Visiting the Zayak Rule

karne said:

Why am I the one being asked to present a logical case when the whole springboard for the discussion was someone's overemotional post about how terrible it was that Mariah was so upset when she got off the ice and realised she Zayaked?.

Click to expand...

I just figured since you so adamantly support the way this rule is applied you could share with those of us who disagree why it makes sense. It might help to shed light on the situation. Apart from "it's the rule" I really haven't seen any logical explanation for taking the points away from a first jump in combination when only the second is the one violating the concept of Zayak and more importantly what value it brings to the sport to do so?

Sam-Skwantch said:

I just figured since you so adamantly support the way this rule is applied you could share with those of us who disagree why. It might help to shed light on the situation. Apart from "it's the rule" I really haven't seen any logical explanation for taking the points away from a first jump in combination when only the second is the one violating the concept of Zayak and more importantly what value it brings to the sport to do so?

Click to expand...

I'm with you on that, but one could argue that if a f.e. sit spin is invalid and gets zero points if the sit position is not held properly and/or long enough that an invalid jump and/or combination should also get zero points. But if this logic would be followed consistently, jumps that should be in combination (+COMBO) should also be invalid and get zero points, because the skater didn't do what was supposed to be done following the rules. What about falls in step sequences? Zero points for the step sequence! Remember that invalid pair spin Sui/Han did this season. And so on.
Maybe the ISU wants to educate the minds of the skaters, so that they have to think while skating? :dev3:

I think only the zayaked jump(s) should receive 0 and the rest of the combination should be counted.
It's true that to invalidate a 3z3t bc the 3t is zayaked doesn't make sense to me. Tbh I think it doesn't reflect the intention behind the introduction of the zayak rule itself that was to prevent athletes to jump only a few jumps several times in their programs and to encourage the mastering of all jumps. So I think invalidating jumps that were not zayaked themselves actually goes against that spirit.

daphenaxa said:

I think only the zayaked jump(s) should receive 0 and the rest of the combination should be counted.

Click to expand...

How do you figure GOE into the zayaked combo? Do you ignore the 2nd jump completely as if it never happened? Do you take into account the execution of the entire jump sequence? We've even seen quad combos where the quad was perfect, but then the triple that followed was turned into a double, AND said double jump even come with flawed landing.

I like your idea of giving a zero on the zayaked portion (and this would only work for combos), but some deductions have to be taken. I don't know what's a fair point value of said deduction though.

How about assessing -2 GOE from all other positive aspects of the jumping pass. That way it could never receive more than +1 and more than likely would carry negative GOE. Let the judges grade it on the spot but have a reasonable control over it.

I'd still assess any negatives from the second jump like a bad landing to the GOE.

I agree only the Zayaked jump should receive no value. Taking the whole combo away is Gordon Ramsay disapproving a whole dish of Wagyu tenderloin without tasting it because there was one more piece of broccoli. If you think there is too much broccoli, JUST DONT EAT IT! Why throw away the tenderloin?

Sam-Skwantch said:

I just figured since you so adamantly support the way this rule is applied you could share with those of us who disagree why it makes sense. It might help to shed light on the situation. Apart from "it's the rule" I really haven't seen any logical explanation for taking the points away from a first jump in combination when only the second is the one violating the concept of Zayak and more importantly what value it brings to the sport to do so?

Click to expand...

I would love to see this question answered by the actual people responsible for the rule! (And to hear Karne's opinion/reasoning as well, of course).

nolangoh said:

I agree only the Zayaked jump should receive no value. Taking the whole combo away is Gordon Ramsay disapproving a whole dish of Wagyu tenderloin without tasting it because there was one more piece of broccoli. If you think there is too much broccoli, JUST DONT EAT IT! Why throw away the tenderloin?

Click to expand...

:agree:

Not exactly related to the discussion of whether the whole combo containing a repeated jump should receive a zero or just the repeated jump only, but I personally find the Zayak rule itself to be a dumb rule in the current COP as opposed to Zayak's time, as skaters with only a limited number of easier triple jumps repeating those easier jumps will receive low base values accordingly. Rather than enforcing restriction on the maximum number of repeated jumps, I'd rather see a rule enforcing the minimum number of TYPES of jumps.

What happened with Shoma Uno's 2015 Jr. Worlds FS to me is one example of why the rule is inherently dumb. His planned jump layout was 4T, 3A, 3A+2T, 2A+1Lo+3F, 3Lo, 3Lz, 3S, 3F+3T, where 3A and 3F are the two repeated jumps. After he botched his opening planned 4T and landed with 2 and a half revolutions in the air and completed a half revolution on ice he realized the tech panel MIGHT call it 3T<< or simply 2T, and he just couldn't be sure of which while he was skating, but knowing whether it had been called 3T<< or 2T was crucial for him in deciding whether to execute the final combo as planned or change it to 3F-2T. (And changing 3F to another type of triple wouldn't help.) He expressed what went to his mind during his skate in his interview here (unfortunately in Japanese; pages 2-4 are the relevant part, but mainly on page 3):
http://sportiva.shueisha.co.jp/clm/othersports/2015/03/09/post_466/index3.php
In the interview Uno talked about the caution he had been reminded of (by someone unspecified in the sentence, but his coaches I suppose) before competitions that in case of turning the 4T into 2T by accident nothing to worry but in case of turning the 4T into 3T then he would need to make a change accordingly. So the skater did plan ahead. But when the skater had no way of telling for certain how the tech panel had called a certain jump he had executed, he could only gamble. That's what this rule leaves skaters in. Uno was lucky he gambled it right after all, but he mentioned the thought of which choice to make stayed in his head all through that free skate.

Blades of Passion said:

Anyone who does a 3A+3T shows they could have done a 3A+2T. To say and pretend otherwise, and to punish them for doing more on accident, is just stupid.

Click to expand...

But this kind of debate about it is why I like the idea if the Repeat deduction - a repeat deduction would imo more accurately reflect what really did happen on the ice and take into account the zayaking - it's too removed from what really happened to count one thing as something else even if presumably someone doing a triple can do a double version of it. . I would rather score what happened than assume something, in other words. And it's easier to understand for the casual fan and wouldn't lead to wuzrobbing as easily to the casual fan, perhaps ( "poor so and so had her triple only count as a double zomg!!!")

Blades of Passion said:

You don't seem to understand the issue. Nobody is doing too many of the same Quad or 3Axel in their program on accident.



Yes suffering. We're talking about figure skating here and the way the zayak rule is applied in the computer system right now creates nothing but unnecessary suffering, both for the skaters who end up being slammed by it and for the audiences who have to witness the horrible competition results that are created from it. It may not be explicit deathly torture, but on the list of things wrong with the figure skating judging system right now, it's a big one that should be bemoaned until it is fixed. We are long, long overdue.

Even if a skater knows they are running afoul the rule and changes their program in response, the rule actively makes the programs worse. Who wants to see a skater do a single toeloop? Yeah Mariah Bell could have done 2 single toeloops in her program and her score would have been fine. But in terms of actual impact of the performance and choreography, it would look bad. It would look like an actual mistake. So by complying with the rules, the skater is just making their performance and program worse for no reason. It's nonsensical. If someone did a 2Toe, then they obviously could have just done a 1Toe instead. Score it as such and move on. There is nothing to be confused about here, it's very simple and could easily be coded into the CoP program.

Click to expand...

She didn't have to do a single toe loop ... She could have omitted a jump
In her 3 jump combo. And there's no rule about repeat double axels having to be in combination so she didn't have to do that to her final jumping pass. Regardless, she's has a three jump series with two 2Ts... She should never be attempting any other jumping pass with a 2T, and if she turns her 3-3 into a 3-2, then she should know to make her 3Z+2T+2T into a 3Z+2T.

To me, Zayak rules causing a score to be supremely low is understandable if you know the system. And they're about as bad as Hanyu getting 102 points with a fall, or Medvedeva getting 143 with a fall, or Fernandez clearing 200 with 3 errors including a fall. If you look at the TES though, it kinda makes sense (although the PCS is ridiculous in those instances). There are many instances where the audience is confused or boos (see Kuchvalska at Euros 2016, or Chan at 2012 Worlds), but if you analyze the points, you get why a score is the way it is. I think most knowledgeable audience members knew that Mariah messed up (I certainly did, the moment she did a 3-2-2... And then was surprised to see she did it yet again)... That was a case of a skater not thinking on her feet and it cost her. But in most cases Zayaking doesn't affect most programs or results. Still needs to be reassessed though.

Also, you should probably look up the word suffering. Although I suppose to some people that would constitute the handle of your new designer bag breaking off, or a gust of wind blowing your hair out of place. So unfair! :sarcasm:

Is it since this season where even double jumps are counted as well? This is the most ridiculous thing the ISU can do. Why even double jumps too? They are not supposed to be the "highlights" of a program, they are just embellishments and extensions after a jump, so why restrict them too?

nolangoh said:

Is it since this season where even double jumps are counted as well? This is the most ridiculous thing the ISU can do. Why even double jumps too? They are not supposed to be the "highlights" of a program, they are just embellishments and extensions after a jump, so why restrict them too?

Click to expand...

They probably made the rule for lower level skaters who do more doubles at regional events and never figured to separate the rule from the elite level like the GP.

The Zayak rule does punish skater who do extra things. But that is life where the consequence does not reflect one's effort.

Consider this:

A helpful young man assist an old lady to cross a road and both got run down by a drunk driver and died.

If the young man was not helpful, he would have reached the other side before the drunk driver passed by, and he would be alive. The old lady who would not have crossed the road because no one helped her would still be alive because she was still at the side of the road.

da96103 said:

The Zayak rule does punish skater who do extra things. But that is life where the consequence does not reflect one's effort.

Consider this:

A helpful young man assist an old lady to cross a road and both got run down by a drunk driver and died.

If the young man was not helpful, he would have reached the other side before the drunk driver passed by, and he would be alive. The old lady who would not have crossed the road because no one helped her would still be alive because she was still at the side of the road.

Click to expand...

Because life is unfair. So we have to make rules in order to keep the unfairness?

But this has potential for an interesting drama to unfold no? If it had been Gracie, instead of Mariah Bell who did that at the Olympics, imagine the press and attention, maybe figure skating will be popular again...

noidont said:

But this has potential for an interesting drama to unfold no? If it had been Gracie, instead of Mariah Bell who did that at the Olympics, imagine the press and attention, maybe figure skating will be popular again...

Click to expand...

No, happened to Fernandez. Well he's from Spain, but I don't think that they were overly outraged.

da96103 said:

The Zayak rule does punish skater who do extra things. But that is life where the consequence does not reflect one's effort.

Consider this:

A helpful young man assist an old lady to cross a road and both got run down by a drunk driver and died.

If the young man was not helpful, he would have reached the other side before the drunk driver passed by, and he would be alive. The old lady who would not have crossed the road because no one helped her would still be alive because she was still at the side of the road.

Click to expand...

Here are some other things the ISU might want to consider where the consequence does not reflect the effort (just like real life!): point deductions for over-the-boot tights (not such a bad idea!), flesh-toned gloves, butt spins (because they are ugly), wearing bright yellow, waving during a spiral (hello, Adelina!), brown boots.

Blades of Passion said:

Anyone who does a 3A+3T shows they could have done a 3A+2T. To say and pretend otherwise, and to punish them for doing more on accident, is just stupid.

Click to expand...

But they didn't do a 3A-2T, which is what I find problematic. I've seen top men land a 3A and miss a 2A in the same program, so I don't even think the assumption that a 2T would have been successful just because they landed a 3T is entirely accurate. This is quite a different thing than saying "anyone who can land a 3T can (theoretically) land a 2T," which I absolutely agree with. The 2T is undoubtably easier but skaters don't always miss their harder elements and nail their easier ones.

I'm totally with the original premise of this thread. Why not just invalidate the repeated element rather than the entire jump combo? I felt horrible for her. This rules are rules attitude by some posters here is pretty hard azzed.