More deductions needed for falls

[Proxy]

But give suitable reward for landing high risk elements well.

Isn't that what the base values are for?

 

[draqq]

Isn't that what the base values are for?

The base values are just for landing high risk elements. Landing them well is the positive GOE part.

 

[Blades of Passion]

In my opinion, a failed jump gets ZERO points. If you can't handle a jump and fall then you didn't 'have' the jump at that moment. Why should someone get credit for something they had no control of? That's the easiest solution, and just adding a bigger GOE spread won't help for the reason I stated above.

Falling on difficult jumps still needs to be given some amount of points because it does still show a skill. Being able to rotate and fall on a Quad Lutz is more difficult than doing an average quality Double Axel. It just shouldn't be worth the crazy high amount of points it gets now.

 

[Spirals for Miles]

I think we need more rules surrounding the deductions, all tied to the number of revolutions to incentivize doing harder jumps. Gymnastics uses the deduction a lot, but we don't... Something like this:

Fall on double (whether it's double axel or double toe): -2 deduction
Step-out on double: -1 deduction
Hand down on double: 0 deduction

Fall on triple: -3 deduction
Step-out on triple: -2 deduction
Hand down on triple: -1 deduction

Fall on quad: -4 deduction
Step-out on quad: -3 deduction
Hand down on quad: -2 deduction

Again, keeping with the automatic -3 GOE before factoring for falls (or -5 when that gets implemented)

BUT, we should in turn reward clean, harder jumps. So:

Clean double: +0 reward (you should be able to do a clean double at the elite level)

Clean triple: +1 reward (triples should also be pretty standard at the elite level)

Clean quad: +3 reward

If there's a jump in combination, like a 4Lz-3T, it gets the deduction or reward of the harder jump, in this case the quad.

 

[cl2]

Have you considered that, even if you penalize falls more, skaters will still plan quads and pop them into singles or doubles if it doesn't feel right during competition, instead of your hypothetical assumption that they will plan clean triples? Would you rather see popped jumps or falls?

 

[Proxy]

Have you considered that, even if you penalize falls more, skaters will still plan quads and pop them into singles or doubles if it doesn't feel right during competition, instead of your hypothetical assumption that they will plan clean triples? Would you rather see popped jumps or falls?

I would rather see popped jumps than falls. They don't take you out of the program as much as someone banging their head or backside on the ice. Or stumbling around like with really bad landing. I don't understand the belief that if you penalize falls, skaters will just do easy routines. Skaters will still try to one-up each other in order to gain competitive edge. That's what happens in sports. The technical content was only dumbed-down a few generations ago because of the ordinal system and propping up skaters from certain federations. The more fair the competition is, the more people will take risk because they will benefit from the reward. Unlike the old days.

 

[cl2]

I would rather see popped jumps than falls. They don't take you out of the program as much as someone banging their head or backside on the ice. Or stumbling around like with really bad landing. I don't understand the belief that if you penalize falls, skaters will just do easy routines. Skaters will still try to one-up each other in order to gain competitive edge. That's what happens in sports. The technical content was only dumbed-down a few generations ago because of the ordinal system and propping up skaters from certain federations. The more fair the competition is, the more people will take risk because they will benefit from the reward. Unlike the old days.

It's a legitimate point of view to prefer popping. I myself can't decide which I'd prefer. I would tend to believe that changing the incentive towards popping rather than completing the rotation and falling could discourage developing skaters (i.e., not our Yuzurus, Nathans nor Shomas) from learning to put good quads out in competition, thereby stagnating the development of the technical side of FS overall.

So, my opinion is, to the casual viewer it's nice not to see falls, but to a competitor, falls are a necessary evil en route to mastering quads.

 

[Seren]

I don't think it's good idea. We don't want someone like Evan Lysacek winning gold again just because he landed easier jumps..

I don't think that will happen- the sports moved too far. But I don't like seeing someone fall on a crappy 4Lz and still get more points than they would have for a clean triple. Quads won't go away- but we need to encourage athletes to go for quality. It's a math game- but if you are going to do a high risk element the reward should be high for doing it well, but you shouldn't be rewarded for doing it poorly.

 

[Proxy]

I would tend to believe that changing the incentive towards popping rather than completing the rotation and falling could discourage developing skaters (i.e., not our Yuzurus, Nathans nor Shomas) from learning to put good quads out in competition, thereby stagnating the development of the technical side of FS overall.

I see this argument a lot, but I can't agree. If a group of top 4 skaters is close in the score, but they are usually placing in the same order 1-2-3-4, the 2-3-4 skaters have incentive to try harder content or they will not move up in the standings. If you are ahead of other skaters but you get complacent, they will overtake you in technical content. I think this is always the case in sport.

 

[Hevari]

I don't think it's good idea. We don't want someone like Evan Lysacek winning gold again just because he landed easier jumps..

The keyword here is "he landed". And sorry, but "fallen" quad is not a landed jump...

 

[Hevari]

I feel like the punishment now is high enough. People need to get points for going for things, and I think the rumoured quad BV reductions if implemented well should be a good mix of everything. Take for example Boyang’s skate last night. It was overall very strong but there was one fall, on a quad in the second half of his program. Falling in skating is something that’s unavoidable ESPECIALLY at levels where skaters are pushing themselves to develop new tech content and at lower levels especially this really would just be too harsh. Skaters wouldn’t go for hard elements and the men would at the top level MAYBE go for 2-3 quads, because the risk wouldn’t be worth it and then we’d lose so much of the unpredictability, and see people without quads suddenly winning everything because they aren’t going for hard technical content. One thing that I think also could work would be expanding the deductions for MULTIPLE falls (ex 2-4) in a program, but the system would also have to penalize messy/flawed landings more.

Man you are now trapped in the known fallacy of equating the fact of risk and the outcome of risk. The risk should not have a win-win outcome because than it will not be a risk anymore/ And what you say is suggestion to have a win-win outcome for the risk...

 

[nocturnalis]

25% of the base value of the element should automatically be deducted before GOE.

 

[UnChosen]

Maybe if they change the rules to be more strict on pre-rotation and give more GOE for pure technique, jump height/distance and real flow outs this will be a good idea.

I don't want footwork x 1000 -> pre-rotated tiny tano jump > deep knee bend slow landing -> spread eagle to be given +3 (or even worse +5) GOE, while someone who does a huge textbook jump could barely get +2 GOE when clean but get extra harsh punishment if there is a stumble or fall.

 

[reneerose]

During the Olympic commentary tonight, Johnny Weir said something most of us would agree with: falls needed to be penalized more severely so that skaters are not receiving more points for falling on harder jumps than they get for successfully landing easier jumps.

If you take more risk
AND
you land the jump...you get the big reward.

If you take more risk
AND
you don't can't land the jump. You didn't earn the points. Do something you are capable of landing successfully.

What kind of scoring adjustments do you think are needed by ISU moving forward?

I would suggest automatic downgrade plus all -3 GOE plus 1 point deduction.

I agree wholeheartedly. Plus the falls really detract from the overall PCS of the program; that's why I think Javi should have placed higher than Shoma. Javi and Yuzu avoided touching the ice on their landings entirely, but I still wished perfectly clean skates without any bobbles or near misses for both of them.

 

[Kissx3]

I could see further penalization but I wouldn't go overboard with it. The point of the current scoring is to encourage the entire field to increase their difficulty so absolute burial for errors probably isn't on the table. -2 deduction for a fall sounds about right to me. That way you at least don't end up with a fallen quad scoring as much or higher vs a Guinness world record triple, while the top jumpers will still crush the field as desired.

+/- 5 across the board sounds like a disaster tbh. That would be abused from the second it was introduced and we all know it.

 

[Proxy]

I'm not sure on the exact solution, but I do think a fallen jump needs to score less than a successful jump one revolution lower.

A fallen quad should not score higher than a landed triple. Under any circumstances.

 

[ks777]

Seriously it is not good idea. We have been through this already. Remember the time when the quad jumps weren't worth going for?

Here is an example for you guys. What if Mirai fell on her 3 axel even though she fully rotated her 3axel ? She would get lower score than 2 axel?
Why would she even going for 3 axel then? Nobody will attempt anything difficult.

 

[Blades of Passion]

You go for it because you get the higher score if you hit it. I wouldn't say a 3Axel fall deserves less points than a mediocre double axel, and we do see many mediocre double axels from the ladies, but a really good double axel should still be scoring higher.

 

[Ladskater]

I have to admit I'm not a fan of the quad. When you see some skaters who can land a quad but can't land a consistent triple Axel, it makes you wonder. Maybe it's their training? It's hard to say. I don't know if deducting more marks for falls is the answer, how about rewarding higher marks for other elements that are done well. I'd rather watch a skater such as Keegan Messing or Misha Ge skate a beautiful program interpreting the music than a skater just skating from one quad to the next.

 

[ks777]

You go for it because you get the higher score if you hit it. I wouldn't say a 3Axel fall deserves less points than a mediocre double axel, and we do see many mediocre double axels from the ladies, but a really good double axel should still be scoring higher.

The scoring system is fine the way it is now. How do the judges differentiate good jumps from bad ones? A lot of times, they are using GOE to manipulate the placements.