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

1. 0
Originally Posted by Mathman
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!
If this passes into the new rules, I will officially blame you

2. 0
Originally Posted by Mathman
^ 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.)
If the ISU can not see a Fall as a automatic 3 pts off the base value, they will never buy this. Even Ice Dance takes a harsh look at a Fall. It does disrupt the program. No?

3. 0
Originally Posted by Joesitz
If the ISU can not see a Fall as a automatic 3 pts off the base value, they will never buy this. Even Ice Dance takes a harsh look at a Fall. It does disrupt the program. No?
There are falls ....and there are falls. Let's not forget how good Sasha was at falling and bouncing right back up and hardly missing a beat (practice makes perfect, no? ) .

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 .......................

4. 0
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?

5. 0
And, if there is a program disruption, there can be an additional 2 points off the program (skate lace, fall/injury like the Zhangs...)

6. 0
Originally Posted by gkelly
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?
With the new rule changes, a fall on a triple lutz with the mandatory deduction is 2.9 (6.0 - 2.1 - 1.0, a -3 GOE is -2.1 points); whereas a fall on a triple toe with the mandatory deduction is .9 (4.0 - 2.1 - 1.0). Does this mean then that the ability to generate three rotations off a lutz entry edge is worth 2 points more than three rotations off a toe loop entry? I can see that it is difficult, but is it that much more difficult?

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).

7. 0
Originally Posted by Mathman
Well, thankfully 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 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!

What's the difference? Even with the current Lutz jump, if you want to earn a proper point for a true outside edge, the burden is on the skater to exhibit the correct edge beyond doubt. So it has always been on the hands of the skaters.

8. 0
Originally Posted by brianjyw
What's the difference? Even with the current Lutz jump, if you want to earn a proper point for a true outside edge, the burden is on the skater to exhibit the correct edge beyond doubt. So it has always been on the hands of the skaters.
No, I don't think so, not at all. In my opinion the majority of ladies Lutz jumps could go either way. Thus the skaters leave it in the hands of the tech specialists and judges whether they get full credit or not. A wobbly flatz may very well get full credit for a Lutz, and often does, under the current system.

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.

9. 0
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.

10. 0
Originally Posted by Mathman
No, I don't think so, not at all. In my opinion the majority of ladies Lutz jumps could go either way. Thus the skaters leave it in the hands of the tech specialists and judges whether they get full credit or not. A wobbly flatz may very well get full credit for a Lutz, and often does, under the current system.

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.
That means we might probably end up with a lot of ladies getting credit for Cinquanta + edge bonus as well.

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"

11. 0
Originally Posted by brianjyw
That means we might probably end up with a lot of ladies getting credit for Cinquanta + edge bonus as well.

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"
Exactly! How sharp are thos eyes?. When I'm sitting on the ice as a spectator, and a skater attempts a Lutz in front of me, I see clearly what edge the skater is on when taking off. It's not always the back outside edge, it could be the Flat, or the back inside edge (Flip). I believe the Tech Specialist has a monitor to see it in 2 dimentions, but only if he chooses to use it. Then there are the other two members of the Panel and do they also have a monitor? Does that monitor have a line built in the system showing the boundary of a back outside takeoff? We have nothing to say about this. We must accept the TS' word for it whether or not he is competent.

On the other matter of Falls, do the GoEs take off full point(s) or partials?

12. 0
Originally Posted by mskater93
And, if there is a program disruption, there can be an additional 2 points off the program (skate lace, fall/injury like the Zhangs...)
Can be is the operative phrase.

We have to remember that the majority of the PC scores are opinions. and also not necessarily acted on.

13. 0
Originally Posted by ImaginaryPogue
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.
The proposal would be to raise the bar. Under the current rules, if the skater is a half degree past vertical on the correct side, as seen in slo-motion, the skater gets full credit for a Lutz. If the skater is half a degree on the wrong side, that is too close to call and the skater will probably still get the benefit of the doubt.

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.

14. 0
Originally Posted by Joesitz
Can be is the operative phrase.

We have to remember that the majority of the PC scores are opinions. and also not necessarily acted on.
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.

15. 0
Originally Posted by draqq
With the new rule changes, a fall on a triple lutz with the mandatory deduction is 2.9 (6.0 - 2.1 - 1.0, a -3 GOE is -2.1 points); whereas a fall on a triple toe with the mandatory deduction is .9 (4.0 - 2.1 - 1.0). Does this mean then that the ability to generate three rotations off a lutz entry edge is worth 2 points more than three rotations off a toe loop entry? I can see that it is difficult, but is it that much more difficult?
Maybe not quite that much, but more than a few tenths, for sure.

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.

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 we have a requirement of "an axel jump" as is currently the case in a long program. Number of rotations optional.

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?

Originally Posted by Joesitz
I believe the Tech Specialist has a monitor to see it in 2 dimentions, but only if he chooses to use it. Then there are the other two members of the Panel and do they also have a monitor?
Yes.

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.)

Does that monitor have a line built in the system showing the boundary of a back outside takeoff?
No.

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.

Page 8 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
•