump" taking the place of both the Lutz and the flip, worth 5.5 points with +1 GOE feature for clear outside edge.

Edited to add: PS. Here is the big advantage of the Newjump. If you want to earn the extra point for a true outside edge, the burden is on the skater to exhibit the correct edge beyond doubt. If it is sloppy or inconclusive, no bonus for you, sister.

The way is now, the burden is on the tech panel and the judges – did she or didn’t she just barely wobble back onto the correct edge at the moment of take-off? Only slo-motion knows for sure, and sometimes he is in doubt, too.

Take the game out of the hands of the officials and give it back to the skaters, I say!
My marketing experience suggests that you have to come up with a better name than "Newjump" to sell this concept.
My services are obtainable for a reasonable fee.

13. 0
^ We can call it the Cinquanta -- that's sure to garner public support.

The principal objection to this idea is that then the Zayak rules would kill any skater who did a triple-triple. So along with the Cinq concept, we would need to change the Zayak rules to allow exemption for the second jump of a combination.

The other objection is that the new jump idea does not reward a skater who has both a good Lutz and a good flip. So we could also give a +! bonus in GOE for "other edge take-off," for the second of two Cinquantas.

So a lady could do something like this:

3Cinq (outside edge bonus) + 3T
2A+3T
3Lo
(rest, pose, look pretty waiting for the second half to begin)
3Lo + half-loop + 3S
3Cinq (other edge bonus)
(spin, spiral, etc.)
3S
2A

An 8-triple program. (Change 2A to 3A and you have a 9-triple program. Repeated jumps are Cinq and Loop. The repeat 3T's and the repeated S at the end of the half-loop combo don't count. against Zayak.)

14. 0
^ That, to me, is a jump layout of a truly complete skater

Let's give it a catchy nickname... cinqy, quishy, quish? Maybe people will warm to it more.

15. 0

Go Ad-Free! Become a GS Supporter!
Originally Posted by hurrah
^ That, to me, is a jump layout of a truly complete skater

Let's give it a catchy nickname... cinqy, quishy, quish? Maybe people will warm to it more.
You have the right idea - but lord help us - we can find a catchier name, no?

Page 7 of 10 First 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Last

#### Posting Permissions

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