Ladies Free Skate

[demarinis5]

Thank you for posting the link. It was great to see her performance in HD. Caroline has improved her rotations, nice and tight in the air and she is getting there with her speed. Lovely performance! .

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

The thing that i find beyond :banging: is that this IS. NOT. ABOUT. THE. FLUTZ.

It is about ANY jump that takes off from the WRONG EDGE.Ant

Ant - Yagotta admit you're defending the Flutz is as obsessive as my condemning it.

btw. Admittedly I do not always read protocols (a snob I am, because I feel I know as much as they do) but could you point out in some protocols that an 'e' was placed before a loop jump? a salchow? We know about the Lip.

We could also ask the ISU to redefine the definitions of jumps so that anywhich way they take off is irrelevant. I'll buy it. I'll even buy the Flutz, if it does not turn into a Flip.

 

[antmanb]

Ant - Yagotta admit you're defending the Flutz is as obsessive as my condemning it.

I don't defend the flutz - please find a single post of mine where i say that Flutz is ok, or should be a jump in itself - i'll save you the bother - there is not one that exists. What i do say is that the change of edge on take off needs to be penalised and i'm trying to find a way that does that correctly. Calling a flutz a flip, or a lip and lutz does not penalise it at all.

The current system knocks anything between 1 and 3 points reduction in the base mark (through GOE) of a triple lutz if it changes edge (depending on the severity). If changing edge simply meant the lutz became a flip then all the skater loses is 0.5 points - do you feel this is sufficient penalty? And what about a flip that changes edge? The penalties under the current system are the same as for the lutz - 1 to 3 points reduction of the base mark (through the GOE). If that jump were simply called a flip it would get +0.5 of a mark? Is that what you would want to see?

btw. Admittedly I do not always read protocols (a snob I am, because I feel I know as much as they do) but could you point out in some protocols that an 'e' was placed before a loop jump? a salchow? We know about the Lip.

Did you miss this part in my post (i've put the relevant bit in bold to aid your reading comprehension) ? If not i understand why you're asking about "e" on salchow or loops?
In reality therefore (since toe walley and toe-loop are treated the same and have been for years, and both loop and salchows done on wrong edges are virtually impossible to do - otherwise we would have seen triple walleys and triple toe-less lutzes) the rule applies to two jumps only - the flip or the lutz.

We could also ask the ISU to redefine the definitions of jumps so that anywhich way they take off is irrelevant. I'll buy it. I'll even buy the Flutz, if it does not turn into a Flip.

That is the solution that was presented by the coaches to the ISU and (IMO) thankfully it was rejected. Personally i would hate to see the disappearence of the Lutz and Flip officially, as there was with the toe walley and the toe-loop. Your preference and opinion might be different but again to me that is not solution.

Actually dragging this back to the point I asked originally the context of which was you complaining about "intended" and "attempted" jumps. My question to you remains unanswered. the question was - what would you do with a toe-loop jump that rotates only two and half revolutions before it lands back down, in terms of both Base Mark and GOE?

Ant

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

Just my opinion and no more condemning the Flutz as an attempt.

A Flutz or Lip, if not made legal, are just as bad as Under Rotations. How could they not be? The UR is downgraded, and the improper lutz should be downgraded to a lesser jump for scoring. The Attempts of executing proper take-offs but failed are the same as if a skater attempts to 2.75 rotates before landing but fails.

Both these failures are incomplete jumps. NO? So why not the same penalties?

 

[mskater93]

Because the ISU wants to punish those that under rotate more than 45 degrees more than they want to punish WET, at least when reading the rules as is.

 

[R.D.]

I'd still be in favor of a "cheating penalty" of -1 or -2 instead of this stupid (IMO!!) downgrade business.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

Because the ISU wants to punish those that under rotate more than 45 degrees more than they want to punish WET, at least when reading the rules as is.

I believe the coaches had a strong voice in protecting the flutz because of their pupils.

RD. The GoEs are subjective, so do not believe the CoP has eliminated subjectivity. Juges have their own mindsets. It's the consensus that is important, although I'm not sure the GoEs show a consensus.

 

[antmanb]

Just my opinion and no more condemning the Flutz as an attempt.

A Flutz or Lip, if not made legal, are just as bad as Under Rotations. How could they not be? The UR is downgraded, and the improper lutz should be downgraded to a lesser jump for scoring. The Attempts of executing proper take-offs but failed are the same as if a skater attempts to 2.75 rotates before landing but fails.

Both these failures are incomplete jumps. NO? So why not the same penalties?

At last - some proper analysis!

That is the $64mil question and the one where the most interesting debates arise. It sounds to me, Joe, like you would be in favour of making wrogn edge take offs cost the skater as much as an under-rotation of a jump.

The problem is that there is a general consensus that the under-rotation penalty is too severe - not only do you start with the base mark of a jump with one less revolution than you attempted (and let's be honest the callers do get it wrong sometimes and jumps that are landed in the 260 - 285 degree window have been downgraded when really they shouldn't) but then you also get hit with -GOEs.

The other thing your post raises is the question - is taking off from the wrong edge in a jump, the same type of error as under-rotating a jump? Does it deserve as great a penalty or less? Also what about all other things that can go wrong with a jump - two footed, one hand down, two hands down, step out, turn out?

Ant

 

[antmanb]

I believe the coaches had a strong voice in protecting the flutz because of their pupils.

But "the coaches" didn't write the COP. In fact the wrong edge take off has been slowly but surely getting penalised more with the introduction of the "e" mandatory -GOE.

RD. The GoEs are subjective, so do not believe the CoP has eliminated subjectivity. Juges have their own mindsets. It's the consensus that is important, although I'm not sure the GoEs show a consensus.

Exactly - there's the "corridor" within which the judges can mark, and seemingly can be out by an awful lot. And what about those judges that didn't see a single thing wrong with the triple Axel Lambiel landed at worlds that the caller downgraded. Some even gave it +GOE believing it to be an excellent triple axel.

Ant

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

A discussion on Ms Zhang in the Edge brought out the question of her doing 7 triiples at Junior Worlds.

Would I be correct to say she did 6 triples and attemped a 7th?

 

[antmanb]

A discussion on Ms Zhang in the Edge brought out the question of her doing 7 triiples at Junior Worlds.

Would I be correct to say she did 6 triples and attemped a 7th?

I thought she was credited with 7 triples at Junior worlds?

Ant

 

[mskater93]

I thought she was credited with 7 triples at Junior worlds?

Ant

That she was - one with a WET which incurred negative GOE

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

I thought she was credited with 7 triples at Junior worlds?

Ant

From what I read on the Board, there is an "e" for a lutz in the protocols. So she did not execute 7 diferent and defined jumps but she did attempt 7 but failed on one of them. So the two triple Flips which she did execute despite the Zanak rule would add upt to 7. If that is what was credited then your thought is correct.

We will differ on this as you know.


.

 

[Mathman]

Because the ISU wants to punish those that under rotate more than 45 degrees more than they want to punish WET, at least when reading the rules as is.

So then the question that I have is, why?

If the three parts of a jimp are the approach/take-off, the turns in the air, and the landing, it seems to me that rotating in the air has the least to do with figure skating.

Fifure skating, at heart, is what you do with your blades on the ice. Steps and turns into the jump, a secure take-off edge, continuous flow out of the landing and transition to the next element within the choreography -- that has to count more than twirling in the air. Conversely, mistakes and weakness of technique in these areas -- with a fall being the ultimate error (or the ultimate symtom of a skating error) -- that has to be worse than rotating more or fewer degrees in the air.

But it's not. You can have a long telegraphing approach on a wobbly edge, take off from the wrong edge, put two hands down on the landing, the CoP still rerwards you with a nice score on the element. The part (rotating in the air) that has little to do with actually skating -- and nothing whatever to do with figure skating -- come up short on that and you get 0.

This seems backwards.

 

[Mathman]

So the two triple Flips which she did execute despite the Zayak rule would add upt to 7. If that is what was credited then your thought is correct.

That is a very interesting example. If Caroline's 3Lz+2T "e" had been scored as a 3F+2T, then Caroline would have received 6.80 points for it instead of the 5.90 points that she actually received, after the "e" penalty.

In other words, she would have scored higher if the rules said "there is no such thing as a flutz, that's a flip."

On the other hand, she would not have been allowed to do a (third) flip later in the program, so she would have had to substitute another type of jump or risk losing credit for the jumping pass altogether.

I don't know if that would encourage skaters to learn proper technique or not. If the ISU changed the rules to, "a Lutz is a Lutz, a flip is a flip, period," then a skater could get away with not training either jump. Just throw up two jumps any old way and let the tech specialist call them 2 Lutzes, two flips, or one of each. Either way, you have collected a basket of points with no penalty.

 

[PolymerBob]

Caroline's FS and a cute fluff piece in HD:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSro7X-2jeA

I don't understand Mandarin, not even enough to be sure that is what they are speaking, but the announcers seem rather impressed by Caroline.

 

[brightphoton]

I don't understand Mandarin, not even enough to be sure that is what they are speaking, but the announcers seem rather impressed by Caroline.

I believe it is Japanese.

 

[Eurofan]

It's definitely Japanese. I forgot most of what I learned at University, but I recognize the occasional word and the characters on the screen.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

That is a very interesting example. If Caroline's 3Lz+2T "e" had been scored as a 3F+2T, then Caroline would have received 6.80 points for it instead of the 5.90 points that she actually received, after the "e" penalty.

In other words, she would have scored higher if the rules said "there is no such thing as a flutz, that's a flip."

On the other hand, she would not have been allowed to do a (third) flip later in the program, so she would have had to substitute another type of jump or risk losing credit for the jumping pass altogether.

I don't know if that would encourage skaters to learn proper technique or not. If the ISU changed the rules to, "a Lutz is a Lutz, a flip is a flip, period," then a skater could get away with not training either jump. Just throw up two jumps any old way and let the tech specialist call them 2 Lutzes, two flips, or one of each. Either way, you have collected a basket of points with no penalty.

A very good analysis of the 'wrong edge take-off'. My problem is that I have never seen a proper lutz in the competitive careers of many skaaters so I cringe when I see yet another WET getting partial credit for an easier non counter rotation jump and certainly not by the name Lutz. The Lutz is based on a counter rotation jump from its back out side edge takeoff with no change of edge.

I do believe most skaters can do a proper lutz, but there are many who can not and will continue to get a lutz base value for not doing one. The auto deduction and the judgement of the Flip (a second time) does come into play.

 

[mskater93]

I do believe most skaters can do a proper lutz, but there are many who can not and will continue to get a lutz base value for not doing one. The auto deduction and the judgement of the Flip (a second time) does come into play.

Again, a skater does NOT get the base value of a Lutz/flip if the tech panel determines WET. There is an AUTOMATIC REQUIRED negative grade of execution which means less that the base value of either jump for the final score for that element. If you don't believe the incessant discussion of how it is scored, please go look at the protocols.