08-19-2014, 10:05 AM
Size 7 Knifeboots
I do understand this and tend to lump the tech panel into the same catagory and just say the judges. It might be similar to when people call a tissue a Kleenex. I'll try to break the habit for comprehension purposes.
Originally Posted by gkelly
Still...as I pointed out before the Tech Panel last year only had (e) or (no sign) for flutzes. I might sound stupid but I think an (e) sign could be given to an unclear take off which meant not all (e) were actually required to be be negative GOE where as this season it will. What I'm wondering is if the tech panel will be more prone to use (!) this year more frequently because of the severity of the penalty now associated with an (e). Obviously allowing some close calls that would normally be (e) to become (!) more frequently or are we going to see scores lowered this season and a lot more (e)? I mean do we now need to define egregious since that is the terminology used for applying an (e)? Maybe this really is a stupid question
08-19-2014, 10:35 AM
Just as a guess, based on US club competitions I've witnessed, I think we'll see more e than ! calls, but about the same number of total edge calls.
However, time will tell. Different panels may be stricter or more lenient.
08-19-2014, 06:03 PM
Loving red pants & pink tutus
No problem! And yes, I agree with the foot take-off problem... it often goes so fast and then sometimes you also have to factor in clockwise spinners so it's much easier to just do the preceding steps. Funny enough, the jump I still have the most problems identifying is the toe loop (when it's by itself or the first jump in a combo), which I often confuse with the flip because it also has the 3-turn but takes off the other leg.
Originally Posted by Darjaille
And I actually have a question about a certain combination. Michael Chack once did an awesome 1-foot axel into an attempted quadruple salchow at the 1991 US Championships.
And of course who can forget Jill Trenary's 1-foot axel into 3S?
Would this count as a jump combination or a sequence? I ask because it seems that the IJS treats jumps that land on the "wrong" foot as part of a sequence (IE, when the half loop is used between jumps). The 1-foot axel lands on the left inside edge allowing skaters to throw in a salchow or a flip as a second jump.
08-19-2014, 06:32 PM
It would be a combination.It just isn't worth enough points relative to the difficulty for skaters to make the effort to master.
08-21-2014, 05:30 PM
"What Rohene says is what will be done"
Skaters give a list of what elements they plan to do, those elements have a value. The tech panel than decides what is actually done, if I am understanding correctly.
So, if a skater list that they are going to do a say 4T, but then decides to play it safe and land a beautiful 3T, Do they get credited as a 3T or an under rotated 4T? How much if any would it hurt them to say they are trying to do a 4T but do a 3T rather than just plan and do the 3T?
On the other side of the equation, how would it work out if they were planning a 3T but then did a 4T? Are they allowed to try it on a whim if everything feels right? Would it still count as a quad? Would they still get scored as a quad or somehow a really good 3T? Would there be a penalty for deviating?
Put another way, could a skater like Jason Brown, who announcers love to point out "doesn't have the quad" and thus likely will try to ring every tiny amount of drama they can from whenever they see that 4 on his planned elements for the first time, avoid some of the pressure and attention of "first quad" by just listing the 3T and doing the 4T just to get the first time out of the way with less pressure? Would there be a consequence to doing something like that, either officially or unofficially (ie considered poor etiquette, or insulting or disrespectful or poor sportsmanship somehow)?
08-21-2014, 06:13 PM
StitchMonkey those are really good questions. As far as I understand, the technical caller decides what was actually delivered by a skater. Whether a skater gets credit for what they do depends on not violating Zayak rule (repeats must be in combination etc.) and how many jumping passes they've used (can't go over the number allowed). And they can't go over the number of elements allowed in a program.
For example, the Zayak rule is why Javier didn't get credit for 3S at the Olympics and got edged out for bronze by Ten. He repeated a salchow and it wasn't in combination.
It can be really exciting when someone delivers something that wasn't planned -- if they do it well. Carolina Kostner did this at the Olympics in the short program -- 3F-3T and it was gorgeous. Kind of like a personal triumph captured in a jump combination.
If somebody planned a 3T but did a 4T to wow everybody, more power to him/her, whoever it is. Different things can work for different people. Maybe someone can be just in that moment and give it all -- like Carolina did. It's pretty great when it happens. Really special. When it connects with you, it's really poignant.
I don't know if there are consequences. I think it might have to do with how well liked a skater is, and how well executed that particular element was.
08-21-2014, 06:19 PM
Ahh of course I post before I'm done. I could see someone listing an easier jump and attempting something harder in order to amp oneself/psych oneself out. Michelle Kwan used to save the big guns for the end of the season. Ashley Wagner tried doing triple triples at the end of a season (not the most current one) and ended up doing a triple-double.
I hope that helped :D
08-21-2014, 06:54 PM
Sometimes bad skating happens to good people...
How is it possible to get (e) calls on both lutz and flip in the same program? Or I guess the question is that if you know you flutz and lip why not just reverse what you call those jumps? You've done two different jumps showing both inside and outside edge takeoffs. It's confusing.
08-21-2014, 07:35 PM
Bona Fide Member
I think it is almost always a mistake to change your program on the fly. As the saying goes, "plan your skate, skate your plan."
A plan can have alternatives (a) and (b), however. If Michelle Kwan hit her 3T+3T then at the end she did a split jump. If she missed the 3T+3T then she skated plan (b) and put an extra 3T at the end instead of the split jump.
Sometimes skaters put in an lesser element, like a 3Lz+2T, at the beginning of the season, hoping to work up to a 3Lz+3T by the end.
Or you could prepare plan (a) in the short program: 4T+3T and solo 3Lz, and plan (b) 4T (flub landing, can't get off the combo), and 3Lz+3T. This is tricky, though. You have to put a couple of steps before the 4T if you want it to count as your solo jump (and if you do, that's probably why you flubbed it in the first place), plus you don't want to practice a messed up 4T just so you can get used to doing the combination later. Also, your mind can play tricks on you and you forget how many combos you did, etc. Plan your skate, skate your plan. JMO. Go Jason Brown.
08-22-2014, 12:03 AM
Rejoicing in the land of Kwan
Got a question for you IJS savvy people:
So, I'm looking at the protocols for JGP Courchevel and I'm a little confused by some of the element codes. What's the deal with the combination spin? It used to be CCoSp4 for a level 4 combination spin with a change of foot. Now it's CCoSp3p4 or CCoSp3p3...
Here's Evgenia Medvedeva's combo spin: on the protocol it's given a CCoSp3p4: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWPS...t2JGySfJA#t=15
Do both portions of the spin receive a level now? Like the spin on the left leg earned a level 3 and the spin on the right leg earned a level 4?
08-22-2014, 12:14 AM
Size 7 Knifeboots
It's weird. I've been a lot. To the best of my knowledge it is this.
CCoSp3p4 means. Change foot, Combination Spin, 3 positions, Level 4. There is now a V1 or V2 which indicates 1 or 2 requirements not met and a lowered BV. So that is why they now note the positions because you can do them and still not recieve full credit. Does that make sense??
In the case of a V1 or V2 you'd see this in the protocols.
CCoSp3p4V1 or V2
08-22-2014, 10:13 AM
Rejoicing in the land of Kwan
but I think I get it.
Originally Posted by Sam-Skwantch
Using Medvedeva's as an example, I counted 5 positions: forward sit spin--broken leg variation--change foot to back camel--back sit spin--up to upright I-spin. I suppose that counts as 3 basic positions (sit, camel, upright). So does that mean the highest level you can get is CCoSp3p4 (level 4 spin w/ all 3 positions)?
08-22-2014, 10:37 AM
Just wondering... Some of you know what are the plans of Nathan Chen for this fall? because I've looked through the standings for the jgp and I didn't see his name, but I also don't see his name on the Senior grand prix circuit, probably I'm just stupid and wasn't able to find it, but if someone could enlighten me it would be very much appreciated...
08-22-2014, 11:33 AM
That's my understanding.
Originally Posted by kwanatic
And yes, the 2 or 3 refers to basic positions in a combination spin -- two different sitspin variations, for instance, would not count as two separate positions.
08-22-2014, 12:11 PM
Missing Tdizzle and SDiggity
News of Nathan has been scarce, AFAIK. All I know is what was reported/discussed earlier this month in the Golden West thread (see posts #7 and #8).
Originally Posted by jace93
In a nutshell: Nathan Chen recently passed his senior freeskate; his updated IN bio (which lists his level as Senior) gives his FS music for the new season; and he has performed in three Sun Valley ice shows this summer.