Would Plush have won if the new rules had been applied? | Page 8 | Golden Skate

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

seniorita

Record Breaker
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
yes I did, but unfortunately people quote you all the time, so there was no use. Sorry jntfan, I m not playing the game. Have fun.
 
Joined
Jul 11, 2003
The toe walley is included by default as an alternative to triple toe loop. If anyone does a triple toe walley it will be called as 3T and earn the same base value as a triple toe loop
Default? Where is that written? It's not permitted in competition and you know it. Why not say that if you can not show an official statement?

walley is not included in the scale of values because it's only done as a single jump. I'm sure that the reason it is explicitly considered a "nonlisted jump" is so that skaters can do single rotations from this takeoff without wasting jump slots. They're free to
But you have no idea that single, double, and triple Walleys were not listed, which is what I was trying to find out. I really don't need your guesswork.

Now personally I think it would be a good idea to include double walley in the scale of values, with a value greater than that of double axel and maybe greater than the easier triples, even though it's less rotation, to give an incentive for skaters to try to learn it. If there were points for it, we'd be more likely to see it
You seem to be bending on this issue of CoP Listings. A partial listing of an element, is your opinion and not standard ISU writings. I want the whole single, double, triple and yes, the quad listed. Skaters do not have to use them in their programs.[/QUOTE]

Including triple walley in the scale of values[ would be a purely theoretical. I don't think we will see it in competition before we see quadruple axel.
Opinons are fine.

Again, I have no idea what you're trying to convey with this sentence. Maybe if you could choose your words more precisely we could actually communicate with each other.
Maybe of you took the trouble of the dicussion before you came into the picture.



First things first. Let's see a first double walley in international competition before we start looking for triples.

Kristi Yamaguchi and others had them in their programs. You didn't notice?

If they weren't difficult, we would have seen them before there was a scale of values. The fact that maybe two skaters in the whole history of the sport ever attempted double walley in the last few decades of the 20th century and no one ever attempted triple walley, long after triple axelbecame commonplace, tells me that double walley is probably more difficult than triple axel.
And quads were all over the place in 1916. Yeah.

The above is my understanding. No, I haven't seen an official explicit explanation from the people who wrote the scale of values.

But note that their absence from the SoV does not mean that they are considered "illegitimate" or that they are "banned." When you throw around words like that, you confuse the issue.

They are absent from the scale of values. That's it. Why? So that skaters can use the single jumps as transitions without wasting jump slots. And because no one ever used to do the doubles or triples under the old system, so there was no expectation that anyone would or could do them now.
Yes, but to make up interpretatiions with regard to the intent of the drafters of the SoVs, in reply to simple questions, can be misleading.
 
Last edited:

gkelly

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Default? Where is that written? It's not permitted in competition and you know it. Why not say that if you can not show an official statement?

Toe walleys of any revolution are permitted in competition and are scored as toe loops.

It is hard to find the documentation. Especially when it's misspelled.

http://www.isu.org/vsite/vfile/page/fileurl/0,11040,4844-197593-214816-125742-0-file,00.pdf

"Jumps that are not listed in the SOV (e.g., Valley's...) will not count as a jump element, but might be used as a special entrance to the jump to be considered in the mark for Transition.
A Toe-Valley, however, will be called and count as a Toe-loop."

Kristi Yamaguchi and others had them in their programs. You didn't notice?

When did Kristi Yamaguchi or anyone other than the two men I listed in the earlier post ever do double (or triple) walleys?

Got any video evidence?

Are you still confusing walleys and toe walleys?

If you're thinking about single walleys, yes, skaters in Yamaguchi's era did them, and skaters still do them today under IJS with no penalty, no point value, and reward under the Transitions component. Need some examples?

But you have no idea that single, double, and triple Walleys were not listed, which is what I was trying to find out. I really don't need your guesswork.

I know for sure that walleys (as opposed to toe walleys) are not listed in the scale of values. They are officially considered nonlisted jumps, as in the quote above.

The only guesswork is regarding the rationale (i.e., why).
 
Last edited:

gmyers

Record Breaker
Joined
Mar 6, 2010
I thought you blocked me - but must admit it is not surprising you can't resist reading my perplexing, silly, and occassionally intuitive posts. ;)

Poor sportsmanship never goes over well in USA unless it is accompanied by a formal apology.
As a very poor sport myself I know this very well. :yes:

Here is an interesting blog comment for your persusal:

http://olympicfanatic.com/2010/02/20/day-6-aftermath-plushenko-slams-judges-my-apologies-to-lysacek/


Of course you would post something where someone compelely ignores the existence of one skater doing a quad triple and the other not doing it and how maybe that is what made that persons program cleaner. Clean programs over really difficult one is not a virtue. This person obviously just thinks all jumps are the same and of course the person who had the most in the second half had the harder program. So dumb.
 

Jaana

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 27, 2003
Country
Finland
Of course you would post something where someone compelely ignores the existence of one skater doing a quad triple and the other not doing it and how maybe that is what made that persons program cleaner. Clean programs over really difficult one is not a virtue. This person obviously just thinks all jumps are the same and of course the person who had the most in the second half had the harder program. So dumb.

A quad triple is not something that quarantees a win, it is just one element and the rest of the programme needs to be good, too. Besides, as far as I remember Plushenko was beaten in technical scores. Obviously his other elements were not good enough.
 
Last edited:

gmyers

Record Breaker
Joined
Mar 6, 2010
A quad triple is not something that quarantees a win, it is just one element and the rest of the programme needs to be good, too. Besides, as far as I remember Plushenko was beaten in technical scores. Obviously his other elements were not good enough.

Of course I know Plushenko was beaten on the technical scores but it was on positive execution pluses and after the halfway point bonus points. It would have been different if Plushenko had actually popped a jump or fell or got a level 2 spin or step but both Lysacek and Plushenkso got pretty much the same level on spins and steps. And the problem for me is that Plushenkos doing the hardest jump a skter can do and doing everything else didn't matter when scoring those other elements to several judges on the panel. I mean several judges very obviously factored in the quad triple when grading the other elments but I just think Plushenko was so much more impressive doing everything a skater needs to do be competiive for gold and doing a quad triple. That is so much more impressive than not doing a quad triple in a gold medal performance. You can read the scoring protocall sheets and all written out like that I just find Plushenko so much more mpressive as a whole!
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
I mean several judges very obviously factored in the quad triple when grading the other elments...

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.
 

seniorita

Record Breaker
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Besides, as far as I remember Plushenko was beaten in technical scores. Obviously his other elements were not good enough.

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.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 11, 2003
Toe walleys of any revolution are permitted in competition and are scored as toe loops.

It is hard to find the documentation. Especially when it's misspelled.

http://www.isu.org/vsite/vfile/page/fileurl/0,11040,4844-197593-214816-125742-0-file,00.pdf

"Jumps that are not listed in the SOV (e.g., Valley's...) will not count as a jump element, but might be used as a special entrance to the jump to be considered in the mark for Transition.
A Toe-Valley, however, will be called and count as a Toe-loop."



When did Kristi Yamaguchi or anyone other than the two men I listed in the earlier post ever do double (or triple) walleys?

Got any video evidence?

Are you still confusing walleys and toe walleys?

If you're thinking about single walleys, yes, skaters in Yamaguchi's era did them, and skaters still do them today under IJS with no penalty, no point value, and reward under the Transitions component. Need some examples?
I know for sure that walleys (as opposed to toe walleys) are not list
ed in the scale of values. They are officially considered nonlisted jumps, as in the quote above.

The nly guesswork is regarding the rationale (i.e., why).
If you take another look at the list of SoVs there are no Walleys listed - toe or otherwise. That's fact and not guesswork. Kristi did do a toe walley and it is proof that it was done before the omiting of it in the SoV. That's also fact.

It would be so simple, if you could just say that you do not know why they left them out rather than defending the omissions with all sorts of non rationale talk. Giving an 'imo' would help. It would not be a surprise that you must defend the CoP when fans make suggestions. it's more than just the Walleys.

It is obvious to me that the Walleys (note plural) are not listed in the SoVs. I think they should be.

I cannot change the rules of the ISU, but I think fans have a right to object to them. What would be wrong with that?
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
This is a a very interesting discussion about the Walley and toe Walley jumps. If everyone promises not to jump down my throat for posting about it, 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.

So far so good. All of this is not mentioned in the actual listings of the SoV, so you have to dig a little deeper into the ISU Communications and Rules to find it out, as gkelly was kind enough to do for us.

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.
 

Jaana

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 27, 2003
Country
Finland
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.
 
Last edited:

gmyers

Record Breaker
Joined
Mar 6, 2010
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

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
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.
 
Last edited:

mskater93

Record Breaker
Joined
Oct 22, 2005
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

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
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.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Is this a Walley? (Yu-na Kim in warm up.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2H9I9lugUk&feature=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?
 
Last edited:

mskater93

Record Breaker
Joined
Oct 22, 2005
Answer: correct, so if you intend to do a walley as a transition it better clearly be one!
 
Top