The "wrong edge" call in JGP events

[GoldMedalist]

You are bent on keeping the flutz as an element in figure skating. Are you aware of that? It's very important to you this illegal jump from what I read in your posts. You do not want anything to keep these skaters from getting a true ISU lutz except for the attempt and a -1 is sufficient for you.

-1 actually isn't what I want because then a fall on a Lutz with a proper take-off and a fall on a Lutz with an improper take-off are worth the same amount. But, yes, the base value of the jump should drop by just that amount. 1 point is most definitely enough to decide a placement between two skaters and that's all that the error of Flutzing really deserves.

It's easy for me to say I am bent on outlawing the flutz totally because it is not even listed in the ISU elements

Yes, it IS listed. That is why there is an "incorrect take-off" rule in the negative GOE section.

I'm bent on outlawing falling but we're talking about real skating here, yes?

It's a hard jump, you say. So what? Many skaters do a correct lutz. You must have a favorite skater who can not do it. am I correct?

A triple axel has nothing to do with a lutz or a flutz. Bad comparison; You should know better.

You are incorrect. I don't care about which specific skaters are not able to do a totally proper Lutz.

Talk about making a Flutz worth 0 points (or some other very low amount) is the same as saying a Layback Spin that's not Level 4 should be worth 0 points. Yes, many people CAN do a Level 4 Layback, but it's very hard. Why completely punish the people who can only get their Layback to Level 3?

Which is what I was talking about with the 3Axel. Yes, many people CAN do it, but that doesn't mean it should be required. Why should people who can only do a 2Axel be punished even further?? That's exactly what you are pushing for with your ideas about how the Lutz jump should be treated.

I have this distinct feeling you must be afraid to say anthing that may call you a whistle blower. Have you ever gone against the grain?

I made a giant thread a month or so ago about the numerous changes that need to be made to CoP. :frown2:

 

[bekalc]

Goldmedalist, but your failing to note that one of the reasons people have issues with the flutz, is the concept that it's really a flip.

Many feel it's unfair that skaters can get away with doing 4 flips. When you can't do let's say four salchows.

 

[enlight78]

I think the penalty for an error should depend on how much control the skater has over the error. Is an take off for a jump easier to control than the landing? If skater feel they didn't get enough height for a triple should they risk a fall or turn it into a clean double? I think COP should punish skaters comparably to the ability of the skater to fix the error. I have seen skater fall on footwork do to hitting a bad patch of ice. Maybe the skater should have watch where he was going and went around it. But that what I call being to severly punish.

 

[Mathman]

Mathman - Por favor, Can you begin to list by names the skaters who flutz in competition and tally the results from season to season. Let's see if it's an accidental error or one that the skater is just too lazy to correct.

That will be very interesting, even over the course of one season.

If a skater does two Lutz's in every program and gets hit with a big, fat "e" (the wrong edge designation in the protocols) twice in every program, competition after competition, what will that skater do?

(a) Try to correct her technique?

(b) Take the Lutz out of her program and do some other jumps instead?

(c) Just take the mild penalty and continue flutzing away?

 

[GoldMedalist]

Goldmedalist, but your failing to note that one of the reasons people have issues with the flutz, is the concept that it's really a flip.

Again, that concept is wrong. A Flutz is not a Flip; the entry is different. I've never had a problem distinguishing between a Lutz that changed over to the inside edge and a Flip. Nobody that has done these jumps themselves (or even, in fact, any fan of skating who knows what the set-ups to the jumps look like...which they should if they are knowledgeable enough to see the difference between edges that causes a Flutz in the first place) should have a problem seeing the difference either.

If the argument was such that we could only distinguish a Flutz from a Flip by what the skater told us they were planning in their program, then I could see the problem. That's absolutely not the case, however.

 

[gsrossano]

Many feel it's unfair that skaters can get away with doing 4 flips. When you can't do let's say four salchows.

Not that I agree that it really is the same as doing 4 flips, why is it unfair, if everybody has the same chance to do it?

And now that we have CoP, why do we still need the Zayak rule? If the skaters can do three double Axels, why not three triple toes, or any other triple?

 

[gsrossano]

A senior lady only needs to have 2 different Triples to make a program where every jumping pass begins with a Triple or a Double Axel. For example:

3Toe/2toe/2loop
3Sal/2toe
2Axel
3Toe
2Axel/2toe
3Sal
2Axel

If the skater in your example can do 2T and 2Lo in combination why should they be forbidden from doing them, or any other double alone?

With your philosophy only sprinters who can do 100 m in less than 11 sec should be allowed in a track meet. Only ball players who can bat over 300 should be allowed in the major leagues. Only a ball player who can score over 30 points in basketball should be allowed in the NBA, only a soccer player who can score one goal a game should be allowed in professional soccer, and on and on.

The athletes have the skills they have. They should be allowed to show those skills, what ever they are. And I am not going think the less of them if they don't meet some arbitrary pre-existing notion of how skilled they should be, but at least try their best, whatever their best is.

 

[Mathman]

Not that I agree that it really is the same as doing 4 flips, why is it unfair, if everybody has the same chance to do it?

I think the argument is that this gives an unfair advantage, say, to Mao Asada, who can flip all day long but can't do a Salchow. Whereas someone else, who is good at the Salchow but can't do a flip is behind the eight ball.

And now that we have CoP, why do we still need the Zayak rule?

For the same reason we always did, to prevent Johnny one note from going 3F, 3F, 3F, 3F+3F, 3F+3F+3F, 3F, 3F+3F, 3F in his 8 jumping passes.

If the skaters can do three double Axels, why not three triple toes, or any other triple?

Well, the rules let you do any number of doubles but not triples. If I am not mistaken, the rule limiting a skater to no more than three double Axels was just put in this year (and no more than 2 in sequence) -- again, I would suppose, to make sure Mao Asada didn't do 3A, 3A+2A SEQ, 2A+2A SEQ, 2A+2A+2A SEQ, 2A, 2A, 2A.

If the skater in your example can do 2T and 2Lo in combination why should they be forbidden from doing them, or any other double alone?

I don't think GoldMedalist wanted to forbid anyone from doing anything, just that a skater who was capable of doing triple jumps would gain more points (and properly so) if she did a program along the lines he suggested.

 

[GoldMedalist]

If the skater in your example can do 2T and 2Lo in combination why should they be forbidden from doing them, or any other double alone?

They aren't forbidden, it would just be stupid to do otherwise.

The athletes have the skills they have. They should be allowed to show those skills, what ever they are.

Yes....so why should a Triple Flutz be worth nothing or very little? A Flutz is a harder jump than either the Toeloop or Salchow. That's a key point which people are perhaps not understanding.

 

[hockeyfan228]

Add to that the SoV is used by the ISU not to just specify the relative difficulty of things, but also to manipulate the skaters into putting certain kinds of programs on the ice, or to not put them on the ice.

From what I've read of the inception of CoP, I wouldn't even argue that SoV was meant to specify the relative difficulty of things, but started with the premise of what the ISU wanted to reward -- we read at the time that one of Buttle's programs was used as the standard, even though he was still competing -- and coming up with a manipulated, flattened scale that would result in that kind of program. That I love that kind of program and would hate to see someone with three quads and a 3A smother it is irrelevant.

If I had to guess what a secondary motivation was, it would be that it is easier politically to come up with the scale they did, without having to have incessant arguments over how much more difficult an element was, which would be politically charged, based on the strengths of the skaters represented by the Federations. It is in many European Federations' best interest to have a Lutz be much more highly valued than a Flip, with the penalty for a flutz severe, while the penalty for a lip would be less severe. It is in the USFS' and the Japanese Federations' interest to have penalties of equal severity for the incorrect edge. (Historically, that would have gone for Goebel and Honda, too.) We saw the rule changes for pairs' jumps before the Olympics to favor the top Russians over the top Chinese, for example. (The fact that I much prefer Totmianina/Marinin over Shen/Zhao is irrelevant, too.) That was just one of several; imagine the arguments over each and every element.

For all of the people who are arguing about flawed jumps being credited so highly over correct jumps, where is all of the fuss over the relative difficulty between L3 and L4 elements being undervalued? In a true SoV, I would expect the values to look like a parabola, with the difference between the most difficult elements, whether they be jumps or spins, getting a much steeper additional value, unlike the linear scale that has been implemented.

So if the idea is the points the skaters earn should be a measure of what the skaters have actually accomplished in terms of difficulty and quality, I remain convinced the point model was and still is a failure in that regard.

This flaw, however, is transparently obvious, unlike the "in the dark" approach to letting each judge determine starting value and his/her own scale of values and GOE scale, which could differ among skaters.

 

[gkelly]

They aren't forbidden, it would just be stupid to do otherwise.

For those skaters who can in fact consistently rotate and usually land five or more triples per program plus a few double axels.

For skaters for whom triples and even double axels are high-risk elements, it is not stupid to include jumps they are actually capable of landing consistently. An intentional double jump with positive GOE is worth more than a downgraded triple attempt even if the skater stood up on one foot, and much more than if they fall on the downgraded attempt.

This thread started out being about the JGP. Look at the protocols from the JGP events. Many of the skaters at this level of the sport do not have that many triples and are rarely successful at the ones they do attempt. You will see many intentional doubles. Not even all of those are successful. But the ones that are were intelligent choices. (Look at Four Continents or Europeans, once you get past 12th or 15th place or so, or the qual rounds at Worlds, for seniors who would be smarter to include doubles they can land than triples that they can't.)

For all of the people who are arguing about flawed jumps being credited so highly over correct jumps, where is all of the fuss over the relative difficulty between L3 and L4 elements being undervalued? In a true SoV, I would expect the values to look like a parabola, with the difference between the most difficult elements, whether they be jumps or spins, getting a much steeper additional value, unlike the linear scale that has been implemented.

The difference between level 3 and level 4 does end up being worth more than the difference between level 2 and level 3, in most cases, if the elements are performed well, because the values of the positive GOEs are also larger, in addition to the differences in the base marks.

What I think is a problem is the fact that now even on the simplest spins it is necessary to achieve two features before there is any reward -- there's no advantage to doing only one.

(2 features needed for level 2, 3 for level 3, 4 for level 4)

Why not have level 0 means meeting the requirements for the element with no further enhancements, and then have a level 1 that rewards 1 feature.

If that approach had been in place from the beginning, I think we'd have seen more efforts to do one difficult thing well before adding a second, third, or fourth difficult feature.

Similarly if the GOE increments were the same for levels 1-3 as for level 4 -- so there would be at least as much reward for doing something simple very well as for doing something complicated just fairly well.

Of course, the system was a work in progress when first implemented and still is, so unfortunately it didn't work out that way.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

-1 actually isn't what I want because then a fall on a Lutz with a proper take-off and a fall on a Lutz with an improper take-off are worth the same amount. But, yes, the base value of the jump should drop by just that amount. 1 point is most definitely enough to decide a placement between two skaters and that's all that the error of Flutzing really deserves.



Yes, it IS listed. That is why there is an "incorrect take-off" rule in the negative GOE section.

I'm bent on outlawing falling but we're talking about real skating here, yes?





You are incorrect. I don't care about which specific skaters are not able to do a totally proper Lutz.

Talk about making a Flutz worth 0 points (or some other very low amount) is the same as saying a Layback Spin that's not Level 4 should be worth 0 points. Yes, many people CAN do a Level 4 Layback, but it's very hard. Why completely punish the people who can only get their Layback to Level 3?

Which is what I was talking about with the 3Axel. Yes, many people CAN do it, but that doesn't mean it should be required. Why should people who can only do a 2Axel be punished even further?? That's exactly what you are pushing for with your ideas about how the Lutz jump should be treated.



I made a giant thread a month or so ago about the numerous changes that need to be made to CoP. :frown2:

The legal Axel regardless of the number of rotations are just that and have nothing to do with the Flutz which is not listed although as you say they are calling it and all other jumps that take off on a wrong edge as serious errors in jumping.

Level 4 Layback Spins have nothing to do with a wrong takeoff. duh. Your comparisons are off the wall.

Skaters should be punished when they do something that does not conform to the rules. Nothing to do with double axels unless they try one and fail. duh again.

You seem to me to be overprotective of skaters in competition and not really looking for excellence in sportsmanship. I would suggest you watch Show Skating. Anything goes and it can be entertaining.

Joe

 

[Mathman]

From what I've read of the inception of CoP, I wouldn't even argue that SoV was meant to specify the relative difficulty of things, but started with the premise of what the ISU wanted to reward...

A slippery slope. The year before last they decided, Bielmann positions are nice. As soon as someone noticed that the rules gave an extra couple of tenths every time you did one, it was Bielmannmania -- until the ISU said, whoops, and changed the rule again.

The topic of this thread -- should skaters doggedly put two flutzes in their programs if they cannot master the outside edge take-off -- absolutely, just look at the scale of values.

You get an extra fraction of a point every time you change position in a spin or spiral, so skaters are forced to do a dog-and-hydrant just because, well, it's the only position left.

IMHO the judging system is too micro-managed, in trying to decide by just how many tenths of a point a double Salchow excedes a double toeloop in difficulty.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

That will be very interesting, even over the course of one season.

If a skater does two Lutz's in every program and gets hit with a big, fat "e" (the wrong edge designation in the protocols) twice in every program, competition after competition, what will that skater do?

(a) Try to correct her technique?

(b) Take the Lutz out of her program and do some other jumps instead?

(c) Just take the mild penalty and continue flutzing away?

Lets change your first statement to read: If a skater attempst to do two lutzes.... and we know who those skaters are who consider the ease of a flutz v. a skilled lutz.

a) a skater will correct the technique, if the penalty is raised for the flutz or accept the consequences.

b) I would hate to see them take any legal jump out of a competition but if it means putting in excessive hours to correct a lutz either on take-off or landing, then I would say to take it out, if time to correct is not possible.

c) Change the penalty to automatic deduction as it is with Falls and not just a -1 in the GoEs. which are too far subjective in the scoring and really do not equal a full 1 point deduction.

good questions, MM.

Joe

 

[GoldMedalist]

The legal Axel regardless of the number of rotations are just that and have nothing to do with the Flutz which is not listed although as you say they are calling it and all other jumps that take off on a wrong edge as serious errors in jumping.

That rule is SO there for the Lutz and Flip. Nobody who does a Triple toe-walley instead of a Triple toeloop is going to get hit with negative GOE.

Level 4 Layback Spins have nothing to do with a wrong takeoff. duh. Your comparisons are off the wall.

Imagine the Lutz as level 4 Triple Jump. A Flutz would be a level 3 Triple Jump.

Skaters should be punished when they do something that does not conform to the rules.

A rule needs to have validity before anyone should conform to it.

The threat of a 1 point punishment was enough to make Mao Asada and plenty of other skaters focus correcting their Lutzes (and Flips) this past summer. Why does the punishment need to go farther than that?

And, as per your last post, you seem to agree that a 1 point penalty is enough so I'm not sure what the argument is anymore.

 

[Mafke]

Perhaps the flutz and lip should be defined as jumps on their own?

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

Perhaps the flutz and lip should be defined as jumps on their own?

I would definitely go along with that and each with a base value of 3 and with complete range of GoEs. It would satisfy everyone.

Triiple flutz/triple loop/triple toe. Perfect for skaters who are incapable of a true lutz and giving them a score without one.

Joe

 

[Kypma]

But the thing is that.. how does one define a flutz or lip? Respectively a lutz and flip with last-second changes of edge, or changes of edge over 3 feet preceeding take-off? Although, as someone pointed out, they could be considered as (respectively) a flip and lutz with difficult entries... at least in the flutz's case, it would be a flip with a difficult entry due to the fact the entrance curve would be against the rotation of the jump. But then it would have to be clear the skater intended to do a flip, not a lutz.
I think this is a matter that wil never be satisfyingly solved for everyone. Different opinions stem from this subject and I think the ISU has taken a step in the right direction with the 'e' designation and the 1 point deduction.

Kypma

 

[GoldMedalist]

Perhaps the flutz and lip should be defined as jumps on their own?

No, they aren't their own jumps. They are a Lutz and a Flip with a flaw.

I would definitely go along with that and each with a base value of 3 and with complete range of GoEs. It would satisfy everyone.

Base value of 3. Wow. How inaccurate. I long for the day when those jumps magically become that easy.

Lutz with a minor flutz should be base value of 5.5, Lutz with a more major flutz should be base value of 5.

But the thing is that.. how does one define a flutz or lip? Respectively a lutz and flip with last-second changes of edge, or changes of edge over 3 feet preceeding take-off?

It really makes no difference. If the skater was going backwards on their blade and jumped off of it, it's a Lutz. If they turned into the blade and jumped off of it, it's a Flip.

 

[gkelly]

If the skater was going backwards on their blade and jumped off of it, it's a Lutz. If they turned into the blade and jumped off of it, it's a Flip.

So if I do a LFI bracket, ending up on LBO, and jump off that back outside edge without ever getting near the back inside, you're going to call it a flip? Darn, I thought that was a cool way to make my lutz even more difficult and get extra credit for the entry phase, but if you're going to give it a lower base value than if I'd done it from a simpler entrance, why should I bother?