2018-2019 Season - New rules

[narcissa]

If it's this heated on the GS forum, imagine the we will see when the ISU Congress is streamed live in less than two weeks' time (granted SOV has passed but the other proposals....)

I'm scared LOL. I feel like I must've accidentally backed up over someone's puppy or something lol

 

[gkelly]

Which particular skaters only practice the 4Z and not the 4S and 4T, just so they can only do the 4Z - can you provide specific examples?

Adam Rippon a few years ago.

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

Yeah coz by number of people who landed it flip and loop must be harder. Whoops. Even Russian junior ladies jump quad lutz now. But not those two other jumps. Lol.

A lutz is harder than a flip and a loop. We can see that the 4Z attempts were pretty bad, save for 1 or 2 skaters; there were some new additions to the 4Z club, although they weren't able to replicate it much or at all. Some guys depend on the higher BV though, and will take the error (see: Kolyada), so now that it's been reduced and the quads are bunched more together, I think we will see more loops and flips being attempted. Like, a 4Z is now worth just 0.5 more than a 4F instead of 1.3 points previously. That's a rather significant difference.

Part of me wonders if the new quad scaling was done just to make it easier to remember how much each quad is worth. LOL, gotta say the old BVs kinda messed with my OCD.

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

Adam Rippon a few years ago.

He never landed a ratified 4Z in competition. He did do a 4T though.

 

[FreyaZz]

A lutz is harder than a flip and a loop. Some guys depend on the higher BV though, so now that it's been reduced and the quads are bunched more together, I think we will see more loops and flips being attempted.

Like, a 4Z is worth 0.5 more than a 4F instead of 1.3 points.

Part of me wonders if the new quad scaling was done just to make it easier to remember how much each quad is worth. LOL, gotta say the old BVs kinda messed with my OCD.

It is harder, but with the help of prerotation and questionable technique that doesn't get called, it became the easier of the three to get the highest point. Which explain why they learnt (?) it first. This make me believe the BV should be lower. If only the judging is real, then the BV is too low along with the axel.

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

Meh, you can say all what you want, like we can. Honestly all this talk is pretty much BS if the judging doesn't follow through. What about the proposal of better trained judges =v

That would be nice. These SOVs are particularly scary because judges now have way more power with their GOE to influence how a competition will go.

The biggest thing is accountability. If a judge gives a +4 or +5 for a jump with an obvious error, or 9.75's across the board for a program with a fall, then they need to be held accountable.

"In a program containing a Fall or a Serious error the score ten (10) shall not be awarded for any of the Components.

In a program containing Falls or Serious errors the score nine-fifty (9.5) or higher should not be awarded for Skating Skills, Transitions and Composition and the score nine (9.0) or higher should not be awarded for Performance and Interpretation."

The ISU is STILL not getting it with the "should not" statements when it comes to Falls/Serious Errors. Maybe next season it'll finally say "SHALL NOT" as they've finally done for the one Fall/Serious error, once judges are still awarding 9.5's/9.75's for programs with falls.

 

[BillNeal]

Also +Rep with fall will be treated more harshly now:

4. In jump combinations / jump sequences when applying the GOE with the numerical value of the most difficult jump, the signs “<”, “e”, “V” are taken into account (e.g. 3T with Base Value 4.2 is considered more difficult than 3F< with reduced Base Value 3.98).

5. The previous remark does not relate to the sign “+Rep” which leads to 70% of the Base Value of the jump. In this case the GOE is established as a percentage of the original Base Value because the “+Rep” sign has no relation to the quality of execution.

So 3Lz + Rep with fall would get 0.7*5.9 - 0.5*5.9 = 1.18.

ETA: Not all jumps actually, if 3T + Rep for example, before would be 0.8*4.3 - 2.1 - 1 = 0.34, now it's 0.2*4.2 = 0.84

 

[Neenah16]

That would be nice. These SOVs are particularly scary because judges now have way more power with their GOE to influence how a competition will go.

The biggest thing is accountability. If a judge gives a +4 or +5 for a jump with an obvious error, or 9.75's across the board for a program with a fall, then they need to be held accountable.

That is the part that I feel many are missing here. The jumps BV may have been lowered but the new GOE scale more than makes up for it and it is in the hands of the judges. Accountability and transparency would be great especially since in the new scale the GOE points are less and it should be easier to know which bullet points the element checked.

Also, accountability should not only be to a judge who "gives +4 or +5 for a jump with an obvious error, or 9.75's across the board for a program with a fall", but also to judges who don't give the GOE and PC to those who deserve it for whatever reason.

"In a program containing a Fall or a Serious error the score ten (10) shall not be awarded for any of the Components.

In a program containing Falls or Serious errors the score nine-fifty (9.5) or higher should not be awarded for Skating Skills, Transitions and Composition and the score nine (9.0) or higher should not be awarded for Performance and Interpretation."

The ISU is STILL not getting it with the "should not" statements when it comes to Falls/Serious Errors. Maybe next season it'll finally say "SHALL NOT" as they've finally done for the one Fall/Serious error, once judges are still awarding 9.5's/9.75's for programs with falls.

I don't agree with this. I know you and some others think that an error should kill PC but I don't believe that all errors are equal so I can't agree with a mandatory deduction especially for CO, IN and PE. A performance with a couple of errors can still be great if the skater did not give up and was totally committed till the end. Mistakes do happen in many artistic performances (outside of FS) without ruining the show. The PE, CO, and IN marks are supposed to be the artistic components of the program, so they should be used to evaluate the entire program as a whole and not get stuck on one or two seconds of it.

 

[DaNiCG]

ok, but ten's are for perfect programs, if a skater does an error then no longer is a perfect program, so should not be reward with a ten

 

[chopinskate]

Searching on Youtube, I find this video. Granted in the protocols, it's called as an FUSp rather than a FLSp.

Here's a flying layback from a man: https://youtu.be/5AkSvXyY3Cw?t=1m24s

I think it would be very hard for a FLSp4 to happen, and it's undervalued in the system. If you don't give incentives for these spins, why will anyone try them?

All quads should probably have a point added to them, IMO. They're difficult, much more difficult than triples. If they wanted to value artistry more, perhaps they could have increased the BV/SoV of spins and footwork. A level four should probably be getting 6.0 for a spin and footwork for BV, and then around 9 points for a +5 quality element. And a nice throwback to the old system, too!

This is probably what should've happened IMO.

 

[Neenah16]

ok, but ten's are for perfect programs, if a skater does an error then no longer is a perfect program, so should not be reward with a ten

May I have the source for that please

Just to be clear, I do agree that errors should impact the PC score if they impacted the performance. I just don't agree with a mandatory deduction of PC since errors and recovery differ from skater to another and from mistake to mistake.

 

[BillNeal]

Here's a flying layback from a man: https://youtu.be/5AkSvXyY3Cw?t=1m24s

I think it would be very hard for a FLSp4 to happen, and it's undervalued in the system. If you don't give incentives for these spins, why will anyone try them?

Thanks, good find! I can't find his FS from NHK on youtube for some reason but managed to find it on youku:

http://v.qiye10000.com/v/XMvE8MTquODqy.html (3:32)

Managed to get level 3 and beautifully matches with the music. He seems to have changed it to FUSp after this competition, probably due to the low GOEs.

 

[cohen-esque]

So did Jeremy Abbott.



It's allowed for any skater in the freeskate. It would fill the "spin in one position" box.

It's not allowed in the short program. The men's spin in one position with change of foot is required to be either camel or sitspin (whichever they don't use for the flying spin). The ladies' is now allowed to be layback, camel, or sitspin (must be different from the flying spin position), but there is no change of foot.

Thanks. I had thought it was a “spin in one position with no change of foot” for the FS as well but I looked it up just now and you’re correct.

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

May I have the source for that please

Just to be clear, I do agree that errors should impact the PC score if they impacted the performance. I just don't agree with a mandatory deduction of PC since errors and recovery differ from skater to another and from mistake to mistake.

I think they were saying that to get a 10.00 a program should be perfect (or extremely close to it). But just because a program was clean doesn't mean it deserves a 10.00 obviously.

IMO, any technical error should immediately prevent a skater from getting a 10.00 for any component. Too often PCS is used as a means to "save" the top skaters, and many times disregards issues with the actual performance, and this needs to stop.

 

[moriel]

I think they were saying that to get a 10.00 a program should be perfect (or extremely close to it). But just because a program was clean doesn't mean it deserves a 10.00 obviously.

IMO, any technical error should immediately prevent a skater from getting a 10.00 for any component. Too often PCS is used as a means to "save" the top skaters, and many times disregards issues with the actual performance, and this needs to stop.

But then its a complicated discussion, like how and what mistakes actually should affect the PCs.
For example, i recall stating that pops are disruptive to performance imho (the skater does a huge setup, usually there is some musical accent too, and then we get some boring single or double instead of a spectacular jump) and many people disagreed.

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

But then its a complicated discussion, like how and what mistakes actually should affect the PCs.
For example, i recall stating that pops are disruptive to performance imho (the skater does a huge setup, usually there is some musical accent too, and then we get some boring single or double instead of a spectacular jump) and many people disagreed.

I consider a pop a serious error. Anyone watching with basic figure skating knowledge knows that it's a severe error, and compromises the overall impact of a performance.

 

[Neenah16]

I think they were saying that to get a 10.00 a program should be perfect (or extremely close to it). But just because a program was clean doesn't mean it deserves a 10.00 obviously.

I asked for the source because I wanted to know if the word perfect has been used by the ISU and what do they define perfect as becuse I was curious.

IMO, any technical error should immediately prevent a skater from getting a 10.00 for any component. Too often PCS is used as a means to "save" the top skaters, and many times disregards issues with the actual performance, and this needs to stop.

A technical error like what? can you give examples (other than the obvious falls or stumbles that are easily recognizable) and explain how they impact IN, CO, or PE?

The PC is about the whole performance and not individual elements (that is TES), if the the error does not affect the whole program, it should not impact PC. I don't believe in perfection, there is no such thing and we will never ever agree on what perfect is, so I don't believe in holding out the 10s waiting for that mythical perfect performance. I also think it is possible to give an outstanding performance with a technical error.

As for your complaint about PC being used to save favorites, it happens but that is not the what we are talking about here. We are discussing the rules which affect all skaters and not just the top. I am personally tired of all the suggestions for "rules" and blanket deductions just to cover wrong judging. It's like prescribing medicine to compact symptoms and leaving the actual disease untreated, which is useless and a waste of time and resources. Also, why is it that these "rules" proposed to address wrong judging are only about making sure top skaters are not favoured but no one is suggesting rules about top skaters being underscores or held down, it also happens.

 

[Harriet]

While that one is lovely, I think we don't see many of them because of the risk of injury, plus in a spin, a skater needs to get into a position within 1 rotation I believe, so it's kinda hard to do that in a layback.

Although it looks like they're worth more than a flying sit spin so we might see some skaters do it to try to get the extra 0.2 points or whatever. Not worth the risk, IMO, though.

Yes, a true flying layback is landed with the spine hyperextended and that's incredibly dangerous - not to mention, it seems there aren't many coaches who know how to teach the technique. I believe there's an allowance for a flying upright spin in which the skater achieves the layback or sideways leaning position within two revolutions to count as a flying layback to avoid the danger issue. Alexia Paganini did a couple of spins that way this season, and when she got into position within the two revolutions, they were called as flying laybacks.

 

[chopinskate]

Yes, a true flying layback is landed with the spine hyperextended and that's incredibly dangerous - not to mention, it seems there aren't many coaches who know how to teach the technique. I believe there's an allowance for a flying upright spin in which the skater achieves the layback or sideways leaning position within two revolutions to count as a flying layback to avoid the danger issue. Alexia Paganini did a couple of spins that way this season, and when she got into position within the two revolutions, they were called as flying laybacks.

How do you think these spins should be rated in comparison with each other in terms of point-based incentives? Is it just the very small point difference that discourages it, or is it more because as you say very few coaches know how to teach the technique?

Right now there are very few "different" types of spins, and it gets very boring unless someone is flexible enough to make difficult variations of their own.

 

[Harriet]

How do you think these spins should be rated in comparison with each other in terms of point-based incentives? Is it just the very small point difference that discourages it, or is it more because as you say very few coaches know how to teach the technique?

Right now there are very few "different" types of spins, and it gets very boring unless someone is flexible enough to make difficult variations of their own.

I have no opinion on point-based incentives, I'm afraid. I would say the thing that most discourages skaters from trying a true flying layback is the risk of ending up quadriplegic if you fracture one or more vertebrae and/or damage your spinal cord on landing. I suppose any skater could learn the other kind if they chose to put in the practice time necessary to develop the skill; it just doesn't seem to be fashionable right now.