Question about Rippon's protocol in the LP

[FlattFan]

1st triple axel(solo) - stepped out, Tech caller called this a sequence.
2nd triple axel - full mark + GOE.

Shouldn't they call the second triple axel 3A+SEQ because there wasn't a combo? I see no intention of having combo on either case. The first 3A could be a botch attempt, and get -GOE. The second, having done solo, should get +SEQ.

What's the rule on this?

[Mathman]

WallyLutz explained the rule on the Men's LP thread.

If you attempt a combo but put too many steps after the first jump, then the first jump counts as a "sequence" (20% penalty), and the second jump does not count as anything and does not fill a jumping box.

[wallylutz]

WallyLutz explained the rule on the Men's LP thread.

If you attempt a combo but put too many steps after the first jump, then the first jump counts as a "sequence" (20% penalty), and the second jump does not count as anything and does not fill a jumping box.

Adam's 1st Triple Axel was a jump combination attempt as you could see him adding a Double Toe after the step out, therefore, the rule you referenced applied in this case. Interestingly enough, the 20% penalty rule applies even if the jump in question was never repeated again in the program. I think parts of the confusion stems from viewers are used to the 20% penalty on a failed repeated jump, which is more intuitive. However, if you missed a jump combo or sequence, the 2nd jump in the combo/sequence will be ignored and the 1st jump receives an automatic 20% penalty REGARDLESS whether this said Triple/Quad jump has been repeated or will be repeated again in the Free Skate. Case in point, Joannie Rochette added a three turn in her Triple Toe + Triple Salchow sequence at the 2009 4CC in Vancouver. Her Triple Toe was the first jump and was not repeated in her skate yet the Panel marked it as "Triple Toe Loop + Sequence", and ignored the value of the Triple Salchow completely. So voila, even a non-repeated jump can receive the Sequence penalty so it shouldn't be surprising that sometimes, the first jump attempt could be the one receiving the Sequence penalty as well.

[Blades of Passion]

It's definitely a rule that needs to be changed. Obviously for the Short Program it makes sense that the extra jump is worth nothing at all, because only a combination and not a sequence is allowed, but for the LP it's not accurate. Jump sequences should be allowed to have many steps/turns between them, as long as there are no crossovers, and I'm not sure why they changed the rule to only allow a single step between jumps in sequences these days. It completely ruins the potential for musicality if someone wants to actually plan a jump sequence with several well-timed hops in between.

[ivy]

Yeah I think so too.

So if a skater did this in the LP:

running 3 turns, 3loop, running 3 turns, 3loop, running 3turns, spin or footwork or whatever

they would get -.20 for the 1st loop and no credit for the 2nd loop? I suppose there is an issue of the whether the landings were fully controlled or not

[gkelly]

Jump sequences should be allowed to have many steps/turns between them, as long as there are no crossovers, and I'm not sure why they changed the rule to only allow a single step between jumps in sequences these days. It completely ruins the potential for musicality if someone wants to actually plan a jump sequence with several well-timed hops in between.

I partially agree. I'd prefer something like the sequence rules that were used ca. 2004-05 that allowed one step or turn between each jump or hop.

That rule said something along the lines that there needed to be a continuous rhythm for the two big jumps in the sequence to count as a sequence and not as two separate elements. My guess is that determining whether the rhythm was sufficiently continuous was too subjective, too much of a gray area, so they took out the possibility of including turns in between. Either there's a turn or there isn't -- not much room for debate there.

However, as long as all the turns are in the air in the form of hops and not on the ice, it's still allowed to do as many hops in between as the skater chooses.

[Joesitz]

It's definitely a rule that needs to be changed. Obviously for the Short Program it makes sense that the extra jump is worth nothing at all, because only a combination and not a sequence is allowed, but for the LP it's not accurate. Jump sequences should be allowed to have many steps/turns between them, as long as there are no crossovers, and I'm not sure why they changed the rule to only allow a single step between jumps in sequences these days. It completely ruins the potential for musicality if someone wants to actually plan a jump sequence with several well-timed hops in between.

good point, BP. I think a lot of judgements rely on the terms: 'attempt' and 'intended'. Where would the Flutz and Lip be without them? It is a question for the Tech Caller but can he/she actually see an attempt? If the CoP glorifies itself in judging what is seen then I don't see any reason for Attempts and Intendeds. A combo or a single jump is the option of a skater - not the Tech Caller who does not have the ability to read minds. The skater may think, I missed the single jump, but I can make it up in a combo.

btw. Does Attempts and Intends appear as official writings in the rules?

[Mathman]

btw. Does Attempts and Intends appear as official writings in the rules?

There is a sprinkling of that sort of language here and there. For instance, about under-rotation calls

A jump identified as under0rotated will receive a reduced base value of 70% of the intended jump…

and

The GOE values applied to the under-rotated jump will be the same as for the intended jump…

If you want to know the precise language regarding the technical panel's responsibility to identify "Starting from the wrong edge" calls on flips and Lutzes, here is the document to read. (If you do not want to know what it says, that's OK, too. )

On this page, click on "Technical Panel Handbook:

http://www.isu.org/vsite/vnavsite/pa...v-list,00.html