Agenda of the 56th ISU Ordinary Congress

[CaroLiza_fan]

IFS magazine have picked up on a very interesting proposal that hasn't been mentioned in this thread yet:

I was reading through the proposals that will be put forward at the ISU Congress in June. This one particularly interested me because, if it passed, it would put an end to the "hostage-taking" situations of skaters who decide to represent another country. A release would no longer be required:

(a) A Skater may compete only as a member of the Member of a country of which he/she is a citizen or in which he/she has resided for at least one year.

(b) In Pair Skating and Ice Dance only one partner needs to fulfil the requirements stated in paragraph 2.a). The other partner, however, must be a citizen or resident of the country of a Member.

(c) A Skater who has competed in any ISU Championship, ISU Event and/or International Competition for any Member and who intends to compete in the future for another Member may compete for the respective Member only after the following waiting periods have elapsed:

i) For participation in International Competitions and ISU Events other than ISU Championships: twelve (12) months since he/she competed in any ISU Championships, ISU Event and/or International Competition for another Member;

ii) For participation in ISU Championships: eighteen (18) months since he/she competed in any ISU Championships, ISU Event and/or International Competition for another member.

Source: https://www.facebook.com/figureskatingmag/posts/10154773034562538

See pages 50-52 of the PDF

This particular proposal has been brought forward by the ISU Council. It is followed by a number of proposals on the same topic that have been brought forward by Germany.

I wonder why that country is taking an interst in this... :think:

About time somebody dealt with the shenanigans that have been going on at the FFSG. But, I'm not sure whether these particular proposals are the right way to go about it.

I like the idea of only one member of a couple having to have citizenship of the country they are representing. That would prevent a Mervin Tran situation arising again.

Having the requirement that only one partner needs citizenship would also prevent skaters having to make changes that affect their lives outside of skating. I used to be in favour of switching nationalities, until I realised the impact that it had on other aspects of their lives.

It is the requirement that the non-citizen partner has to be resident in the country they want to represent for a year that I am not sure about. I can see where they are coming from. Trying to prevent skaters from representing countries that they know nothing about or have not even stepped foot in. And I agree with that sentiment.

BUT, the thing is, a lot of skaters nowadays do not train in the country they are representing. They have foreign coaches and so train in their coach's country. So, how is the "resident for a year" requirement going to work for the non-citizen if they are training overseas?

See what I mean?

Most importantly, if passed, would these rules apply to the Olympics?

Incidentally, it is interesting that the embargo period (18 months for ISU competitions, 12 months for other internationals) remains in the proposals. I would have thought that would have gone! (As you have probably have picked up over the years, I am really against the embargo).

The big disappointment, though, is that the ISU rejected Germany's proposal (proposal 90) to ban the practice of having to pay a federation to get them to release a skater. So, the FFSG will be able to continue this carry on!

But, at least proposal 86 is a step in the right direction. I hope it gets passed.

CaroLiza_fan

 

[sc8]

Sorry, but the change with the Zayak rule sounds like gobbledygook to me. Can anyone translate what the hell that means in plain English? From what I think it means, it protects skaters from having a jump combination (say, a 2A+3T+2T) entirely voided for repeating something as dumb as a third 2T in the program.

Yes, your interpretation seems right. The 2A and 3T would still count, assuming they were not third of their kind, which seems fair. If you recall, Josh Farris lost the title (most likely) at nationals because he had his last combo zeroed out (I think we were in Greensboro that year) and Mariah Bell's Free Skate at Boston had two combos zeroed out because of the same harsh administration of the rule. I like it much better, if we are correct, that only the third jump is zeroed. I hope we're right in our interpretation, !

 

[sc8]

Sorry, but the change with the Zayak rule sounds like gobbledygook to me. Can anyone translate what the hell that means in plain English? From what I think it means, it protects skaters from having a jump combination (say, a 2A+3T+2T) entirely voided for repeating something as dumb as a third 2T in the program.

IFS magazine have picked up on a very interesting proposal that hasn't been mentioned in this thread yet:



Source: https://www.facebook.com/figureskatingmag/posts/10154773034562538

See pages 50-52 of the PDF

This particular proposal has been brought forward by the ISU Council. It is followed by a number of proposals on the same topic that have been brought forward by Germany.

I wonder why that country is taking an interst in this... :think:

About time somebody dealt with the shenanigans that have been going on at the FFSG. But, I'm not sure whether these particular proposals are the right way to go about it.

I like the idea of only one member of a couple having to have citizenship of the country they are representing. That would prevent a Mervin Tran situation arising again.

Having the requirement that only one partner needs citizenship would also prevent skaters having to make changes that affect their lives outside of skating. I used to be in favour of switching nationalities, until I realised the impact that it had on other aspects of their lives.

It is the requirement that the non-citizen partner has to be resident in the country they want to represent for a year that I am not sure about. I can see where they are coming from. Trying to prevent skaters from representing countries that they know nothing about or have not even stepped foot in. And I agree with that sentiment.

BUT, the thing is, a lot of skaters nowadays do not train in the country they are representing. They have foreign coaches and so train in their coach's country. So, how is the "resident for a year" requirement going to work for the non-citizen if they are training overseas?

See what I mean?

Most importantly, if passed, would these rules apply to the Olympics?

Incidentally, it is interesting that the embargo period (18 months for ISU competitions, 12 months for other internationals) remains in the proposals. I would have thought that would have gone! (As you have probably have picked up over the years, I am really against the embargo).

The big disappointment, though, is that the ISU rejected Germany's proposal (proposal 90) to ban the practice of having to pay a federation to get them to release a skater. So, the FFSG will be able to continue this carry on!

But, at least proposal 86 is a step in the right direction. I hope it gets passed.

CaroLiza_fan

You've very clearly outlined the complexities with this issue. I'm not quite sure how I feel about skaters representing more than two countries over their career (e.g., Lithuania, Poland, Israel or Japan, Canada, US), but I also hate seeing talented skaters sidelined. It seems more likely that skaters have cultural ties to two countries, but three seems like more of a stretch. The danger in a rule where only one partner needs to be a citizen for a pair to represent a country comes when that pair bumps off the podium a team of two nationals. For example, if a US man joins a Japanese woman and gets bronze by bumping off a US team, there could be problems from not only the home Federation but also from fans who might consider such a skater a traitor. It will be interesting to see how this rule plays out.

 

[QuadThrow]

0 will still be there I think, but as usual they've mucked it up because -5 to +5 is going to create more confusion as compared to having half increments from -3 to +3. Going from +1 to +1.5 to +2, so an increment shift of two places from +1 to +2, creates a different mental notation than going from +2 to +4. I feel like everything is just going to automatically get at least +1 if they implement this new system and tons of +4's will be handed out frivolously, which creates a huge score imbalance and at the same time allows judges to say "There's nothing wrong with my judging, I didn't give a +5, so it's fine."

That´s it. As a math teacher I cannot understand why 10 GOE should make judging more reliable. It could come to this GOE-scale : -5, -4, -3, -2, -1, 0, +1, +2, +3, +4. And in this case noone is able differentiate between -2 and -3, can you? Small-sized scale seem to be more detailed and fair. But that is an erroneous belief because you able to judge that precise. In general: You cannot messure millimeter if your analyzer just gives an output of meter. The most important fact is that there is more than one jugde and the score are averaged out!

It is the same story with the PCS. Why do we need a scale from 0.25 to 10.00 in steps of 0.25. Noone is able to watch the difference between 7.50 and 7.75! IMO 0.5 steps are more logical.

Other point 1:
Are the women not allowed to perform a triple axel in the SP anymore?

Other point 2:
2016/17:The BV for pairs SP increases by 1 point. (level 5 lift instead of level 4 lift (+3 points), solo spin instead of pair spin (-1 point), BiDs instead of BoDs (-1 point).


In 2013/14 the BV had reached its highpoint (level 5 lift, pair spin, BoDs). The world record 84,17 from V/T could stand till eternity.

 

[ines42575]

IFS magazine have picked up on a very interesting proposal that hasn't been mentioned in this thread yet:



Source: https://www.facebook.com/figureskatingmag/posts/10154773034562538

See pages 50-52 of the PDF

This particular proposal has been brought forward by the ISU Council. It is followed by a number of proposals on the same topic that have been brought forward by Germany.

I wonder why that country is taking an interst in this... :think:

About time somebody dealt with the shenanigans that have been going on at the FFSG. But, I'm not sure whether these particular proposals are the right way to go about it.

I like the idea of only one member of a couple having to have citizenship of the country they are representing. That would prevent a Mervin Tran situation arising again.

Having the requirement that only one partner needs citizenship would also prevent skaters having to make changes that affect their lives outside of skating. I used to be in favour of switching nationalities, until I realised the impact that it had on other aspects of their lives.

It is the requirement that the non-citizen partner has to be resident in the country they want to represent for a year that I am not sure about. I can see where they are coming from. Trying to prevent skaters from representing countries that they know nothing about or have not even stepped foot in. And I agree with that sentiment.

BUT, the thing is, a lot of skaters nowadays do not train in the country they are representing. They have foreign coaches and so train in their coach's country. So, how is the "resident for a year" requirement going to work for the non-citizen if they are training overseas?

See what I mean?

Most importantly, if passed, would these rules apply to the Olympics?

Incidentally, it is interesting that the embargo period (18 months for ISU competitions, 12 months for other internationals) remains in the proposals. I would have thought that would have gone! (As you have probably have picked up over the years, I am really against the embargo).

The big disappointment, though, is that the ISU rejected Germany's proposal (proposal 90) to ban the practice of having to pay a federation to get them to release a skater. So, the FFSG will be able to continue this carry on!

But, at least proposal 86 is a step in the right direction. I hope it gets passed.

CaroLiza_fan

This is fantastic!!! I was involved in the discussion of Isadora Williams situation and I agree with this resolution, because the non powerful federations are going to be more involved with FS world (and we will have new member states at ISU)

 

[sarama]

I don't get how 10 GOEs will help the judging at all.... judges seem to have a lot of trouble scoring according to the rules already... immagine if they have to find the appropriate GOE out of 10 for every single element, they would go crazy! I honestly think the scoring system as it is now isn't that bad, but it's just not applied appropriately, they should have PCS and GOEs given by different judges (as it was already proposed and tried) or organise better courses for the judges (or both!)... I find it ridiculous that after more than a decade PCS are still given based on reputation rather than on actual performance and not differentiated at all, I don't think judges are stupid, probably they probably have to think already about too many things that can't really evaluate properly

 

[Ares]

Hopefully that new modification of zayak rule will be implemented. The current rule is too harsh as well as dumb.

I don't get how 10 GOEs will help the judging at all.... judges seem to have a lot of trouble scoring according to the rules already... immagine if they have to find the appropriate GOE out of 10 for every single element, they would go crazy! I honestly think the scoring system as it is now isn't that bad, but it's just not applied appropriately, they should have PCS and GOEs given by different judges (as it was already proposed and tried) or organise better courses for the judges (or both!)... I find it ridiculous that after more than a decade PCS are still given based on reputation rather than on actual performance and not differentiated at all, I don't think judges are stupid, probably they probably have to think already about too many things that can't really evaluate properly

That wider GOE scale idea is just wrong in our current system - one panel for both PCS and GOE. Judges already have to focus too much on evaluating of elements for my liking. They actually have to interrupt their watching (take their eyes away) from the performer and push the button / icon on the monitor. It really can skew observation as they do not see the whole thing but something bitty. With even more options to choose from they would be even more distracted.

 

[YesWay]

If the range of GoE increases from its current +/-3, I don't see that adding any extra difficulty or complication for the judges...

What I see right now, is a scale that doesn't allow enough differentiation between skaters, when there IS a difference.

eg.
I see skaters ticking enough jump GoE tick boxes to get +2's (recommendation is 4 out of 8 tick boxes)
I see skaters ticking enough tick boxes to get +3's (recommendation is 6 out of 8 tick boxes)

Then I see skaters who were perhaps better than the +2 skater but not as good as the +3 skater. They might have ticked 5 out of 8 tick boxes. What do the judges do? Give +2, which might not be enough...? Or +3 which is too much? They need an "in-between" value, but there isn't one.

Increasing the range of of GoE's may actually simplify things for the judges... IF they do it right...

 

[GF2445]

As an Australian I appreciate the ISA's efforts bring to light to see what the ISU can do to develop skating in small-medium 'status nations' as well as see, if possible, to branch further into new nations.

 

[skylark]

I like the idea of only one member of a couple having to have citizenship of the country they are representing. That would prevent a Mervin Tran situation arising again.

Having the requirement that only one partner needs citizenship would also prevent skaters having to make changes that affect their lives outside of skating. I used to be in favour of switching nationalities, until I realised the impact that it had on other aspects of their lives.

It is the requirement that the non-citizen partner has to be resident in the country they want to represent for a year that I am not sure about. I can see where they are coming from. Trying to prevent skaters from representing countries that they know nothing about or have not even stepped foot in. And I agree with that sentiment.

BUT, the thing is, a lot of skaters nowadays do not train in the country they are representing. They have foreign coaches and so train in their coach's country. So, how is the "resident for a year" requirement going to work for the non-citizen if they are training overseas?
CaroLiza_fan

And Mervin Tran is, again, an example. In TSL interview, Mervin said that he had strongly wanted for him and Marissa to have Canada (is it Montreal? sorry) as their training base, with small training intervals in Boston. His reasons were mainly family ties ... and after his bouncing back and forth, Japan to Canada, I can understand why his personal stability was important too.

He even said that the decision to compete for USA, which Marissa naturally wanted, was partly because he'd been so adamant about training/living in Canada, so he felt he needed to compromise.

It was already going to be hard for him to attain US citizenship in time for the Olympics, that way. But reading between the lines, I felt that for both Marissa and Mervin, it was the journey and the experience of competing with each other that was most important. Marissa mentioned wanting to be a world-class skater again, but it sounded like another Olympics wasn't her highest priority. So it's possible that they saw the living/training in Canada, competing for US as just fine all around and more or less permanent.

The new rule would interfere with that, wouldn't it?

 

[skylark]

If the range of GoE increases from its current +/-3, I don't see that adding any extra difficulty or complication for the judges...

What I see right now, is a scale that doesn't allow enough differentiation between skaters, when there IS a difference.

eg.
I see skaters ticking enough jump GoE tick boxes to get +2's (recommendation is 4 out of 8 tick boxes)
I see skaters ticking enough tick boxes to get +3's (recommendation is 6 out of 8 tick boxes)

Then I see skaters who were perhaps better than the +2 skater but not as good as the +3 skater. They might have ticked 5 out of 8 tick boxes. What do the judges do? Give +2, which might not be enough...? Or +3 which is too much? They need an "in-between" value, but there isn't one.

Increasing the range of of GoE's may actually simplify things for the judges... IF they do it right...

Yes, I think I agree with you. Just talking about under-rotations, there's a lot of variation in how a UR affects the overall beauty of the performance, and that's about technique. A recent example is Wagner's 2 UR calls in Worlds FS. The first one, on her 3F*3T combo, is so imperceptible or barely perceptible that some of the pros and commentators didn't call it that way. The second one, on her solo 3flip, is clear, and more disruptive to the program. So I think it makes a lot of sense to have smaller increments, not just for URs of course, but for everything.

 

[seabm7]

About the citizenship issue:

a) A Skater may compete only as a member of the Member of a country of which he/she is a citizen or in which he/she has resided for at least one year.
b) In Pair Skating and Ice Dance only one partner needs to fulfil the requirements stated in paragraph 2.a). The other partner, however, must be a citizen or resident of the country of a Member.

This is what is written in the proposal. In 2 b), they say the other partner should be a citizen or resident of the country of "a Member". They did not say "the Member". I don't think they meant both partners should belong to the same country.

 

[ice coverage]

And Mervin Tran is, again, an example. In TSL interview, Mervin said that he had strongly wanted for him and Marissa to have Canada (is it Montreal? sorry) as their training base, with small training intervals in Boston. His reasons were mainly family ties ...

He even said that the decision to compete for USA, which Marissa naturally wanted, was partly because he'd been so adamant about training/living in Canada, so he felt he needed to compromise. ...

As a big fan of Mervin, I will note:

Per the TSL interview and other interviews, Mervin's close ties to his coaches are the reason it would have been a dealbreaker if Marissa had not agreed to train primarily in Montreal.
Mervin originally is from Regina, Saskatchewan. I went back and re-listened to the TSL interview, and Mervin never mentioned any family ties in Montreal.

From Mervin and Marissa's GoFundMe page, launched a few weeks ago:

... We both have moved from our homes to train in Montreal. ...​

In his case, the move to Montreal is not new -- but I think part of the subtext is that because they are training in Montreal, he cannot save money by living at home with his parents.

[Agree with the rest of what you said: that his preference would have been for the Castelli/Tran partnership to represent Canada -- but he was willing to compromise with Marissa on that issue and he did understand her desire to skate for the U.S.]

... I like the idea of only one member of a couple having to have citizenship of the country they are representing. That would prevent a Mervin Tran situation arising again.

... Most importantly, if passed, would these rules apply to the Olympics? ...

Per IOC rules, an athlete must have citizenship of a country to represent the country at the Olympics.

For the Olympics, IOC rules are what matter. Meeting the ISU rules (whether they are revised or not) will not be sufficient.
(As I think you know, the existing ISU rules already allow a partner without citizenship to represent a country at ISU comps.)

... It was already going to be hard for him to attain US citizenship in time for the Olympics, that way. But reading between the lines, I felt that for both Marissa and Mervin, it was the journey and the experience of competing with each other that was most important. Marissa mentioned wanting to be a world-class skater again, but it sounded like another Olympics wasn't her highest priority. So it's possible that they saw the living/training in Canada, competing for US as just fine all around and more or less permanent. ...

BTW, also from Mervin and Marissa's new GoFundMe page:

... Our short term goal is to make the 2017 World Championships and our long term goal is the [sic] qualify for the 2022 Olympic Team.... ​

AFAIK, first time that they have said outright that the Olympics (in any year) is a goal for their partnership.

 

[Jammers]

To be honest i don't see Mervin and Marissa lasting until 2022. Age wise they will both be over 30.

 

[CaroLiza_fan]

Per IOC rules, an athlete must have citizenship of a country to represent the country at the Olympics.

For the Olympics, IOC rules are what matter. Meeting the ISU rules (whether they are revised or not) will not be sufficient.
(As I think you know, the existing ISU rules already allow a partner without citizenship to represent a country at ISU comps.)

To be fair, I think this proposed revision is geared towards trying to push the IOC into doing something similar. Because, as you have pointed out, citizenship isn't a requirement for representing a country at ISU competitions. So, the "hostage situations" that the ISU are trying to stamp out with this revision are only happening because of the current IOC rules.

In other words, this revision is pointless unless it is also taken up by the IOC.

CaroLiza_fan

 

[ice coverage]

To be fair, I think this proposed revision is geared towards trying to push the IOC into doing something similar. Because, as you have pointed out, citizenship isn't a requirement for representing a country at ISU competitions. So, the "hostage situations" that the ISU are trying to stamp out with this revision are only happening because of the current IOC rules.

In other words, this revision is pointless unless it is also taken up by the IOC.

CaroLiza_fan

Agree to disagree.
The existing ISU rule -- which already allows a partner without citizenship for ISU comps -- has not pushed the IOC into adopting the same rule for the Olympics.
So I don't see why the ISU revision -- which (if it goes forward) would continue to allow a partner without citizenship for ISU comps -- would push the IOC to change its rule.
YMMV.

 

[CaroLiza_fan]

Agree to disagree.
The existing ISU rule -- which already allows a partner without citizenship for ISU comps -- has not pushed the IOC into adopting the same rule for the Olympics.
So I don't see why the ISU revision -- which (if it goes forward) would continue to allow a partner without citizenship for ISU comps -- would push the IOC to change its rule.
YMMV.

Oh, don't worry, I do actually agree with you. Just because the ISU wants to make this change doesn't mean the IOC will do so as well. After all, they didn't with the current version.

But, I do believe that this is what the ISU is trying to do.

Whether they are successful or not is a totally different matter.

And I am with you - it is more likely to be a "not". The IOC won't want to change their rules just to make one sport's governing body happy.

But, it is still worth a try.

CaroLiza_fan

 

[skylark]

As a big fan of Mervin, I will note:

Per the TSL interview and other interviews, Mervin's close ties to his coaches are the reason it would have been a dealbreaker if Marissa had not agreed to train primarily in Montreal.
Mervin originally is from Regina, Saskatchewan. I went back and re-listened to the TSL interview, and Mervin never mentioned any family ties in Montreal.

From Mervin and Marissa's GoFundMe page, launched a few weeks ago:

... We both have moved from our homes to train in Montreal. ...​

In his case, the move to Montreal is not new -- but I think part of the subtext is that because they are training in Montreal, he cannot save money by living at home with his parents.

[Agree with the rest of what you said: that his preference would have been for the Castelli/Tran partnership to represent Canada -- but he was willing to compromise with Marissa on that issue and he did understand her desire to skate for the U.S.]



Per IOC rules, an athlete must have citizenship of a country to represent the country at the Olympics.

For the Olympics, IOC rules are what matter. Meeting the ISU rules (whether they are revised or not) will not be sufficient.
(As I think you know, the existing ISU rules already allow a partner without citizenship to represent a country at ISU comps.)



BTW, also from Mervin and Marissa's new GoFundMe page:

... Our short term goal is to make the 2017 World Championships and our long term goal is the [sic] qualify for the 2022 Olympic Team.... ​

AFAIK, first time that they have said outright that the Olympics (in any year) is a goal for their partnership.

Yes, that's news to me too. I appreciate the clarification on Mervin's attachment being to the coaches. What I particularly remembered was him saying that because he'd been so ... forceful on where they would train, he felt a compromise on competing for USA was only fair. I feel for him; the last four years have been so many partners, so many changes in which country to compete for.