Changes in the Zayak Rule in 2014 to 2015

phaeljones said:

I agree with this. The Zayak rule is not that difficult to understand. It is there to limit how many times a skater does the same jumps. The principle is sound. Most skaters figure out how to work with it. It isn't rocket science. If the judges can consistently apply it so easily, how difficult can it be to understand for the skaters and fans with iqs of 100 and above? So a skater has to think about it? So a skater has to plan around it? So a skater screws up and gets caught by it? Not worth crying a river over.

Click to expand...

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.
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 .

karne said:

Oh for heaven's sake people. Weren't you all complaining before that Javi could not count and it was his fault for not knowing the rules so he Zayaked on Salchows? Now suddenly it's the big bad stupid ISU making stupid rules. Well, I don't think it's stupid at all. It's just an extension of the current Zayak rule.

Click to expand...

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.

Zayak has now become the surefire way to sink a favourite. Used to be falls, but that's all okay now...

phaeljones said:

If the judges can consistently apply it so easily,

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Sandpiper said:

Zayak has now become the surefire way to sink a favourite. Used to be falls, but that's all okay now...

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Is there a document that spells out the current Zayek rule as applied under CoP today?

Personally I feel like on potentially grey area calls like a doubled triple which was clearly planned as a triple, the judges should have discretion on if the double was intentional or not, and majority wins. Insert a Zayek button on their monitors and review the first 2t to see the intent. I don't like rules that are applied without taking the situation at hand into consideration.

I think the goal of Zayek is to encourage more jumps to be attempted yet the way the rule is being used now..simply to punish primarliy... I fear that the original notion of encouraging more is getting lost in the shuffle. I think both edge calls and doubled jumps need to be left to a situational bases that the judges determine the intent and not a broad rule that ignores the moment and scenario at hand.

Sam-Skwantch said:

Is there a document that spells out the current Zayek rule as applied under CoP today?

Click to expand...

It's the "Repetitions" section of Rule 612, paragraph 2 in the Special Regulations and Technical Rules for Single & Pair and Ice Dance, here: http://www.isu.org/en/single-and-pair-skating-and-ice-dance/special-regulations-and-technical-rules

Relevant ISU communications and other documents are on this page:
http://www.isu.org/en/single-and-pa...ce/isu-judging-system/single-and-pair-skating
As excerpted in ISU Communication 1874:

Rule 612 (former Rule 512), paragraph 2
Repetition of double jumps (Free Skating Singles):
Any double jump (including double Axel) cannot be included more than twice in total in a Single’s Free Program (as a Solo Jump or a part of Combination / Sequence).

Rule 612 (former Rule 512), paragraph 2
Repetition of triple/quadruple jumps (Free Skating Singles):
Of all the triple and quadruple jumps only two (2) can be executed twice. If at least one of these executions is in a jump combination or a jump sequence, both executions are evaluated in a regular way. If both executions are as solo jumps, the second of these solo jumps will receive 70% of its original Base Value.

Click to expand...

From the Technical Panel Handbook Single Skating:

Any double jump (including double Axel) cannot be included more than twice in total in a Single’s Free Program (as a Solo Jump or a part of Combination / Sequence).

Of all the triple and quadruple jumps only two (2) can be executed twice. If at least one of these executions is in a jump combination or a jump sequence, both executions are evaluated in a regular way. If both executions are as solo jumps, the second of these solo jumps will be marked with the sign “+REP” and will receive 70% of it’s original Base Value. Triple and quadruple jumps with the same name will be considered as two different jumps. No triple or quadruple jump can be attempted more than twice. If a third repeated jump is executed in a combination or sequence, the entire combination or sequence will be treated as an additional element and therefore not considered (but this element will occupy a jump element box if one is empty).

Click to expand...

There are some additional clarifications and examples in the tech panel handbook and in the Single Skating, jump elements PDF under FAQ at the top of the page linked above.

gkelly said:

all your posts

Click to expand...

Thank you. I learn so much from your posts.

Sam-Skwantch said:

Personally I feel like on potentially grey area calls like a doubled triple which was clearly planned as a triple, the judges should have discretion on if the double was intentional or not, and majority wins. Insert a Zayek button on their monitors and review the first 2t to see the intent. I don't like rules that are applied without taking the situation at hand into consideration.

Click to expand...

The problem with that is that you are now adding MORE gray area to scoring (and politics) and complaining and...

One possibility to keep things consistent and give benefit of the doubt to the skater would be that if there are excessive jump repeats that result in a whole element being thrown out, the tech panel or the computer could always choose to throw out the element with the lowest value rather than the last one.

But should it be lowest base value or lowest total score?

E.g., suppose a skater does an intentional 2A as a warmup with approximately +2 GOE, pops a planned 3A+3T combination to 2A+1T (-1 GOE), and ends with a 2A+1Lo+3S< combo.

It would be in the skater's best interest for the middle 2A+1T combo to be dropped because it nets the fewest points. But the current rules would drop the last combo, and automatically dropping the lowest base value would drop the good 2A rather than the bad 2A+1T.