If flutzing/lipping is penalized more than it is now, what would happen probably is that skaters (who have half a chance) would start attempting triple-axels more, which I think might not be such a bad idea.
Technically speaking the Flutz is already valued the same as a Flip. Base value of the Lutz is 6.0 and BV of the Flip is 5.3. If the judges give even a -1 for the edge (-.7 for the Lutz) that brings the value down to 5.3, same as the Flip.
ISU, stop promoting 2-foot skating!
The over-arching question is what should be rewarded. Should we reward difficulty even if it often results in mistakes or should we put more effort on quality?
Originally Posted by drivingmissdaisy
I would personally much rather see easier program performed to a higher standard than people flutzing, lipping, underrotating or double-footing their jumps. But I also understand the opposite point of view. That it is a sport, that skaters should be aiming high and pushing their boundaries.
I guess striking the right balance between the two is necessary so that people are still trying to do the hard stuff but at the same time making effort to perform their elements correctly.
I think that at the moment that balance is completely out-of-whack. A double-footed triple twist lift with a crash is going to earn you more points than a clean double twist lift performed to a good standard. A double-footed quad with a hand down is going to still net you a huge amount of points because of how high the base values have been raised. A slow, strained Lv4 spin is going to give you much more points than a decently performed easier spin.
The issue here isn't just how low or high the base values are set. Even more important is the fact that the judges seem to be unable to do simple addition (deductions are supposed to be cumulative) and to use the whole range of GOE to reward quality. If you look at GOE for elements, it usually follows the pattern of '0 for everything, add +1-2 if it's a famous skater or an impressive looking/difficult element, subtract for the most obvious mistake.'
I would rather the skaters push for higher difficulty, even if they make minor errors. Eventually you will get Kims who have excellent difficulty with good technique and that in itself will motivate other skaters to clean up their issues. Rewarding easy difficulty should not be the case. We can always re-visit performances of the 70's and 80's if we want to see clean performances with no triple flips or triple lutzes.
Yup, which is fine with me because technically, a flutz (even if its poor technique) is harder to execute than a flip. As in doing the triple from an outside edge that turns into an inside edge still requires torquing the upper body versus a flip from a Mohawk or 3turn entry which maintains rotational momentum and doesn't require extra torque in the upper body.
Originally Posted by BravesSkateFan
I tend to think given the fact that edge issues are such a widespread concern, if skaters aren't allowed to perform certain jumps with incorrect edges, there might be a push for a change in the zayak rule. Thereby, allowing skaters to repeat triple jumps that they can do correctly. Otherwise, we will see a great decline in difficulty at the elite level.
I wouldn't want a change in the Zayak rule. Skaters should be challenged to diversify their difficulty not be resigned to being able to only perform two or three triples correctly.
Another way to go is to require skaters to include at least one attempt of all five triples. In this way, you wouldn't have to change the base values and could punish wrong edges more.
TBH, though, I don't see why anyone would want to change anything. Wrong edges aren't that bothersome for the casual viewer, and since the punishment would apply equally to all skaters, it wouldn't really change the final outcome anyway.
Sometimes bad skating happens to good people...
I thought the flutz (e) deduction was an automatic -3 in GOE? I could have swiorn that I remember Mao getting -3's across the board on her flutz which was landed perfectly, and that's when she took the jump out of her programs for years. Did they change that rule or just forgotten/laxened up on it?
Skating is art, if you let it be.
Well I definitely wouldn't want that big of penalty.
Originally Posted by Mathman
Also, Double Axels are still worth a little too much. It's too easy for skaters to leave an entire Triple out of their jump arsenal. The past 5 female World Champions in a row have only attempted 4 different Triples.
Skating is art, if you let it be.
Of course they are similar. The skater is trying to takeoff by generating pressure on back edges of the same skating foot, and using a toepick for both. The real difference is that the glide into a lutz goes the opposite direction of the rotation and the glide into a flip goes with the rotation. Which is why a Flutz is not a Flip and a Lip is not a Lutz.
Originally Posted by Ziggy
Julia Lipnitskaya had a clear, unwavering inside edge on her Flip jump in the past, but has gotten a couple 'e' calls on it recently, since trying to fix her lutz (which usually doesn't get an 'e' call anymore). It's definitely hard for many people to get the correct lutz takeoff edge; they have to focus very hard and it can start becoming muscle memory whenever they get into that position. Not hard to see why it might start messing with the Flip edge.
I'm okay with a skater leaving a triple out of their arsenal, if it's difficult for them to execute or if they're uncomfortable attempting it. I don't think female skaters should be forced to attempt all 5 jumps. It would be like forcing the men to try both 4T and 4S.
Originally Posted by Blades of Passion
Funny enough, a lot of skaters who land triples in their sleep have issues with their double axel.
There just aren't very many women who have half a chance (=50% success in practice?) of rotating a triple axel, let alone landing it in the heat of competition. I don't think we would see many more attempts.
Originally Posted by hurrah
Underrotated (as opposed to downgraded) 3A is worth 6.0 base points, same as the base value for a rotated triple lutz. So if you have a skater who is more likely to rotate at least a little over 3 full revolutions from an axel takeoff and land on one foot than to do the same from a correct lutz takeoff, then it would be to her benefit to try the 3A. If she's more likely to fall, step out, and/or rotate less than 3 full revolutions, she's better off doing a flutz.
And of course, if she has a chance of standing up on both, even with flaws, she might as well try both.
If we want to see more failed attempts at triple axels, I think there would need to be higher base marks even with underrotations or downgrades, or a bonus of some sort from the attempt as long as the code is called as 3A plus < or << -- i.e., downgraded triple axel would need to be worth more enough more than double axel to counteract the negative GOE.
If we only want to see successful or close-to-successful 3A attempts by women, I think we'll need to wait for a significant advances in skate and rink technology or training methods, and/or changes in gravity.
You can't require all triples in the senior freeskate rules, because there are many lower-ranked senior-level skaters who have a much more limited repertoire of triples than what you see at the elite levels. (And in the lowest senior ranks, even the triples they do attempt aren't rotated, or they don't even bother trying and only attempt doubles, taking the automatic -3s in the short program.)
Originally Posted by hurrah
What you could do is require all six different basic takeoffs in the freeskate, regardless of rotation. So skaters who absolutely can't rotate three times from a given takeoff could plan the respective double, and aim for positive GOE if possible.
Assuming this requirement would carry a penalty for each takeoff not attempted, requiring only the takeoff and not the number of rotations would also mean that making the attempt and popping would be penalized only in the base mark, and the lower GOE if applicable, without an additional penalty for trying to meet the requirement and failing that day.
I.e., you cannot force skaters to do jumps they are not physically capable of doing.
The short program requires only double axel and two different triples -- and if you look at senior B results, Four Continents, etc., you'll see that there are plenty of senior ladies -- many over 19 so they're not allowed to compete junior -- who cannot even meet those requirements.
No, there was never a required -3 for wrong edge takeoff.
Originally Posted by LiamForeman
In the years when there was a separate ! code for unclear takeoff edge, if the tech panel called "e" for a blatant wrong edge, the GOE was required to be negative and -2 to -3 off what the jump would otherwise deserve. So if the edge change was really severe and obvious, and there was nothing else good about the jump (or other subtle errors), it might have gotten final GOE of -3 from all judges. But for a rotated, nontelegraphed jump with good flow but a blatant edge change, the -3 wasn't automatic: -2 would still have been a legal final GOE.
BV deductions are very appropriate because they're neither really Lutzes nor flips.
At the end of the day, a triple flutz/lip is still a triple jump that is harder to execute than a triple loop.
A triple flutz or triple lip should not be considered essentially the same base value as a 2A, just because of an edge change.
Lipping and flutzing is poor technique, but it shouldn't be nearly as detrimental to a skater's BV as some have suggested. Skaters will be avoiding flips and lutzes altogether, if a slight edge change rendered it to the value of a 2A at the discretion of a tech specialist. And you KNOW that the tech specialist in those cases will give favouritism/leniency to top skaters.