What do you want to see at Worlds ...Ladies
- Thread starter Mrs. P
- Start date
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
^ It is practically impossible ever to get any reliable information about the inner workings of the ISU. Someone can please correct me if I am remembering it wrong, but as I recall it went down something like this.
Every year the ISU technical committee reviews all the technical rules and recommends various changes. These recommendations must then be voted on by the full congress of members. The recommendations of the technical committee are almost always approved.
In addition, any member federation can also introduce proposed rules changes directly to the full congress. Some of these proposals are not very well thought out, and in any case they are usually opposed by the ISU hierarchy and are usually voted down by the membership.
Last year a number of proposals were recommended by the ISU technical committee. They included
(a) increasing the value of the triple Axel. This obviously helps skaters who have a triple Axel, relative to those who don't. Only one lady skater has a triple Axel at the moment, but maybe the increased base value will encourage younger skaters to try it.
(b) The points awarded for GOEs were reduced. This obviously hurts those skaters who consistently get sky-high GOEs, especially on jump elements.
(c) Only two quadruple Axels are allowed. This hurts skaters who do a triple-triple and then rely on the extra pass to do another double Axel.
(d) The penalty for flutzing was decreased to allow the judges more leeway in deciding how much to take off for a wrong edge take-off. The distinction between "e" and "!" was eliminated.
(e) An extra ten percent bonus would be awarded to all jumps done in combination.
(a), (b), (c), and (d) were passed. (e) was voted down. Note that (a), (b), (c), and (d) benefit a skater who has a triple Axel and who flutzes and hurts a skater who gets high GOEs and who relies on an extra double Axel to take full advantage of her triple-triple. (e) would have helped the latter skater at the expense of the former, but (e) was voted down.
What the member federations were thinking about as they cast their votes, no one knows for sure. Maybe R.D. is right.
Every year the ISU technical committee reviews all the technical rules and recommends various changes. These recommendations must then be voted on by the full congress of members. The recommendations of the technical committee are almost always approved.
In addition, any member federation can also introduce proposed rules changes directly to the full congress. Some of these proposals are not very well thought out, and in any case they are usually opposed by the ISU hierarchy and are usually voted down by the membership.
Last year a number of proposals were recommended by the ISU technical committee. They included
(a) increasing the value of the triple Axel. This obviously helps skaters who have a triple Axel, relative to those who don't. Only one lady skater has a triple Axel at the moment, but maybe the increased base value will encourage younger skaters to try it.
(b) The points awarded for GOEs were reduced. This obviously hurts those skaters who consistently get sky-high GOEs, especially on jump elements.
(c) Only two quadruple Axels are allowed. This hurts skaters who do a triple-triple and then rely on the extra pass to do another double Axel.
(d) The penalty for flutzing was decreased to allow the judges more leeway in deciding how much to take off for a wrong edge take-off. The distinction between "e" and "!" was eliminated.
(e) An extra ten percent bonus would be awarded to all jumps done in combination.
(a), (b), (c), and (d) were passed. (e) was voted down. Note that (a), (b), (c), and (d) benefit a skater who has a triple Axel and who flutzes and hurts a skater who gets high GOEs and who relies on an extra double Axel to take full advantage of her triple-triple. (e) would have helped the latter skater at the expense of the former, but (e) was voted down.
What the member federations were thinking about as they cast their votes, no one knows for sure. Maybe R.D. is right.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2009
^ Well, the way I see it is, is this:
a) good rule change b) good rule change c) only two DOUBLE Axels allowed in LP (please fix this Mathman!) = good rule change
d) lame rule change e) good rule change cockblocked, make final decision lame.
f) bonus for complete set of triples (or 5 different triples) = good rule change = not proposed
a) good rule change b) good rule change c) only two DOUBLE Axels allowed in LP (please fix this Mathman!) = good rule change
d) lame rule change e) good rule change cockblocked, make final decision lame.
f) bonus for complete set of triples (or 5 different triples) = good rule change = not proposed
What you said isn't true at all. +3 GOE is very much alive and well. Who gave you the idea that +3 GOE was eliminated? Did you miss any of the recent competitions where +3 GOE were still given out in all disciplines with no exception? What has happened is the actual value of the GOE for certain jumps have been reduced. +3 GOE = +++ This can mean different point value for different jumps. +3 GOE on a Double Axel is worth 1.5 points extra whereas it is wroth 3.0 points on a Triple Axel. For a Triple Lutz+Triple Toe, it is worth 2.1 points as opposed to 3.0 points last year. That said, Kim didn't get 3.0 bonus points for 3Lz+3T last year either, it averaged around +2 for her on that element, so the net loss this year would be about 0.6 point, hardly the end of the world assuming everything else is still there.
What you also erred in stating that 2 random marks are still being eliminated. That has changed this year. Only the highest and lowest marks are thrown out, no more random elimination of 2 marks prior to excluding the highest and lowest marks. This was approved after Skate Canada submitted a proposal to the ISU Congress re: the reliability of results using just 5 marks. In any event, random elimination has no impact on the ceiling of marks as you stated. I don't know how you come with such explanation but it is simply incorrect even though it's a moot point anyway.
Whether women can score +2 GOE is a matter of execution, not a question of CoP limitation. Frankly, none of the women have been skating that well to deserve very high GOE is my opinion. Plus, since women typically do not do Triple Axels or Quads, that would lower their GOE received as well. For the men however, some have been getting pretty big GOE bonus still.
Thanks for the rundown, Mathman.
I don't like the flutz rule. Well, maybe I would if it were applied in a tough way - i.e. skaters would normally get (!) get (e) but it seems that is not the case.
Even though I'm not a skater, instinctively, a true lutz seems like a very great accomplishment and it kind of bugs me that those who cheat don't get called on it. (Even though some of them are my favorites )
Fine with giving the 3a higher base value.
I don't know about the GOE business. GOEs are still there. Maybe that was meant to take away some discretion and prevent crazy inflation. That seems okay.
I don't like the flutz rule. Well, maybe I would if it were applied in a tough way - i.e. skaters would normally get (!) get (e) but it seems that is not the case.
Even though I'm not a skater, instinctively, a true lutz seems like a very great accomplishment and it kind of bugs me that those who cheat don't get called on it. (Even though some of them are my favorites
) Fine with giving the 3a higher base value.
I don't know about the GOE business. GOEs are still there. Maybe that was meant to take away some discretion and prevent crazy inflation. That seems okay.
Your interpretation is not entirely correct. Last year, there was a distinction between minor edge error vs. major edge error as denoted by ! and e respectively. However, the determination is exclusively made by the Technical Panel. The penalty for wrong edge take off hasn't been reduced, that's where you erred. What has changed is that the judges have a co-responsbility in determining just to what degree the skater erred in the wrong edge take off. If the judge determines the error is major, the skater will still receive a deduction equivalent to a major wrong edge call in the past.
This change in a way is a positive for the skater because it gives them the benefits of the doubts as opposed to a draconian imposition by the Technical Panel. When it assigned an "e" in the past, for example, GOE has to be negative. But it often left some members of the audience wondering just what happened because they don't have HD replays. So by allowing 9 people to judge separately the degree of violation, it seems unless the error is plainly obvious, skaters wouldn't be penalized as much.
I think the eliminiation of the ! provides some benefit for those skaters who may have borderline edge issues. I remember there was much debate about whether Adelina flutzed. I think hers is a borderline case where it might depend on the caller at the event, as she sometimes gets called but not always.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
Wallylutz, I think Wonderlen's point about GOEs was simply that skaters who got a lot of extra points that way last year, now will get somewhat less.
Same with the change in the wrong edge take-off rule. Sometimes it won't make any difference, sometimes a few judges will give the skater the benefit of the doubt.
A point here, a point there...
The two together (passing (c) and blocking (e)) put kind of a whammy on triple-triples. Skaters will have to scramble to find ways to get the full benefit of a triple-triple. (Unless they have a triple Axel or a full complement of triples, to go along with the triple-triple.)
I believe that the argument against giving a bonus to combos was that the skater already gets a bonus in the sense that they can do five or six triples and still have an extra pass to score more points with.
I would be in favor of a bonus on just the second jump of a combo. If the first jump is good enough to get off the second, that will already be rewarded both by allowing the second jump in the first place, and aso in GOE.
Same with the change in the wrong edge take-off rule. Sometimes it won't make any difference, sometimes a few judges will give the skater the benefit of the doubt.
A point here, a point there...
The two together (passing (c) and blocking (e)) put kind of a whammy on triple-triples. Skaters will have to scramble to find ways to get the full benefit of a triple-triple. (Unless they have a triple Axel or a full complement of triples, to go along with the triple-triple.)
I believe that the argument against giving a bonus to combos was that the skater already gets a bonus in the sense that they can do five or six triples and still have an extra pass to score more points with.
I would be in favor of a bonus on just the second jump of a combo. If the first jump is good enough to get off the second, that will already be rewarded both by allowing the second jump in the first place, and aso in GOE.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2010
I like the new rule - it gives skaters incentive to have the full set of triples so they can still do the 3-3. Last year when the 2A was almost as much as a 3T and a little less than a 3S, there was no reason to do those jumps if you didn't have to. With the adjusted base values, I think the number of performances where skaters attempt all kinds of triples will increase, especially with the new crop of juniors (Liza, Adelina, Agnes, Gao, etc.)
Now you're kinda making me change my mind... :think:
What about Mao? Is she a borderline type when it comes to the lutz or does she have a clear wrong edge take-off?
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2009
Personally, I think that a 3-3 should be commended whether the skater does a full set of triples or not, but you may be right--maybe they are trying to create a heavier incentive to do all the standard triples so a skater wanting to do a 3-3 puts the full set into priority first.
What's making me question the decision, however, is that YuNa (who does the most reliable 3-3 of the senior ladies right now), if she does not incorporate the 3Lo back into her LP, does not have a big incentive to do the 3-3 at all anymore. She may as well break up her 3-3 and just do a bunch of 3-2 combos and get pretty much the same base value she would receive while doing the 3-3.
Hmm, I don't know. It could end up being cool, afterall, if skaters do incorporate more complete sets in the future as a result of these rule changes.
That sounds good, too, but then again I don't want to see a disproportionate number of 2-3's in response to that rule, either.
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2009
Maybe, or even something like 2Lz+3T+2Lo. That would be nice and symmetrical for once. However, I don't think I want to see the subsequent jumps rewarded systematically. We may even begin to see things like single jumps into triples.
Hmm, I think it may be interesting just to see how the rules play out. We definitely want to watch out for rewarding jump elements excessively because that would indirectly diminish the importance of having good all-around programs (something you and others mentioned before.) I think this has really been lost in the shuffle of trying to balance the technical aspects. Not going to name names, but there is a certain female skater who stands out in my mind as having very lopsided second-half jump-heavy LPs who does very little in between elements and between the first and second halves. It's annoying and obvious to see (5 jumping passes one after another? really?
), and I'm not intentionally looking for it. It's obviously harder to do jumps in the second half, but does anyone want to see that kind of manipulation that decreases the overall quality of the performance?Regardless of his/her intention, the statement was wrong and misleading. Casual skating fans would be easily confused re: elimination of +3 GOE and it was necessary to debunk the false statement, there is no other way. On an aggregate level, GOE on jumps should be lower in general for all skaters due to the fact that most of the Triple jumps and below have reduced GOE value compared to last year, assuming execution remains the same. However, if a skater improves his/her execution, it is still possible to score higher GOE under the new system. Notable example this year would be Miki Ando. Her much improved execution, especially on her jumps actually led her to receive more GOE points than last year.
That's however not the same as saying penalty for wrong edge take-off is necessarily reduced as well this year. I will need to see some empirical evidence on such claim. Typically, a minor edge call which was noted as ! in the past = a flat edge take off or unclear edge take off. The penalty is usually a -1 for consideration by the judges, in connection with everything else in the element and may or may not be resulting in a negative GOE. Jumps with a wrong edge take off is -2 penalty and in the past, with an "e" sign, is a mandatory negative GOE regardless of other considerations. In extreme cases, a -3 penalty can also be assigned, although that's rather rare unless the entry was really awkward like Ashley Wagner's Triple Lutz or Florent Amodio's Triple Flip. The way Amodio did his Flip at the 2011 Europeans is a -3 in my book, the entry was severely twisted and wrong that the Flip jump was almost unrecognizable, so the mistake was as bad as a fall. All of the above still apply today, nothing has changed in principle. I like the idea that judges have to pay more attention to the actual take off as opposed to relying entirely on the Technical Panel to make such determination. Essentially, it mitigates the possibility that should the Technical Panel erred in anyway, the impact of the mistake on the error is spread among 12 people as opposed to 2-3 people on the Tech. Panel. And if the error really is so severe and obvious, it really didn't matter that "e" no longer means major edge call because the skater will still be penalized severely.
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2009
Can I ask one more thing?
Why is it that skaters were limited to two 2Axels (which I agree with), but are still allowed to have three 2Lo's or 2T's in their long program? They should at least be uniform. Apply the Zayak rule to all jumps. No repeating any jump more than twice.
Why is it that skaters were limited to two 2Axels (which I agree with), but are still allowed to have three 2Lo's or 2T's in their long program? They should at least be uniform. Apply the Zayak rule to all jumps. No repeating any jump more than twice.
It depends. I don't think this is always skater specific. Take her Lutz at the recent 4CC LP for example, the GOE she got on that jump with an "e" sign ranged from one -2, six -1 and two +1. This is quite a range. Personally, I didn't see the switch of edge in that particular instance, which I stated in the 4CC Ladies LP thread. Though in my own defense, I was watching it over the internet, from a very limited angle and with noisy distractions (i.e. commentary). treeloving who was there in person confirmed later that he saw a last minute switch of edge at the very last second prior to take off. When you are watching live in person, there were also other cues you can rely on that is not possible when watching online.
The error was nonetheless costly to Mao Asada because without the "e" call, it could have tipped the LP to Asada over Ando because the marks were so close. It would likely mean Asada would have won the LP even though on average she received only -0.5 point in negative GOE for that element. But the -0.5 negative point is not the entire impact of the mistake, she also suffered an opportunity cost for not getting positive GOE on what she would likely have got without the call so the total cost of the error may be actually close to 1.5 points in total, equivalent to a range of about +/-2 in GOE, because 2 X 0.7 on a Triple Lutz = 1.4 So if you infer that way, you can say that the edge call on her Lutz is a wrong edge take off or equivalent to an "e" sign in the past.
Not true, incentive for doing 3-3 is to free up jumping passes. With additional jumping passes, you have the potential to do more high value jumps, thus increasing the BV of the program overall. If she breaks up the 3T, she would have to include it elsewhere, which she could have used to do something else that will add more value to her content. Although to fully take advantage of this, it would be best to have complete sets of Triple jumps. A lady who can do Triple Axel for example, could potentially squeeze in 8 Triples into the free program with just 7 jumping passes as opposed to men who have 8 jumping passes to spend.
Your concern is easily mitigated by the fact that jump combos are limited to only 3 per Free Program. Doing a Single Jump into Triple carries an opportunity cost on the first jump, even if hypothetically, a jump combo bonus is awarded on the 2nd jump.
