Would Plush have won if the new rules had been applied?

[Jaana]

That is absolutely true. They were not good enough to beat Evan and 4-3 is just one element. But the sentence just reads funny when you consider these not good enough elements were just a point lower than the elements of the Gold medal, which I suppose were good enough but without 4-3.

I´m sorry, but I´m not quite sure I got your point or even the meaning correctly, LOL. Just answering on what I thought you might have meant. Anyway, each element is judged separately and not based on whether a skater did a quad triple or not. Evan´s technical elements were good enough even without a quad triple to give him the win and even a narrow one still is a win.

[gmyers]

If several judges really did this, they are greatly in error. In the Technical Element Score each element is scored on its own merit. Doing well on one elements does not get you positive GOE on another.

Four judges gave Plushenko -1GOE on his first triple axel-three gave him base value and 2 gave him plus one GOE on his first triple axel of the long. You had some people saying things that struck me as implying the lean meant it should have not even been counted and 5 judges gave him base value or positive GOE and I just think that had to be because he was the only skater in the entire olympics to do a successful quad triple and then go right into a triple axel and that is where the plus GOE must have come from.

That is absolutely true. They were not good enough to beat Evan and 4-3 is just one element. But the sentence just reads funny when you consider these not good enough elements were just a point lower than the elements of the Gold medal, which I suppose were good enough but without 4-3.
My only thought anymore about Olys is that for some reason people have analysed to death the Lps but forget there was an Sp night as well. Where the 4-3 is more crucial to include it. And either you do that to score high or have a program like Takahashi's.

But out of 30 people in the short program only like 5 tried to do a quad there?

[gkelly]

let me make sure that I understand the current ISU rules.

If you do a single toe Walley, you get base value of 0.4, the same as for a single toe loop.

If you do a double toe Walley, the base value is 1.4.

Base value for triple toe Walley and quad toe Walley are 4.1 and 10.3, under the new proposed ISU Scale of Values that are expected to take effect in the 2010-2011 season.

Yes, that is my understanding.

Now here is where ISU-speak comes in. The ISU uses the term “listed jump” to mean any jump that receives a base value, whether the “listed jump” is actually “listed” in the list of listed jumps or not. For instance, the half-loop or Euler jump does not appear in the list of listed jumps. Still it is a “listed jump,” when done in combination or sequence, with base value 0.5, even though they forgot to include this listed jump in the list. Here is the exact language (page 14, #2 of the new Scale of Values.)

In jump combinations/sequences the half-loop (or Euler) (landing backwards) will be a listed jump.

Why does the ISU use the word “listed” in this way? Dunno.

I'll tell you how I understand it. My understanding of the "why" is based on what I have heard from some tech specialists at local competitions as well as from reading all the singles documentation. Some of the connections are not made explicitly in any of the documents, and some of the documents from the early years of the IJS are not currently easily accessible.

When they first put together the new system in 2003, it was still a work in progress. The scale of values included point values for singles through quads of the six major jump takeoffs that are commonly done with multiple rotations (i.e., most elite senior men and ladies do them as triples).

There was also a limit on the total number of jump passes allowed and the total number of jump passes that could contain more than one jump (combinations and sequences) and changing definitions over the years of what exactly qualifies as a jump sequence.

So this raised a couple of questions that were answered as clarifications in later ISU communications or in the "First Aid" document that tells the tech panel how to handle various common and not-so-common situations.

Ever since they started issuing this First Aid document and making it publicly available online, it's been necessary to read that document as well as the ISU Communications and the rulebook to know how various situations are to be handled.

*What if a skater does a jump from a takeoff that is not listed in the Scale of Values?

-If it's a toe walley, it counts as a toe loop. This means that it fills a jump slot, and specifically it fills a toe loop slot for purposes of repetition limits (Zayak rule).

-If it's a walley or inside axel, it's a "nonlisted jump" and does not fill a jump slot. It can be used as a transition and will be rewarded as a transition in the PCS. It gets no point value in the TES. It also gets no penalty -- it is not banned.

-If it's a jump from a standard takeoff that's intentionally performed with less than full rotation for a single jump (e.g., split jump, half-axel, etc., landing forward; or waltz jump landing backward), it's considered a nonlisted jump, does not fill a jump slot or earn points, and counts as a transition.

-If it has the correct amount of rotation for a single jump with an intentionally enhanced air position (e.g., split-flip jump or tuck axel), it counts as a single jump, earns the base value for that jump, and fills a jump slot, thus taking away the opportunity to do a higher value jump in its place. The air position would probably be rewarded in the judges' GOEs, but +3 GOE for a single jump is not as valuable as doing a so-so triple.

*What if the skater lands on the back inside edge of the "other" foot instead of the standard landing edge?

-It counts as the jump from that takeoff with that number of revolutions, earns the base value for that jump, and fills a jump slot. This might happen intentionally (e.g., one-foot axel or one-foot double salchow, possibly in combination with some sort of salchow immediately following), in which case the GOE could be positive or negative or 0 depending on execution. Or it might happen unintentionally if the skater's weight is over the wrong side and she lands on the wrong foot by mistake, in which case the GOE would be negative.

-Up until now, there has been one explicit exception to the above policy: a single loop jump landed on the back inside edge of the other foot (known as a half-loop or Euler) was not counted as a single loop jump; instead it was considered a nonlisted jump with no point value. It could be used on its own as a transitional move without filling a jump slot. It could also be used as a hop between multirotational jumps to connect them in a jump sequence, especially useful for setting up a double or triple salchow, or less commonly flip, as the last jump in the sequence.

All the bullet points above are covered in the First Aid.

As we have discussed here often enough over the past few years, the above rule about half-loops in jump sequences, combined with the 0.8 sequence multiplier, meant that something like 3A+2S+SEQ ended up being worth less than a solo 3A, which is paradoxical. Many fans here have been arguing in favor of changing that, and also in favor of making jump combinations worth more than the value of the two jumps in isolation.

Now it seems that ISU officials have reached the same conclusion. The rules are changing so that jump combos now get a bonus, jump-half loop-jump counts as a three-jump combination, and single loop landed on the back inside edge of the other foot (aka half-loop or Euler) is now counted as a single loop, just as single axel landed on the back inside edge of the takeoff foot (aka one-foot axel) is counted as a single axel, and the same for all other examples of landing on the "nonlanding" foot.
I.e., half-loop is no longer an exception to the back inside edge landing rule.

Four judges gave Plushenko -1GOE on his first triple axel-three gave him base value and 2 gave him plus one GOE on his first triple axel of the long. You had some people saying things that struck me as implying the lean meant it should have not even been counted

Well, if anyone actually said that, they were wrong. Leaning in the air or on the landing of a jump might be a reason for reducing the GOE of a jump, depending on severity, but as long as the jump is rotated and landed it would get full base value, plus GOE for whatever good qualities it might have, and minus GOE for the lean or any other weaknesses. So an average of base value for a nice big jump with a lean sounds about right.

[mskater93]

Now it seems that ISU officials have reached the same conclusion. The rules are changing so that jump combos now get a bonus, jump-half loop-jump counts as a three-jump combination, and single loop landed on the back inside edge of the other foot (aka half-loop or Euler) is now counted as a single loop, just as single axel landed on the back inside edge of the takeoff foot (aka inside axel) is counted as a single axel, and the same for all other examples of landing on the "nonlanding" foot.
I.e., half-loop is no longer an exception to the back inside edge landing rule.

One small clarification - an Axel that takes off like normal, but lands on the take off foot on a backward inside edge is a one-foot Axel. An inside Axel (Boechle in Roller terms) takes off from an inside edge on the same foot it lands on a backwards outside edge on and as far as I can tell is still a non-listed jump element. Otherwise, gkelly, you have enumerated the rules perfectly and with much better diplomacy than I would have

[gkelly]

Thanks for the correction -- I know that, but I typed it wrong.

I also mistyped that a single axel landed on the back inside edge of the takeoff foot is counted as a single loop, but I managed to correct that mistake before posting.

[Mathman]

Is this a Walley? (Yu-na Kim in warm up.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2H9I...eature=related

Is this a single Walley followed by another single Walley? (Alexander Uspenski. The edge on the second one seems extraordinary.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5NRGKpVU6k&NR=1

Rules question: So, if you included a couple of Walleys (like Uspenski in the video) as part of a footwork sequence (or just for fun somewhere in your program), that would be cool. But if you did a couple of single loops instead, that would use up two of your jumping passes?

[mskater93]

Answer: correct, so if you intend to do a walley as a transition it better clearly be one!