How Would You Explain And Apply GOE Rules?

Well, in this case Yan would have gotten -3 GOEs from every judge even if he had landed that jump beautifully on one foot, because it was a single axel and it needed to be a double to meet the short program requirements.

But yes, that's a good example of a jump that's "landed on two feet" (not just with a touchdown or step out) and therefore would probably get -3 from all the judges in a free program or novice short program where single axels are allowed.

It's hard to find examples of skaters doing jumps in which the only mistake is landing firmly on two feet. With elite skaters, it's probably going to happen with a pop, like that one. Which isn't technically another mistake in a free program.

Skaters also might land with weight on both feet if they haven't completed the rotation in the air, but then they'd lose more points for underrotation as well (between the two mistakes the GOE will definitely be -3, and the base mark will also be lower).

Otherwise you're more likely to see it from low-level skaters who are first learning single or the easier double jumps and haven't mastered the necessary weight shift over to the landing side.

Under 6.0, the rules explicitly stated that jumps landed "on two feet" shall not be marked. So I think the -3 penalty for this particular mistake was a continuation of that way of thinking.

gkelly said:

Well, in this case Yan would have gotten -3 GOEs from every judge even if he had landed that jump beautifully on one foot, because it was a single axel and it needed to be a double to meet the short program requirements.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I've realized that, so I've deleted it before I read your this post.

(Here is the performance by Han Yan analyzed in gkelly's post above.))

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBinI_ZGrAM

Mathman said:

(Here is the performance by Han Yan referred to in the post above. For some reason it was deleted from Bluebonnet's post #180.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBinI_ZGrAM

Click to expand...

Sorry to cause this trouble.:

It is interesting. however, that when a skater fails to complete a required element in the short program he is penalized in GOE instead of receiving no credit.

I guess it doesn't matter much, though. Yan got only 0.7 points for his Axel. it was better than nothing.

Here is another example of two-foot landing (at 2'57"):

Romain Ponsart's LP at TEB 2011

His 2A received -3 GOEs from 7 judges. Only two judges gave him -2.

Mathman said:

It is interesting. however, that when a skater fails to complete a required element in the short program he is penalized in GOE instead of receiving no credit.

Click to expand...

That was true in 6.0 as well. E.g., in the last decade the maximum deduction for an element that was visibly attempted was 4.0, whereas the deduction for a complete omission was 0.5.

So for the required solo axel jump, even popping it to a waltz jump would have been 0.4, same as a pop to a single. In IJS, the single gets a base mark (with -3 GOE), but the half-revolution jump does not get any points.

Of course under 6.0 the base mark that each judge took the deduction from might have differed depending whether they managed to rotate a jump before a 0.4 mistake or whether failure to rotate was the mistake. But we never knew what considerations each judge used to arrive at the base mark or exactly what deductions they took.

The deduction for this was 0.4, same as for this or this or this.

Only failing to attempt the required element at all would give a 0.5 deduction.

In IJS, attempts with more rotation will start with higher base marks even if the GOE ends up being the same -- except when there's so little rotation, as in the first, Butyrskaya example above, that the jump is a downgraded single or not a listed jump at all and therefore gets no value.

gkelly said:

That was true in 6.0 as well. E.g., in the last decade the maximum deduction for an element that was visibly attempted was 4.0, whereas the deduction for a complete omission was 0.5.

Click to expand...

Of course, the major difference is that, under 6.0, the deduction was made from the total mark and also there was no way to escape it thanks to the "enhancing" features.
The technical mark really reflected the mistakes on the elements and when the top skaters got 5.4-5.5 for technical mark, it was clear that they made mistakes.
While now, if you don't see the protocols but just the total scores of some of the top skaters, you'd think they skated the program of their life.
Of course, it's quite shocking to discover afterwards, when you watch the programs, that in fact these high total scores could hide mistakes on 2 of the 3 jumping passes required in the SP...
That's how they manage to kill the excitment of the SP competition :disapp:

Mathman said:

I think the point gkelly is insisting upon is that figure skating is primarily a sport of, by, and for the participants, and not so much about fan bases. .

Click to expand...

The opinion gkelly is offering raises a few questions:

Back in 1973 did skating reduce the value of figures and add the technical program to:

1. increase fan interest

2. increase the skill level of skaters

In your opinion did TV and increased revenues have much to do with this change?

What about after 1990 when figures were eliminated?

1.Was this done by ISU to increase skating skills and generally intended to help make skaters at all levels more proficient skaters?

2. Was this an economical move meant to save money not only at competitions but for the general training costs of participants at all levels?

Final question -

1.was the IJS ntroduced because ISU was sure they had a better system?

2. or was the IJS introduced (and some feel rushed before it was ready) for fear of getting kicked out of the Olympics?


Different people might have different thoughts about this - but I see as much "marketing" driven decisions from ISU as "let's only do what is best for participating skaters."

amber68 said:

Of course, the major difference is that, under 6.0, the deduction was made from the total mark and also there was no way to escape it thanks to the "enhancing" features.
The technical mark really reflected the mistakes on the elements and when the top skaters got 5.4-5.5 for technical mark, it was clear that they made mistakes.
While now, if you don't see the protocols but just the total scores of some of the top skaters, you'd think they skated the program of their life.
Of course, it's quite shocking to discover afterwards, when you watch the programs, that in fact these high total scores could hide mistakes on 2 of the 3 jumping passes required in the SP...
That's how they manage to kill the excitment of the SP competition :disapp:

Click to expand...

You think so? I've never really understood 6.0. I just enjoyed the skating and went along with the judges' decisions which were a lot of time not my desire and my assessment on the actual skating. But I'd just brushed them off and said, "Oh, well, I'll just ignore the results." If my favorite won, I was very happy and didn't care what and why he/she won. Maybe just because I wasn't attached firmly with 6.0, I was able to appreciate CoP. I've found CoP makes much more sense than 6.0, at least to me.

janetfan said:

Back in 1973 did skating reduce the value of figures and add the technical program to:

1. increase fan interest

2. increase the skill level of skaters

In your opinion did TV and increased revenues have much to do with this change?

What about after 1990 when figures were eliminated?

1.Was this done by ISU to increase skating skills and generally intended to help make skaters at all levels more proficient skaters?

2. Was this an economical move meant to save money not only at competitions but for the general training costs of participants at all levels?

Final question -

1.was the IJS ntroduced because ISU was sure they had a better system?

2. or was the IJS introduced (and some feel rushed before it was ready) for fear of getting kicked out of the Olympics?


Different people might have different thoughts about this - but I see as much "marketing" driven decisions from ISU as "let's only do what is best for participating skaters."

Click to expand...

I think you are right. But, as always with the good old ISU, there is always something going on behind the scenes.

In the move away from figures, yes an important consideration was marketing, and especially tapping into the still fairy new opportunities provided by television. And they were lucky in having one of the most crowd-pleasing skaters of all time, Janet Lynn, as exhibit A.

Internally, I have heard that an equally important current was the small federations versus the biggies. The small federations did not have the resources to devote ice and time to "patch" work, like the big federations did. The USFSA was opposed to the changes and voted against them whenever they could. I am a little fuzzy about the details, but I believe that Russia was opposed, too. The movement in favor of change was spearheaded by the Italian representative on the ISU council, Sonia Bianchetti. In fact, there were still figure contests in the U.S. long after other countries has abandoned them.

Cinquanta is an odd duck, too. His background is in business, and I think he held several management and accounting posts before his election as ISU president in 1994. he was initially hailed as a great leader precisely because of his business acumen. He was given credit (whether personally deserved or not) for negotiating those multi-million dollar contracts with US ABC television, and he used the money to increase the visibility and power of the ISU. For instance, he gathered long-standing independent events like Skate America and Skate Canada into the ISU Grand Prix.

As for the CoP, I am pretty sure that the ISU had been working on such a plan long before the 2002 Olympics, the famous Russian coach Stanislav Zhuk being most often mentioned as one of the people pushing the idea. Trying to make figure skating judging more "objective" would naturally appeal to a former speed slater like Cinquanta. The IOC might have been mad as hornets about the negative publicity ofat the Salt Lake City games, but I don't think there was, or is, any danger of figure skating being kicked out pf the Olympics no matter what.

Back in the days when the Olympic television coverage was arranged so that you could tell which events were drawing the big audiences, figure skating was always at the very top. The IOC is not going to cut off its nose to spite its face, no matter how mad they get.

Still, the 2002 judging scandal gave both opportunity and a kick in the pants to come up with a plan to save face pronto. Anonymous judging is the height of folly, but somehow the ISU was able to hold it in front of our faces like a magician's trick in the hope of deflecting attention from the real problems.

(Hmm... when I started this post I thought it was going somewhere. But I guess not... )

I think one of the biggest things they need to do is NOT have anon judging... it's not like we don't know WHO the judges will be, so it's not like they can't be bribed if they want to be.

if anything it would at least give the casual audience someone to focus thier negativity on instead of the sport itself (you know, like in the good ol' days).