Mao on the other hand took a whopper of a fall at '08 Worlds and took 10 seconds or so to compose herself before she could continue.
Not to knock Mao - and that is actually when I became a big fan of hers - but as a few of the experts here at GS have said "not all falls are equal."
I have NO IDEA what they mean by that .......................
Anyway, the negative GOE already takes approximately 3 points off the base value for the element with the fall, depending on the start value of the element.
Then the fall deduction takes off an additional 1 point from the total score.
That's up to 4 points off for a fall. What more do you want?
And, if there is a program disruption, there can be an additional 2 points off the program (skate lace, fall/injury like the Zhangs...)
For the triple axel, a fall plus mandatory deduction is worth 4.5 points; and for the quad toe, it's 6.3 points (the equivalent of completing a tirple Lutz). So essentially, the system is rewarding skaters for mainly rotating in the air rather than the outcome. I can concede to the point that rotating in the air should be worth something, but a fall on an element should reduce its overall value to something extremely low (at most, 2).
The proposal would be that a sort-of OK almost Lutzy-flutz would receive base value for a Cinquanta. If you want to get credit for Cinquanta + edge bonus you would have to hold a deep outside edge and pop off it with such authority that no one in the house has a doubt.
The skater has taken the tech caller out of the picture.
I don't see how. The bonus still comes from the caller/judges. The statement "with such authority that no one in the house has a doubt" isn't any more firm because it sounds declarative.
There has been nothing wrong with the definition of the jump but how it has been credited by judges. I don't think judges' eyes, all of sudden, become as sharp as an eagle's eyes and they are able to make calls no one can dispute. If it were possible, skaters would have gotten credit for their lutz only if they were able to "hold a deep outside edge and pop off it with such authority that no one in the house would have a doubt"
On the other matter of Falls, do the GoEs take off full point(s) or partials?
The proposed change is that this jump would get base value for a Cinquanta, say 5.3 points. If it is clearly on the inside edge, that also gets base value for a Cinquanta. If it is on a clear, deep outside edge, that also gets base value for a Cinquanta. (Just like the toe-wally versus the toe-loop. They both get the same base value.)
Now we turn to GOE. There are several features that contribute to positive GOEs. These would include extraordinary height and distance, exceptional flow out of the landing, steps and turns into the entrance...and an extraordinarily deep and steady outside edge. Yes, the judges would have to make a judgment about this feature -- how deep is deep -- just like they have to make a judgment about height, flow, etc. Yes, there will still be some borderline calls where some judges give the bonus and others don't -- it's just that we have moved the "border" from an "eh" outside edge to a great outside edge.
How many skaters are there in the world in 2010 who are able to generate three rotations off a lutz entry edge vs. how many can do it from a toe loop takeoff? I'd estimate something like two to three hundred for the lutz, including both male and female skaters. More male than female, even though the absolute number of female skaters in the world is much larger.
Probably well over a thousand for the toe loop.
For one thing, a toe loop doesn't need a full 360 degrees in the first revolution; a true lutz needs a little more than 360.
Suppose we have a requirement of "an axel jump" as is currently the case in a long program. Number of rotations optional.I can concede to the point that rotating in the air should be worth something, but a fall on an element should reduce its overall value to something extremely low (at most, 2).
Suppose several skaters each fall on their attempts, but this is what they achieve before falling:
A. Fully rotated triple axel
B. Triple axel short by >90 degrees
C. Fully rotated double axel
D. Double axel short by >90 degrees
E. Rotated single axel
F. Popped waltz jump or one revolution of axel
They all fell. Should they all receive the same reward (or punishment) for the attempt?
At the club competitions where I've seen the IJS in use, I think there was one fairly large monitor for the tech panel as a whole. When they do the reviews after the program, they can all watch the same monitor.
(During the actual program, they'd be watching the live skater on the ice.)
No.Does that monitor have a line built in the system showing the boundary of a back outside takeoff?
The angle of the edge would always be different in relation to the monitor depending where the skater was on the ice.
Hah, I suppose for a technical event they could paint circles on the ice or use the hockey circles and say "Put your lutz on this circle. We'll judge the takeoff by how well it follows the line, with deductions if it swerves onto a tangent circle on an inside edge." There'd still be at least two acceptable placements for the lutzes, for clockwise and counterclockwise jumpers.
But that wouldn't work for programs, where skaters are encouraged to be creative in the placement and approaches to elements, and where they might be off by a couple of feet from one performance to the next, especially on rinks with different dimensions.