The "wrong edge" call in JGP events

[gsrossano]

The system was also touted as being so precise that a skater could improve his/her performance by simply stuyding the protocol from his/her last skate. The protocol was supposed to tell him/her exactly what to improve upon and how. That implies that if skater does X in the same way next time, the same score should be achieved, but if skater does X better, a better score should be achieved and figuring out what better is is a matter of looking at the protocol.
I never heard that these concepts only applied to the technical side of things.

When IJS was introduced to the U.S. the true believers from the ISU would mock (and still do) the kind of things judges would tell skaters after a 6.0 competition about what was wrong with a program. The protocol under IJS does only a slightly better job. Now it is (hopefully) clear to a skater if a jump was cheated or had the wrong edge. But if a spin or sequence does not get the level expected, the skater does not know from the protocol why. What features did they get? What features did they miss? Why? For PCs the skater can see how they compare to the others, but why did they get a specific PC mark? Which criteria (of the 38) were good? Which were poor?

In the end, if the skater really wants to know what to work on, they still have to talk to the judges or technical panel for specific guidance. One benefit of IJS, though, is now the judges and technical panels can more clearly point to very specific things for the skater to work on (specific features or PC criteria) when they talk to the skaters.

 

[capcomop]

When IJS was introduced to the U.S. the true believers from the ISU would mock (and still do) the kind of things judges would tell skaters after a 6.0 competition about what was wrong with a program. The protocol under IJS does only a slightly better job. Now it is (hopefully) clear to a skater if a jump was cheated or had the wrong edge. But if a spin or sequence does not get the level expected, the skater does not know from the protocol why. What features did they get? What features did they miss? Why? For PCs the skater can see how they compare to the others, but why did they get a specific PC mark? Which criteria (of the 38) were good? Which were poor?

In the end, if the skater really wants to know what to work on, they still have to talk to the judges or technical panel for specific guidance. One benefit of IJS, though, is now the judges and technical panels can more clearly point to very specific things for the skater to work on (specific features or PC criteria) when they talk to the skaters.

All absolutely true and absolutely ridiculous in practice. Can you imagine having judged 30 some odd skaters and then being asked which of the 36 or 38 criteria judged need to be improved to get better than a '0' rating on a single skill for a single skater? Remember four hours ago when I did a spin combination...why did YOU only give it a '0.' Given a perfectly normal commute this morning, what was the color of the car in front of you when you turned into the work parking lot?
I can only imagine that a judge will be forced to speak in vague terms about general criteria, unless he or she has a perfect memory for every single detail and an amazing ability to metacognate (which reserach shows is a human's WORST cognitive skill!!!!)! Combine that with a multitude of criteria that are the technical controller's relm and thus beyond the judge's control AND the fact that that same judge will NOT be sitting in the judging box at the next compeition and so the next judge may judge criteria in a completely different way (adequate speed of a spin as something completely different than another judge) and you have a mired mess of nonsense hailed as a perfectly objective system! So perfectly objective that we compare scores across the system using different criteria and rules applied by whole different pannels of people! Blech.

What I heard was that the protocols were SUPPOSED to stand alone as a guide to a skater on skill improvement. So when the skater gets GoEs that range from -3 to +1 what is a skater supposed to understand? Nobody gets the system!?!?!?

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

All absolutely true and absolutely ridiculous in practice. Can you imagine having judged 30 some odd skaters and then being asked which of the 36 or 38 criteria judged need to be improved to get better than a '0' rating on a single skill for a single skater? Remember four hours ago when I did a spin combination...why did YOU only give it a '0.' Given a perfectly normal commute this morning, what was the color of the car in front of you when you turned into the work parking lot?
I can only imagine that a judge will be forced to speak in vague terms about general criteria, unless he or she has a perfect memory for every single detail and an amazing ability to metacognate (which reserach shows is a human's WORST cognitive skill!!!!)! Combine that with a multitude of criteria that are the technical controller's relm and thus beyond the judge's control AND the fact that that same judge will NOT be sitting in the judging box at the next compeition and so the next judge may judge criteria in a completely different way (adequate speed of a spin as something completely different than another judge) and you have a mired mess of nonsense hailed as a perfectly objective system! So perfectly objective that we compare scores across the system using different criteria and rules applied by whole different pannels of people! Blech.

What I heard was that the protocols were SUPPOSED to stand alone as a guide to a skater on skill improvement. So when the skater gets GoEs that range from -3 to +1 what is a skater supposed to understand? Nobody gets the system!?!?!?

Very sensible post, capcomop. How well they did, it important for ALL the skaters but it's apparent that skater at no. 17 is not really remembered in toto by the judges. And when you bring up the most important point in the failure of the CoP is the descrepancies in the protocols. It's not at all unusual to see the wide range of GoEs from the minuses to the pluses. Yet some fans believe a Personal Best really exists without regard to the different comps and judges and, of course, Technical Assistants. IMO, the results of competitions are still based on each judge's preference and would equal the same results in a 6.0 system. And the attitude toward skater 17 is one of who cares.

Joe

 

[gsrossano]

All absolutely true and absolutely ridiculous in practice.

I am glad some one else feels my pain!

 

[hockeyfan228]

On the contrary, when the ISU first rolled out CoP, the analogy was that just like the time in a speed skate race was an absolute measure of accomplishment of the racer, the points would be an absolute measure of what the skater accomplished in terms of difficulty and quality in a figure skating performance. It was not introduced as simply an arbitrary collection of ways of earning points. In addition, the marking scale of the PCs is most definitely set up to measure various criteria on an absolute scale of ability and quality.

I wouldn't argue that it was arbitrary, but flattened on a scale to reward the type of intricate programs, with intricate and skilled spins and footwork like Buttle's. Or Lambiel's, when his jumps are inconsistent.

I know what they said and argued, but I cannot believe that the most technically able members of the ISU actually believe in the absolute relative difficulty of the SoV as on paper. I'm looking at what they did, not what they said they did.

 

[antmanb]

What do you mean by the "extra element"? ANY element a skater does is in direct comparison to whatever another skater did. Everyone gets to do the same number of elements. It totally depends on what the other skaters did to determine if the Flutz was worthwhile. If one skater can do a clean Triple Flutz and another skater can't do the Lutz jump at all, opting for a double axel instead, then the person with the Flutz has certainly shown a greater technical ability (just in terms of base marks anyway). A flutz is still a relatively difficult jump.

The extra element in my example was the one i was talking about. TO break it down into its simplest elements - if a skater goes out and falls on each and everyone of their jumping passes i don't see any reason why that skater should recieve any points or any credit for the jumps that have been attempted.

Yeah, and that's fine, but at the World level (which is what I was talking about) it's standard that you have at least two Triple jumps. In which case there is no point in ever doing a solo double jump outside of the axel.

Tell that to the european ladies who fall in the second half of the draw, or who don't make it out of qualifying or the SP.

Ant

 

[hockeyfan228]

Tell that to the european ladies who fall in the second half of the draw, or who don't make it out of qualifying or the SP.

Isn't that Gold Medallist's point? That with two triples it is not possible to contend at Championships?

 

[gsrossano]

I know what they said and argued, but I cannot believe that the most technically able members of the ISU actually believe in the absolute relative difficulty of the SoV as on paper. I'm looking at what they did, not what they said they did.

Yes, they (and the coaches) realize what they got is not what they were told they would get. That is why the coaches have put forward, and continue to put forward, proposals to change the SoV to be what was promised and not what we have. Recent changes in the 2A and 3Tw SoV are the result of that.

 

[gkelly]

Isn't that Gold Medallist's point? That with two triples it is not possible to contend at Championships?

The judging system is not designed only for senior championship events. The rules need to work for all levels that it's used for.

And it is certainly possible for skaters with that jump content to compete at championships even if they're not contending for medals. I repeat, look at the protocols for Euros and 4 Continents, and the qual rounds at Worlds.

Now that there are no more qual rounds, cuts are made in the short program. And yes, two different triples are required to skate a clean, legal senior short program. (For the junior short, it is legal to include only doubles.) Zayak issues don't come into play, repeat jump issues relevant to this thread would only apply for a skater whose jump combo and solo jump in the short were lutz and flip, and it's unlikely that a skater who only has two triples would have only those two. So with cuts being made after the short, it's even more likely that a skater who only has two triples but does them and everything else well would make the cut by skating a clean short.

BTW, at the very first event judged by the new system (2003 Nebelhorn . . . not a championship or even a Grand Prix event), the ladies' competition was won by a skater whose jump content was 3T+2T, 1S, 2A, 3T, 2Lo, 2Lz+2T, 2A. The salchow was planned as a triple, but the doubles were intentional and served her well. Other skaters in the event planned harder jumps but made more mistakes and/or had lower quality on elements, and lower PCS.

 

[gsrossano]

The judging system is not designed only for senior championship events. The rules need to work for all levels that it's used for

Agreed. Let me also add it is designed to help the skaters develop as they move up through the ranks. That is, to help the skaters gauge their progress. If a skater only has 2A and two triples at the time, then the safe program with max jump points is the one GoldMeldalist points out.

But the skaters are also working on other triples (or at Juvenile they are working on doubles, for example). When they start landing them in practice (or get close) they are going to include them in their programs as part of their development as a skater. Eventually they will start to land them clean and their scores will go up -- or at least that is their hope. So you can't fault the skaters for trying things a little beyond their reach if it is done as part of their path to develop as a skater. Then there is the fact landing a jump in practice and landing it in competition are two different things. Again, I can't fault a skater who can land several triples in practice and then screws them up in competition because of nerves or injuries, or whatever.

Finally there is a risk/reward strategic decision that the skaters make. You are right on the border of getting out of qualifying round. Do you play it safe, go for quality with what you have, and hope someone else screws up? Do you try a more difficult program with elements you land only some of the time in the hope you will get them when you need them and move out of qualifying? This is a strategic decision the skaters get to make. Usually it doesn't pan out. Sometimes it does. At the lower levels the coaches often put things in the program at the beginning of the season that aren't clean, with the intention of working on them during the season, and hopefully the skaters will improve. That is one training method, and who am I to condemn them for it.

Do we fault Jeffery Buttle for attempting in the past a quad we all know he really didn't have in to try and hold onto a medal? I don't. If every skater played it safe all the time it would lead to boring competition.

No Guts. No Glory. No excitement.

 

[GoldMedalist]

The extra element in my example was the one i was talking about. TO break it down into its simplest elements - if a skater goes out and falls on each and everyone of their jumping passes i don't see any reason why that skater should recieve any points or any credit for the jumps that have been attempted.

They should receive some credit because a jump is not just about the landing.

Isn't that Gold Medallist's point? That with two triples it is not possible to contend at Championships?

I said that two triples is the bare minimum. Therefore, if you have two different Triple jumps, you should never be starting any jumping pass with a double (aside from the axel). To do so is simply a flaw, if your competitive goal is put your best stuff out there.

Some competitors may slot doubles just to gain experience in hopes of building up to a Triple but I don't see much point in that. If you want experience, try the real thing. Go for the Triple. You might end up with less points than if you just did the double but you're learning more, which is the whole point of putting that jump in your program instead of another Double Axel in the first place.

 

[Mafke]

They should receive some credit because a jump is not just about the landing.

No, it's about the take off too. For the record, only the takeoff and landing are skating skills (spinning in the air may be an atheltic feat, but it's not skating).

 

[gsrossano]

To do so is simply a flaw, if your competitive goal is put your best stuff out there.

Maybe. But the competitive goal is really to get the most points, and if a skater feels they can get more points by doing a double of high quality than a cheated triple (maybe with a fall) it is their right to adopt that strategy, and I would not fault them for it. (Maybe their best stuff IS a double!)

The biggest problem/risk with the quality over difficulty strategy is that the judges usually don't do their part of the job and give out the 2s or 3s that a skater needs for that strategy to work. (Cause the judges are too darn stingy with the 2s and 3s!!!)

 

[GoldMedalist]

No, it's about the take off too. For the record, only the takeoff and landing are skating skills (spinning in the air may be an atheltic feat, but it's not skating).

Spinning in the air is part of the sport. Not sure what you're trying to say.

Beautiful arm movements are not "skating" either, but they are a rather important part of the sport as well.

Figures are dead, FYI.

 

[Mafke]

Spinning in the air is part of the sport. Not sure what you're trying to say.
Beautiful arm movements are not "skating" either, but they are a rather important part of the sport as well.
Figures are dead, FYI.

Ugly costumes are part of the sport too. I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

And no one's answered my question about how jumps are defined.

Is it edges at take off alone?

Approach alone?

Combination of edges at take off and approach?

If it's the first then a major (Hughes style) flutz is a flip, no question. If it's the last, then why not just define the flutz as a jump on its own, give it the same number of points as a loop and let skaters be a little more honest about what they can and cannot do?

 

[gsrossano]

And no one's answered my question about how jumps are defined.

In the USFSA rulebook the jumps are not "defined" in words. They are "described" with a graphic figure and a description. The description can be taken to be the definition.

The description is given in terms of:

the take off edge
use of a toe tap or not
the number of rotations
the sense of the rotations (natural or counter rotation)
the landing edge

Also in the description for some jumps is whether the jump includes:

a split position
a Mazurka position

These are the traditional descriptions of the jumps. The ISU has further muddied the waters by saying that jumps can also be landed on the opposite foot from normal, and thus also the opposite edge.

So the description of a triple Lutz in the rule book is

bo! 3 Cbo

meaning back outside edge take off, with a toe tap, three rotations in the air, counter rotation, back outside edge landing (on the opposite foot).

The approach prior to the edge is not part of the description. Any jump can have any approach prior to the take off.

 

[Mafke]

These are the traditional descriptions of the jumps. The ISU has further muddied the waters by saying that jumps can also be landed on the opposite foot from normal, and thus also the opposite edge.

So the description of a triple Lutz in the rule book is

bo! 3 Cbo

meaning back outside edge take off, with a toe tap, three rotations in the air, counter rotation, back outside edge landing (on the opposite foot).

The approach prior to the edge is not part of the description. Any jump can have any approach prior to the take off.

I think the ISU description is just (optimistically) pointing out that different skaters jump in different directions (clockwise, counterclockwise) and that theoretically a single skater could jump in both directions.

One of my points is that extreme flutzers have no counter rotation (I think on purpose) so if that's the case then let's just say they're doing flips with unorthodox entries and let the Zayaks fall where they may.

Though theoretically I have no problem with defining the flutz as a separate jump.

What I don't like is the current status quo where obvious flutzes are counted as lutzes when they're clearly not (again I'm open about what to actually call them).

 

[GoldMedalist]

A layback with an easy leg position is still a layback. It's just not optimal.

A "flutz" is simply a nickname for a Lutz with a sub-optimal take off.

It's really not hard to understand, I don't get the confusion.

 

[gkelly]

A "flutz" is simply a nickname for a Lutz with a sub-optimal take off.

Speaking as someone whose suboptimal takeoff techniques can sometimes turn flips, lutzes, and axels into what would have to be called salchows based on how they finally leave the ice, I have to agree with that.

 

[gsrossano]

I think the ISU description is just (optimistically) pointing out that different skaters jump in different directions (clockwise, counterclockwise) and that theoretically a single skater could jump in both directions.

That too. For example an Axel that takes off on a lfo edge and rotates counter-clockwise (right handed skater), and an Axel that takes of on a rfo edge and rotates clockwise (left handed skater) could be done by one skater.

But the ISU now allows a jump to be landed on the opposite foot. For example a right handed double loop takes off on a rbo edge rotates twice and lands on a rbo edge. For the double loop the skater could also take off on the rbo edge rotate twice and land on the lbi edge. That would be considered a listed jump. (This would not be true for the single loop landed on the lbi edge, since the ISU considers this jump - the so-called half loop -- an unlisted jump.)

Another example, the normal right handed lfo take off of the Axel to the rbo edge could instead be landed on the left foot -- a.k.a. the one foot Axel. This is considered a listed jump and earns the same BV as the normal Axel. On the other hand the inside Axel, that takes off on the lfi edge for a right handed skater is considered an unlisted jump since the ISU says to be an Axel it must take off from a forwards outside edge. (I believe many years ago -- pre WW II -- some people refered to the inside Axel as a forward Salchow.)