Flutzing

Joesitz said:

have you seen a loop jump land on a back inside edge. I would say that was a Wrong Edge Landing.

Click to expand...

[/QUOTE] What about Axel-half loop-Salchow that is now called as 1A+1Lo+1S (or 2A+1Lo+2S or so on)? It is clearly the INTENTION of this particular combination for the loop to land on a back inside edge so that the skater can step up into a Salchow. Are you going to give it negative GOE because it doesn't fit YOUR definition of a landed jump?

Have you tried to read the thread from the beginning? it is fun, it changes multiple directions for the same questionIf the technical panel was formed by Gs members and one skater was unfortunately flutzing we would still be waiting for the marks.

Mathman said:

I think we have.

For instance, we have revised the definition that says "a loop jump is a jump that takes off on a back outside edge and lands on the back outside edge of the same foot." If the skater lands on an inside edge, that violates the definition. But -- since definitions are not our jailers -- we score that as a "loop jump" even though the definition is not satisfied.

Click to expand...

I don't think the definition calls for a landing edge, but not sure. Usually the definition is 'Landing on the same foot or the other foot. Was it an 'attempted' loop jump if you did see one. It seems to me to be ok with the generalized definiton. The take off was fine. That gave the jump the name. I think the landing should get a -3 GoE. For the UR lovers, that's what it was.

Would it be better to say, aha! you did not satisfy the definition, which clearly specifies landing on a back outside edge. Therefore you did not do a loop jump. Indeed, you did not do any kind of figure skating jump because all jumps land on a back outside edge by definition. By definition you have not done a jump at all.

Click to expand...

The name of the jump whether popped, prerotated, underrotated, comes from its Takeoff. No two jumps have the same edge or toepic take offs. If it takes off like a defined loop jump, it is a loop jump. The Walley takes off on a back inside edge (different than a loop jump) and it would be called a Walley not a loop jump although in some circles they believe that a back inside take off is a loop jump. Well, I guess it could be if and only if it landed on a back inside edge.

The real problem for the wrong edge takeoff enthusiasts is this distinctive naming of the various jumps by their take-off. If they take off on another edge, it's another jump or worse an illegal jump.

However, if WETs are acknowledge by the judging system, we have to accept the illegal jumps along with anything else that is difficult that must be made easier. we must continue to pamper the contestants except for those few remarkable athletes who skate the elements by definitions.

What about Axel-half loop-Salchow that is now called as 1A+1Lo+1S (or 2A+1Lo+2S or so on)? It is clearly the INTENTION of this particular combination for the loop to land on a back inside edge so that the skater can step up into a Salchow. Are you going to give it negative GOE because it doesn't fit YOUR definition of a landed jump?[/QUOTE]
We are on different wavelenghths, mskater93. I have no power to change anything in the Rules and Definitions of Figure Skating. I merely try to bring out what I believe to be wrong with the official interpretation of the rules and definiton by current standards.

Others appear to accept the Rules as divine providence, and find nothing wrong with all the changes that the ISU decides particularly if a change makes things easier for a skater.

In your example above, I see no reason a skater has to land a single loop jump on an inside edge to satisfy the definiton of a single salchow takeoff. The skater could do a half loop after that axel. He could even do a half loop with two air rotations to set up the salchow. (That would be neat!) Why change an element definition?

Joesitz said:

have you seen a loop jump land on a back inside edge. I would say that was a Wrong Edge Landing.

Click to expand...

There are a couple of different things we might be talking about here. To try to keep them straight...

First, let's say we're talking about counterclockwise jumpers.

Let's talk about single axels instead of single loops, OK? I have a reason for changing the kind of jump.

Let's say a counterclockwise jumper does a normal, correct single axel jump, right back outside (RBO) edge takeoff to RBO landing, 1.5 revolutions in the air. That's the quintessential axel jump that meets every point of the definition of the jump.

Now, there are several ways that this same skater might execute an axel jump in a way that doesn't exactly match the standard definition of the jump.

Some of them are unintentional and count as errors, but they don't change the definition of the jump. It's still a single axel, albeit a less than perfect one.

There are other ways that a skater may execute a single axel jump that intentionally change or vary one aspect of the standard jump. Because they are intentional, it's possible to perform them very well, just as "perfectly" as the standard no-variation version.

Do these differences from the standard change the name of the element? Well, it depends, but usually not. For this post, I'm going to look at only three examples.

1) Inside edge landing on the normal landing foot. The skater executes a single axel jump, taking off from the left forward outside edge. She comes down just slightly short of rotation, on the right foot but on the back inside instead of back outside edge.

This is what I would call a Wrong-Edge Landing. It is an error. If the underrotation is very small, nowhere near 90 degrees short of what it should be, and there is no other error on the jump, then there will be no < call and the GOE will probably be -1.

This RBI edge travels clockwise, the opposite direction from the rotation of the jump in the air and the opposite direction from the expected RBO landing. Therefore it's almost impossible to sustain as a flowing landing.

This error often occurs because the jump has no speed at the landing, so the skater is unable to sustain the one-foot landing for longer than one or two blade lengths before stepping onto the other foot. It is usually enough to count as a one-foot landing, though. The blade may or may not rock over onto the normal RBO landing edge briefly before the skater has to step or stroke onto the left foot.

Occasionally the skater does have enough speed to flow out of this kind of wrong-edge landing. She lands on the RBI edge with some speed and then rocks over onto the RBO to establish a normal landing position. The edge change would be visible in the tracing on the ice.

2) Intentional inside edge landing on the opposite foot than expected. The skater takes off from a left forward outside edge, and lands on the back inside edge of the left foot, with good flow and control on that counterclockwise LBI landing. She may then continue to another step or edge in the ongoing flow of the program or of a step sequence, or she may continue directly into a jump that takes off from the LBI edge, either salchow or flip.

This is not an error. It is an intentional variation of the axel jump, a choice to land on the other foot.

This particular variation of the axel jump has a name: "one-foot axel."

It will be called as 1A in the IJS protocols, will receive the same base mark as a normal 1A, and will receive positive, negative, or base GOE depending on how well it's executed.

1) and 2) are completely not the same thing. They both involve landing on back inside edges, but 1) is a slightly flawed landing on the normal landing foot, with the edge traveling in the wrong direction for the short period of time it's on the ice before a step or edge change; in 2) it's an intentional variation to land on the other foot, traveling in the correct direction.

Another possibility (very common for beginners first learning axels, very uncommon at high levels) is
3) The skater fails to shift her weight in the air over to the landing side and lands on the back inside edge of the left foot, traveling counterclockwise.

Essentially what she has done is the same as a one-foot axel, but by mistake.

When this happens unintentionally, chances are that the jump will look awkward in the air, the landing will have no flow, and the skater will have to put the other foot down immediately. In that case it will essentially be a two-foot landing and the jump would earn -2 or -3 GOE. It might also be underrotated.

I wouldn't call this a "wrong-edge landing" but rather a "wrong-foot landing."

However, it's only "wrong" if it's done badly, by mistake. It is officially allowed to land on the other foot, as in example 2).

For a counterclockwise jumper, the normal landing edge is right back outside.

Landing on the clockwise right back inside edge is a wrong-edge mistake.

Landing on the counterclockwise left back inside edge is either a wrong-foot mistake or an intentional variation.

All of the above is also true for any other jump with any takeoff and any number of revolutions. But single axel is where we used to see it most commonly as an intentional choice, albeit not extremely commonly -- the main reason we see it even less often in IJS is the limit on the number of jump passes allowed in the IJS well-balanced program rules. One-foot axel is not something that low-level skaters can usually do well, and high-level skaters generally don't want to waste a jump slot on a single axel.

We also see intentional opposite-foot back inside landings on single loop jumps. This single loop variant also has a special name, "half-loop," which can be confusing because it's a full-revolution jump. The rules about how the half-loop is to be scored or ignored under IJS have made an exception to the fact that any jump can legitimately or accidentally land on the opposite foot, and the rules for how they're handled when connected to other jumps have changed significantly this year. That's why I chose to discuss axels rather than loops in this discussion.

But the principle remains the same. Landing on the back inside edge of the normal landing foot is a mistake. Landing on the back inside edge of the other foot is often intentional. If you want to discuss back inside edge landings, make sure to clarify which kind you're talking about.

^ Is it possible to do a one-foot double Axel? Could you do a 2A+3S combination in this way?

Mathman said:

In any definition you must list the characteristics that distinguish an example of the thing being defined from other things. A synonym (a donkey is as a$$) is not a definition. No definition is so marvelous, no lexicographer so subtle, as to be able to do this in such an encyclopaedic way as to account for all possibilities.

Click to expand...

Do you not see the point I am making when, in biological classifications of animals, descriptions are not equivalent to definitions? It's ideal to have both, but it's also a fairly common occurrence that some animals mimic other animals (who have dangerous or noxious characteristics) in order to escape predation. Definitions are not replaced by visual descriptions. You really should ask a zoologist why a "three-legged donkey" is still a donkey. You don't seem to understand why a donkey is a donkey in the first place.

The arguments by Joesitz and maybe others is about why a Lutz is a Lutz (to him), and why a flutz should not count as any kind of Lutz (to him), even a "wrong sort of Lutz." I rather agree with his point of view, but I understand the kind of problems that IJS has to begin with, and I don't know if I agree with the call for the level of stringency and punishment that Joe is asking for.

I also don't know why you keep using the phrase "jailed by definitions." Clearly, Joe wants his strict definition of Lutz to be adopted. He clearly understands that PEOPLE, especially in a human-made sport, are the masters and creators of definitions and rules, not "jailed by them." You cannot be jailed by something you have control over.

If a zoologist sees something that looks like this that can only produce fertile offspring with other donkeys and no other animal, it zoologically qualifies as a donkey even though it looks like another animal.

On the other hand, if something looks like the classic flip, it ought to be called a flip, even if the skater calls it an Axel or Lutz or loop. Figure skating obviously depends on observations and trying to match them to descriptions, with some descriptors taking precedence over others. The debate is about which descriptors take priority and how far the degree of allowance should go, and how errors should be valued. i.e. how much can a jump stray from the "ideal definition" or "ideal execution" and still be allowed to count? A back flip on the ice called a Salchow isn't going to be OK'd by the judges.

vlaurend said:

@ Joesitz - Since you have made it clear ad nauseum that you think wrong edge lutzes should be called as flips, you'll be happy to know that my lutz was called as a flip at my competition over the weekend, even though the entrance made it clear that it was intended as a lutz. The technical controller told me they debated whether to call it as a flip or as a lutz (e) and decided to call it a flip, since I only had one other flip in my program and that call would not result in an invalid element. He said if I had had two flips in the program, they would have called is a lutz (e). In other words, the calls are interchangeable and the point is not to invalidate an entire jump pass over a balanced program rule technicality.

Click to expand...

Case in point. vlaurend's intended Lutz looked enough like a flip and was called a flip.

seniorita said:

Have you tried to read the thread from the beginning? it is fun, it changes multiple directions for the same questionIf the technical panel was formed by Gs members and one skater was unfortunately flutzing we would still be waiting for the marks.

Click to expand...

No, we would just score it as we all think it should be scored, some judges' scores would be randomly dropped, and it'd be averaged out. Although Joesitz might be outside of the allowable corridor.

Joesitz said:

I don't think the definition calls for a landing edge, but not sure. Usually the definition is 'Landing on the same foot or the other foot. Was it an 'attempted' loop jump if you did see one. It seems to me to be ok with the generalized definiton. The take off was fine. That gave the jump the name. I think the landing should get a -3 GoE. For the UR lovers, that's what it was.

The name of the jump whether popped, prerotated, underrotated, comes from its Takeoff. No two jumps have the same edge or toepic take offs. If it takes off like a defined loop jump, it is a loop jump. The Walley takes off on a back inside edge (different than a loop jump) and it would be called a Walley not a loop jump although in some circles they believe that a back inside take off is a loop jump. Well, I guess it could be if and only if it landed on a back inside edge.

The real problem for the wrong edge takeoff enthusiasts is this distinctive naming of the various jumps by their take-off. If they take off on another edge, it's another jump or worse an illegal jump.

However, if WETs are acknowledge by the judging system, we have to accept the illegal jumps along with anything else that is difficult that must be made easier. we must continue to pamper the contestants except for those few remarkable athletes who skate the elements by definitions.

Click to expand...

This is very well stated.

prettykeys said:

Case in point. vlaurend's intended Lutz looked enough like a flip and was called a flip.

Click to expand...

And the point I was trying to make with that story is that the technical specialists themselves--the ones who are charged with defining what jump was just executed--are comfortable using flip and flutz calls interchangeably! The Technical Controller told me that he would have called my jump as a Lutz(e) because it was clearly supposed to be a lutz but it went onto an inside edge before I left the ice. However, he said the Technical Specialist chose to call it as a Flip. So then they had to have an internal discussion to decide how to call it, and they ultimately decided to call it as a flip because it was a kinder call to the skater than a Lutz(e), which automatically gets -GOE from the judges. If they are comfortable using flip and flutz calls interchangeably, we should all lighten up a little bit, too. Either way, the call is fair unless it causes a jump element to be invalidated on a technicality. That was my point.

Joesitz said:

The name of the jump whether popped, prerotated, underrotated, comes from its Takeoff. No two jumps have the same edge or toepic take offs.

Click to expand...

gkelly's post says exactly why this isn't true. A half loop and a loop are both called loops under IJS (starting this season), but that's really just for the benefit of jump sequences. They are not the same jump, despite having the same takeoff.

vlaurend said:

And the point I was trying to make with that story is that the technical specialists themselves--the ones who are charged with defining what jump was just executed--are comfortable using flip and flutz calls interchangeably!

Click to expand...

I would say that the tech specialists don't define the jump; rather, they observe the aspects of a jump that was just executed and try to classify it as reasonably and fairly as they can, according to definitions that are decided upon by the current skating establishment.

vlaurend said:

The Technical Controller told me that he would have called my jump as a Lutz(e) because it was clearly supposed to be a lutz but it went onto an inside edge before I left the ice. However, he said the Technical Specialist chose to call it as a Flip. So then they had to have an internal discussion to decide how to call it, and they ultimately decided to call it as a flip because it was a kinder call to the skater than a Lutz(e), which automatically gets -GOE from the judges. If they are comfortable using flip and flutz calls interchangeably, we should all lighten up a little bit, too. Either way, the call is fair unless it causes a jump element to be invalidated on a technicality. That was my point.

Click to expand...

Yes, I got it, and I agree that your case was completely fair. I do question if it is fair, however, when some skaters can execute 2 triple flips and a triple Lutz(e), or 2 triple Lutzes and a triple lip, because it could be argued that it is essentially violating the Zayak rule.

prettykeys said:

You don't seem to understand why a donkey is a donkey in the first place.

Click to expand...

Suppose you see an individual animal that resembles a donkey in every respect except that by an unfortunate birth defect it is sterile (it happens). This individual cannot mate with other donkeys or with any other animal and produce fertile offspring.

Is this individual animal a donkey? Is it a creature that belongs to no species?

A classification is not a definition, it just begs the question. Biologists say, a particular animal is a donkey because it is a member of the donkey species. What is the donkey species? Well, it is the set which comprises all donkeys.

Wait, I can do better. A donkey is something that can mate with other donkeys. (With other whats?)

Suppose I tell you that by definition a flarb is something that is like all other flarbs (and can mate with them), but is different from the flibs. Now do you know what a flarb is?

Mathman said:

^ Is it possible to do a one-foot double Axel? Could you do a 2A+3S combination in this way?

Click to expand...

Theoretically yes. Practically, I've never heard of anyone in the real world attempting that.
The reason being that it's too hard to control the back inside edge landing after more than two revolutions.

kate said:

gkelly's post says exactly why this isn't true. A half loop and a loop are both called loops under IJS (starting this season), but that's really just for the benefit of jump sequences. They are not the same jump, despite having the same takeoff.

Click to expand...

Well, my point is that the single-revolution jump with a loop takeoff and a back inside edge landing on the other foot is an exception to the way all other jumps with standard takeoffs and back inside edge landings are handled. And now, for purposes of combinations, it's no longer an exception.

Multirevolution jumps with back inside landings have always been rare and have almost always only been single axels or double jumps because it's so hard to control that back inside edge landing. There even rarer in IJS because they use up jump slots that could be filled with jumps that earn higher base marks and probably higher GOEs as well.

But it can be done, and it doesn't change the type of jump into a completely different animal. Using the biology example, it's not a different species, but a different breed of the same species.

What do you call the jump at 2:03 in this video?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jt99COeC6lA

If you describe in words, you'll probably use more than just the name of the takeoff and the number of revolutions so you can tell us that the landing is unusual. But you will use the name of its takeoff, won't you?

But if you were calling it in an IJS event, according to the technical panel handbook, you would just call the takeoff and number of revolutions. The code for the element would be the same code as if the skater had landed on the back outside edge of the usual foot.

How well was it done? If you were a judge scoring this event under IJS, what GOE would you give to that element?


Now here are some examples of jump combinations. They are flawed and do not deserve full credit (because the combinations taht these skaters are attempting are incredibly difficult), but the reasons that they're flawed are not because the skaters chose to land the first jumps of the combination on the other foot.


This is a short program. The required jump combination was double flip combined with any double or triple jump.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqqcCAAoEp0

First of all, what two jumps did the skater attempt?

What would be the IJS code for that combination?

What errors would you want to penalize?

What GOE would you give that combination under IJS and why?

What deductions would you take under 6.0 system short program rules?
Here's a list of 6.0 short program deductions as of 2000.

The list was probably somewhat different in the late 1970s, and I'm pretty sure that back then the maximum deduction on the jump combination was larger than the 0.4 maximum in 2000.

This is a long program. How would you call the jump combination at 1:08?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDfnYJcaw_M

What would the IJS code be?
What kind of GOE would it deserve?

Would you give the attempt any credit under 6.0 long program rules? If so, what would you give credit for?


The principle is that the choice of landing foot doesn't change the basic name of the jump (although in describing it we would probably add modifiers to indicate that the skater made an unusual landing choice), it doesn't change the IJS code at all, and errors on both unusual and usual landings don't change the name of the jump either.

The way IJS dealt with solo half-loops, and half-loops in combinations through last year, is an exception to that principle.

The way IJS now deals with half-loops in combination conforms to the same principle it uses for all other rotational jumps with standard takeoffs and alternate landing variations.

We just don't see those variations very often because it's so much harder to land a double axel or triple anything that way and there are no extra points for trying.

prettykeys said:

No, we would just score it as we all think it should be scored, some judges' scores would be randomly dropped, and it'd be averaged out. Although Joesitz might be outside of the allowable corridor.

Click to expand...

true but i was talking about the technical control pannel, not the judge pannel.
To flutz or not to flutz?:think:

Joesitz said:

Others appear to accept the Rules as divine providence, and find nothing wrong with all the changes that the ISU decides particularly if a change makes things easier for a skater.

Click to expand...

Can you name a single poster who agrees with every single rule in the COP (I don't think there is one!)? Just wondering because whne you have no arguments left you nearly always fall back to the same old crap about posters finding the rules divine, or not thinking about them, following blindly blah blah blah.

Ant

I promise to steal Natalie Portman's impending Oscar for Black Swan and donate it to Goldenskate if a moderator locks this awful, repetitive discussion already (OMG, the donkey talk - I can't handle!)

Mathman said:

^ Is it possible to do a one-foot double Axel? Could you do a 2A+3S combination in this way?

Click to expand...

A common One Foot Axel on rollers is called a Boekel named after someone who invented it. It takes off on a forward inside edge; rotates 1-1/2 turns and lands on the same FT as takeoff on a back outside edge. I suppose a skater could add another rotation to that and call it a Double One FT Axel. I've never seen that on ICE but I have seen a One FT Axel this way: skater takes off on a forward outside, rotates 1-1/2 turns and lands on the same FT as takeoff, but I am not sure if the landing is on a FLAT or on an edge. I think one could add and extra rotation to it and also jump into a salchow from the landing. That jump was in the Yamaguchi era and then vanished. A lot of variety, imo, has been lost in the CoP which makes skating easier, but that's nother topic.

Joesitz said:

A lot of variety, imo, has been lost in the CoP which makes skating easier, but that's nother topic.

Click to expand...

That seems to be the case. I guess skaters feel that they can't afford to devote energy to moves that are not listed as big point-getters.

Joesitz said:

A common One Foot Axel on rollers is called a Boekel named after someone who invented it. It takes off on a forward inside edge;

Click to expand...

On ice, that's usually called an "inside axel." It is never called a "one-foot axel." Under IJS it's a non-listed jump and gets no points.

rotates 1-1/2 turns and lands on the same FT as takeoff on a back outside edge. I suppose a skater could add another rotation to that and call it a Double One FT Axel. I've never seen that on ICE

Click to expand...

I know of two skaters (over the past 40 years) who have done it as a double jump.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNP6VaJZzE0 at 3:39

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hycLqBXQK8s at 2:49

But that's irrelevant to the point we were discussing regarding inside edge landings.

but I have seen a One FT Axel this way: skater takes off on a forward outside, rotates 1-1/2 turns and lands on the same FT as takeoff,

Click to expand...

Yes, that is what we call a one-foot axel.

but I am not sure if the landing is on a FLAT or on an edge.

Click to expand...

It has to be on a back inside edge if there's a salchow afterward. You always seem to find this concept so confusing.

I think one could add and extra rotation to it

Click to expand...

As I said, in theory it would be possible but I have never seen it done.

and also jump into a salchow from the landing.

Click to expand...

Hence the intentional back inside edge landing. See the last link in my last post on the previous page.

That jump was in the Yamaguchi era and then vanished. A lot of variety, imo, has been lost in the CoP which makes skating easier, but that's nother topic.

Click to expand...

It was rare then and has become rarer.

I think I saw one example of 1A+2S combination (salchow takeoff directly from the landing of a one-foot axel) from a juvenile or intermediate skater last year, but it wasn't especially well done.

I.e., it was rare and became rarer.

It's not really valuable enough in today's rules given the fact that it gets no extra point for the difficulty of controlling that back inside edge landing, it uses a low-value jump as the first jump in the combination, and it's harder to earn positive GOE than with an easier combo that's worth higher base mark.

Personally, I'd like to see a rule change that makes the second jump in a combination worth more than its base mark. That would encourage this sort of thing to come back. Then 1A+3S would be worth more than 3S+2T and there would be incentive for skaters to learn it.

Joesitz said:

A common One Foot Axel on rollers is called a Boekel named after someone who invented it. It takes off on a forward inside edge; rotates 1-1/2 turns and lands on the same FT as takeoff on a back outside edge. I suppose a skater could add another rotation to that and call it a Double One FT Axel. I've never seen that on ICE but I have seen a One FT Axel this way: skater takes off on a forward outside, rotates 1-1/2 turns and lands on the same FT as takeoff, but I am not sure if the landing is on a FLAT or on an edge. I think one could add and extra rotation to it and also jump into a salchow from the landing. That jump was in the Yamaguchi era and then vanished. A lot of variety, imo, has been lost in the CoP which makes skating easier, but that's nother topic.

Click to expand...

Your Boekel is an INSIDE AXEL in figure skating and is an uncaptured element in the scoring system; a 1 foot Axel takes off from a fwd outside edge and lands on a back inside edge on the same foot it took off from.

As to your ad nauseum comments about "blindly believing the rules", it's not that we all agree with everything (in the same way I don't agree with everything called in dog agility, football or hockey when I watch or participate in that), it's that these are the rules of the game and you either play by them or you don't get to play. If you don't like them, you can work from the inside to get them changed if you can garner enough power.