Tripping on the Podium
Changes in the Zayak Rule in 2014 to 2015
The repeating doubles rule is new from this season and it's possible that many skaters haven't had the time to get accustomed to it. The biggest problem with it, IMO, is that it severely limits what the skater can attempt when missing/popping a jump and it makes it more difficult to plan ahead, especially for the men. Here is another recent example from Lombardia Trophy: Ricky Dornbush popped his 4T into a 2T and later in the program did both a 3Lz+2T+2Lo and a 3F+2T - the second combo, which would have been OK under the old rules, was invalidated.
Originally Posted by phaeljones
However one may feel about the Zayak rule itself, I still think it's unnecessarily harsh to cast out entire combos because of a double. Considering that other issues in the scoring haven't been addressed yet (e.g. penalties for falls, BV for combos), this just feels like nitpicking to me.
Since Javier was mentioned, his problem is not necessarily that he can't count, but that he attempts way too many salchows - 2 4S and two 3S - for someone who usually pops the 4S when in doubt. He wouldn't have to worry about that if he replaced his last jumping pass with a 3F, for instance. He must really love salchows, I guess .
Last edited by dorispulaski; 10-14-2014 at 05:16 PM.
I've stated from the beginning that I think Javi should've gotten his 3S downgraded to a 2S, so I'm certainly applying no double standards. The point of Zayak is to convince people to not repeat jumps. No one's going to purposefully repeat a triple if it gets downgraded to a double; no one's going to repeat a combination if all you count is the first jump. There's no point in invalidating the whole jumping pass.
Originally Posted by karne
Zayak has now become the surefire way to sink a favourite. Used to be falls, but that's all okay now...
They don't. The judges just mark what they see (GOEs based on the quality of the element as executed). I'm sure many of them make no effort to keep track of how many of each element the skater did, since that's no longer in their job description.
Originally Posted by phaeljones
The computer applies the rule vetting and the tech panel confirms. The judges are not involved in the decision at all. (Unless they happen to catch a mistake, perhaps due to software not being up to date, and inform the referee, who informs the tech panel. But that's not the normal procedure.)
If an element gets asterisked/thrown out, then the the GOEs the judges gave that element just don't show up in the protocol.
Under 6.0, with the Zayak rule in the free program and the required elements limitations in the short program, it was up to the judges to take appropriate deductions, but we had no way to be sure from the scores whether they actually did so.
Well, it's not something that the officials responsible (tech panel) can apply selectively assuming the software is working properly. The skater does what the skater does. The tech panel calls what the skater does. The software throws out the elements according to the rules.
Originally Posted by Sandpiper
Although I think there is a provision to give benefit of the doubt to the skater in ambiguous cases.
My personal opinion is that I'd like the rules/software to be written in such a way that the penalty for extra repeats should be whatever loses the skater the least number of points. But that would involve more judgment calls by the tech panel and so could introduce more room for error.
Size 7 Knifeboots