UR jumps GOEs
When a jump is overall good, but UR, I don't think that the GOE should be negative. A few examples:
Cesario's 3Lo and 3S: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmWjic85sUs
Liza's 3Lo (3:47): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wta2ifZiMcA
Dai's 3F (4:06): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64QdXaZsUxs
They're excellent jumps, with good height, landing position, flow and speed, steps before (and sometimes after) them, that fit the musical structure... But they're <. I think that, in cases like these, the BV should be lower because of the <, but the GOEs should be positive (+1 and +2), if there are no evident mistakes in the jump... Obviously, when a jumps is << (or <) and there's an evident and visible cheat in the landing, the GOE should be negative.
What do you think?
I don't believe in positive GOE's unless something "special" is done (like a lutz with both hands in the air, or something like that). But, you are correct. It's either a perfectly done double/triple or a poorly done triple/quad. It can't be made into a poorly done lesser jump, or it shouldn't, anyway, if it's landed cleanly and there are no other problems.
no, all of those jumps in the linked videos should have minus goe.
As I understand it, the Judges should only be rating the quality of "what was performed". However, I have seen cases where a skater had positive GOE from most judges, with negatives from a couple judges (I can't recall if it was doubling a jump, or an edge call). I had wondered if perhaps those negative judges had recognized the technical mistakes, and penalized the skater for it with the GOE. If so, aren't they over-stepping their authority and doing the Tech panels job ie. adding more punishment besides the lower BV?
Yes, the rules say that a < jump should receive negative GOE, what I'm saying is exactly that this rule (in my opinion) is wrong...
Originally Posted by rvi5
What the rules now say is that a jump with a << call (downgrade, at least 180 degrees short of rotation) should have the GOE reduced by 2-3 points and the GOE must be negative.
For the < call (underrotation, 91-180 degrees short), the GOE should be reduced by 1-2 points, but the GOE does not need to be negative.
So suppose a judge sees a jump or jump combination that looks great to her in real time and gives it +2. After the end of the program when the tech panel adds the < call, the judge should go back and reduce her GOE. But she's perfectly free to reduce it to 0 or -1 -- no need to go negative.
If the tech panel's call was <<, then the judge would need to change the mark to -1 or lower. And wonder why it didn't even look suspicious to her in real time.
Well, if there was no "70%" rule, I would agree. Otherwise, I think it's just another way of encouraging URed jumps.
For example, URed 3Lz with +2(=1.4) GOE would equal 5.6. That is even higher than 3F's BV. URed 3A with +1 GOE would equal 7.0, and that is about high as well-executed 3Lz. If judges aren't forced to give negative GOEs to URed jumps, they're probably going to use GOE as an another way to give certain skater higher score than he/she deserves.
Of course, there are always exceptions. If the jump isn't obviously URed and could've passed for a fully rotated jump, then I don't think negative GOE should be necessary.