2018-2019 Season - New rules

[chopinskate]

Medvedeva flutzes, toe axels and muscles jumps, but she's still a strong jumper. You have to take the good with the bad.

What?

When has Medvedeva ever done this: https://youtu.be/XbPbbUeQ3Kw?t=2m28s

And I disagree that most of the people being mentioned are "strong" jumpers. Yuna Kim was a strong toe-jumper, but the rest? Not really. Osmond does have amplitude, though, so a good jumper, far better than Medvedeva and Miyahara, for me.

 

[Spirals for Miles]

Actually it was her 3Loop jump more than any other that secured her an Olympic medal and made her a World Champion. She rec'd the highest GOE on that jump in Milano that any other of her single jumps. You should watch her performances from the recent Japan shows and SOI Canada to reaffirm, as I don't believe KO has missed it in weeks. Also, I am not sure why you continue with a narrative that her Black Swam was not a fit, as she medalled in every event she entered this season, including the GP Final, the Olympics and Worlds of course, and most comments I read, say it was the best Swan this season. Perhaps inner biases need some adjusting, Shayuki?

Need further proof? Watch the B ESP LP, and check out what they say at the 6:18 mark re Kaetlyn's program choices the past 2 seasons and her choice of Black Swan this year.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wU5WTkLi3ms

Overall, i dont think any skater with a flutz can be called a good all around jumper. Perhaps inner biases need some adjusting, Osmond4gold?[/QUOTE]

Look, you're making the same points over and over again in threads that have nothing to do with this. How Kaetlyn won worlds, or what Tarasova/Morozov supposedly did wrong to not win worlds, doesn't have anything to with new rules for next year. I think you'd get a lot more respect if you'd just stay on topic and not force your beliefs on everyone in EVERY SINGLE thread...

 

[Osmond4gold]

^^ Not forcing anything on anyone here Spirals, but when the ''same familiar crowd'', continue to bash others with the same jabs towards/at a certain skater, expect a reaction from me and others. I too would rather they leave their baggage at the door, and add value rather than discourse to this topic. Moving on.

 

[Baron Vladimir]

Only changes in PCS (proposed by tech committee) ive noticed - in PErformance category projection becomes an entity separate from involvement. Openness toward audience and skating for them will be rewarded more, i guess.
Edit no.1: Well-balanced programme is already define by required elements skater should demonstrate both in SP and FP (you can read what that means there)
Edit no.2: Stop hijacking the thread with Kaetlyn Osmond, please

 

[kwanatic]

When has Medvedeva ever done this: https://youtu.be/XbPbbUeQ3Kw?t=2m28s

So hers isn't as bad as your example but her 3Ts aren't ideal. Let's call it a version of a toe axel. I know using a Koola King video to illustrate a point is a huge no-no (b/c that guy is a bit cray-cray::whack but that doesn't change the fact that from a technique standpoint Evgenia's toe loops aren't correct.

https://youtu.be/DxJFjJ12DyY?t=312

Her 3Ts aren't full-on toe axels but, if we're going by the technique of the jump, they aren't exactly 3Ts either.

Then again, it goes back to my statement about it being difficult to find a skater who does everything perfectly. No, Evgenia's technique is not perfection but she gets the job done so it doesn't bother me. She's still a strong all-around jumper IMO.

 

[chopinskate]

Her 3Ts aren't full-on toe axels but, if we're going by the technique of the jump, they aren't exactly 3Ts either.

They aren't toe-axels at all, IMO! Bad technique 3Ts, not done properly, but by this standard, Miyahara, Zagitova, and Daleman are toe-axeling, too! They have the same swingy, spinny entrance to their 3Ts. A lot do, I think, nowadays.

Medvedeva does have bad toe-technique, but Koola King regularly doesn't know what they're talking about. (SOME might be right. Too bad they're too obsessive.)

 

[Baron Vladimir]

It would be great if performance became an actual PCS category. Right now, it's nothing but a modifier for "how many jumps did you land clean?".

I guess one way to project your programme to the audience and make it easier for understanding is to make your elements clean/good for the audience Now real - From what i know performance here is aslo a physical commitment throughout the whole programme and it is more or less necessery to achieve required elements for better marks https://youtu.be/qVXzyzsPXxY this was an ISU example of projection back then tho

 

[kwanatic]

They aren't toe-axels at all, IMO! Bad technique 3Ts, not done properly, but by this standard, Miyahara, Zagitova, and Daleman are toe-axeling, too! They have the same swingy, spinny entrance to their 3Ts. A lot do, I think, nowadays.

Medvedeva does have bad toe-technique, but Koola King regularly doesn't know what they're talking about. (SOME might be right. Too bad they're too obsessive.)

Hey, I amended to say some version of a toe axel. Her toes aren't terrible but they aren't great technique. I agree, there are a lot of skaters who don't do a perfect 3T...but then again that can be said of almost every jump and every skater. Besides, I'm not particularly fixated on skaters needing to have 100% pure technique. For me it only becomes an issue if one skater is punished for something dealing with technique and another with the same error is not.

Koola King makes valid points at times but I agree, his obsessive approach tends hurt his argument. :dumb:

 

[Mathman]

But my point is - If that proposal pass all skaters will put exactly the same number of jumps in second half, the rewarded one, and we will watch the same distribution of elements in every skating programme.

That's a good point. I think you are right about that. In fact, Even with the present rule the great majority of elite skaters go with 3-4 as giving them the best shot of maximizing their points.

At the Olympics, out of 24 ladies in the LP, 14 of them did 3-4 (Osmond, Miyahara, Kostner, Choi, Tennell, Kim, Rajicova, Craine, Meite, Daleman, Li, Paginini, Thoth and Williams).

This is the dilemma that the ISU faces. We want a rigid and well-defined list of point values, but at the same time we want to encourage individuality.

 

[Mathman]

and that's for me the issue...

rules are set up.. people frontload as it is easier to get their jumps on fresh legs, especially before getting them tired with steps..

ISU thinks.. well... how can we get them not to frontload.... and does a half-job by creating a mid program bonus... without realizing that one day, some people will do the opposite...

so now, they have to change the rules again... to actually get to the original intent...

and my issue is exactly this : could you think properly and make good rules, once and for all ? ...

Still, I like to cut the ISU some slack on this issue. "Thinking properly and making good rules" is easier said than done. The whole IJS is the blind leading the blind across an obstacle course. You think you have a good idea, then next year you say, well, that didn't work out quite how we hoped. Maybe if we go too far over on the other side, somehow nor other things will oscillate back and forth until we reach some acceptable middle ground.

As an example, look at all the gyrations over the proper scoring of under-rotaed jumps. Back and forth, too strict then too lenient. Finally, IMHO what they have now is not too bad a compromise. Edge calls is another example that still generates lots of discussion, but all in all the present rules are not terrible.

 

[Baron Vladimir]

^^^
You are late Mathman, im on the 'projection subject' now... Well my opinion was always based on watchability of FS competitions in general. To achieve that i think versatility is the best thing to push for and rewarding other things is the best way to get some goals

 

[Bluediamonds09]

When did the rule begin that allowed ladies to receive level4 for a layback spin that did not go up into a beilmann?

 

[gkelly]

When did the rule begin that allowed ladies to receive level4 for a layback spin that did not go up into a beilmann?

It's not a single rule. Every year the features that are available for spins are published along with that year's version of the Scale of Values and other rules.

Since the introduction of the 1 level per feature way of calculating spin levels (I think that was 2007 but I'm too lazy to research), any year that there were at least 4 features available that could be used in laybacks in addition to the Biellmann feature, it has been possible to earn level 4 without a Biellmann. I think that has been almost every year, but again, I haven't memorized and won't research now the features available for each of the last 10+ years.

For 2017-18, the spin features are

1) Difficult variations (count as many times as performed with limitations specified below)
2) Change of foot executed by jump
3) Jump within a spin without changing feet
4) Difficult change of position on the same foot
5) Difficult entrance into a spin
6) Clear change of edge in sit (only from backward inside to forward outside), camel, Layback and Biellmann position 7) All 3 basic positions on the second foot
8) Both directions immediately following each other in sit or camel spin
9) Clear increase of speed in camel, sit, layback or Biellmann position
10) At least 8 rev. without changes in position/variation, foot or edge (camel, layback, difficult variation of any basic position or for combinations only non-basic position)
11) Difficult variation of flying entry in flying spins/spins with a flying entrance (see Clarifications)
Additional features for the Layback spin:
12) One clear change of position backwards-sideways or reverse, at least 2 rev. in each position (counts also if the Layback spin is a part of any other spin)
13) Biellmann position after Layback spin (SP – after 8 revolutions in layback spin)

Of those, features 1, 5, 6, 9, and 10 as well as 12 and 13 can all be used in solo laybacks. Some are more common than others, and some can only be used once in a program so skaters choose to use them in their flying spins or combo spins instead. But there are currently plenty of options if you're just looking to get a level 4 layback in isolation.

In some previous years there may have been fewer options, but I think there were always at least 4 others besides the Biellmann.

 

[ice coverage]

Re +/- 5 GOE scale:

Today the ISU published Ice Dance Scales of Values, effective July 2018.
They are in ISU Communication No. 2167, Ice Dance Scales Of Values Season 2018/19.

https://isu.org/news/80-inside-figu...cale-of-values-1st-july-2018?templateParam=15 (May 22)​

Principle of the new Scales of Values

The ISU Congress 2016 approved the proposal to use in all the disciplines of Figure Skating starting with the 2018-2019 season instead of +/- 3 GOE System a wider GOE scale with the goal of evaluating more precisely the quality of execution. The scale proposed for confirmation of the 2018 ISU Congress is +/- 5 scale. …

The 3 ISU Technical Committees used a percentage principle for creating the SOV in which every step up or down in GOE results in increasing or decreasing the Value by a certain percent, same through the whole Table. The details of this principle implementation can differ from one Technical Committee to another in order to reflect the specifics of every discipline.

The 3 SOV were tested during the Challenger Series event in Tallinn, Estonia, November 2017, Grand Prix Final in Nagoya, Japan, December 2017, Mozart Cup SyS in Vienna, Austria, January 2018. The results of the Tests were positive and confirmed the accuracy of the Charts.​

​

 

[enzofv]

Do we know exactly when the ISU will set the new rules for singles?

 

[karne]

Do we know exactly when the ISU will set the new rules for singles?

Won't be til after Congress.

 

[cohen-esque]

Re +/- 5 GOE scale:

Today the ISU published Ice Dance Scales of Values, effective July 2018.
They are in ISU Communication No. 2167, Ice Dance Scales Of Values Season 2018/19.

https://isu.org/news/80-inside-figu...cale-of-values-1st-july-2018?templateParam=15 (May 22)​

Principle of the new Scales of Values

The ISU Congress 2016 approved the proposal to use in all the disciplines of Figure Skating starting with the 2018-2019 season instead of +/- 3 GOE System a wider GOE scale with the goal of evaluating more precisely the quality of execution. The scale proposed for confirmation of the 2018 ISU Congress is +/- 5 scale. …

The 3 ISU Technical Committees used a percentage principle for creating the SOV in which every step up or down in GOE results in increasing or decreasing the Value by a certain percent, same through the whole Table. The details of this principle implementation can differ from one Technical Committee to another in order to reflect the specifics of every discipline.

The 3 SOV were tested during the Challenger Series event in Tallinn, Estonia, November 2017, Grand Prix Final in Nagoya, Japan, December 2017, Mozart Cup SyS in Vienna, Austria, January 2018. The results of the Tests were positive and confirmed the accuracy of the Charts.​

​

Well, not according to that SOV. What the...?

The increments are the same for every Level despite separate base values. 0.53 if not the same percentage of a 3.50 element as it is a 4.00 element as it is a 4.50 element. It’s different percentage value for every element.

This is basically the current system, just with different increments.

 

[chopinskate]

C'mon cohen-esque, you're expecting proper maths from the ISU.

Don't make this grievous error again.

 

[cohen-esque]

^But this is literally exact same system as before, just with 5 increments instead of 3.

I mean, I’m used to the ISU taking a good idea and implementing it horribly, but... c’mon. Not one single thing in that whole introductory paragraph is true. How does this even simplify the charts? A percentage approach based off of what?

 

[Harriet]

Well, not according to that SOV. What the...?

The increments are the same for every Level despite separate base values. 0.53 if not the same percentage of a 3.50 element as it is a 4.00 element as it is a 4.50 element. It’s different percentage value for every element.

This is basically the current system, just with different increments.

I think the Ice Dance Technical Committee must have looked at the sentence "The details of this principle implementation can differ from one Technical Committee to another in order to reflect the specifics of every discipline" and decided it meant "Do whatever you feel like and percentages be hanged". That or, in the immortal words of JK Rowling: 'Oh dear, maths.'