What Should be the penalty for a flutz?
- Thread starter gsrossano
- Start date
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2003
even though I LOVE the zamboni one.... :lol:
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
Is the non scientific poll supposed to show something? Most people voted for Michelle over Sasha in that Cheesefest. Michelle as a cripple should not even been in the competition, yet she won. Silly polls.
However to explain my view on the penalty would be to deduct 60 per cent off the base value (that's better than an underrotation) and then judge the flutz for GoEs. I say flutz because if there is no back outside take off, there is no lutz.
I guarantee that every elite skater will be doing proper lutzes next season and the little juniors will emulate that.
Joe
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2003
I say Star it out (no points for that baby) and the judge should also go back to judging/coaching school to learn how to tell the difference between a Lutz done properly and a "flutz." That goes for the skaters too. It's a result of bad habits by the skater.
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2003
To me, that seems overly harsh. The very toughest penalty I could still see is calling it a flip. The only problem I see with that is that the skater has no way of knowing how their jump is going to be called, and so do not know if they can do another flip or another lutz. Also, I don't like how "starred-out" jumps are treated now - I think that since they receive no points, they should NOT be counted as a part of the max jumps of 7 (in other words, allow skaters to do 7 jumps in addition to anything that's starred-out).
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
I think if they got 0 points for a flutz, they would hustle back the following year with a proper Lutz!
Joe
Joe
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2006
Can someone explain to me what the zayak rule is?
I vote for the Zamboni. My second favorite thing next to watching skating is watching the Zamboni!! That's no joke either. During intermission of shows..I won't go to the bathroom...I watch the Zamboni. I head that they have a Zamboni fantasy camp for 2000 dollars. So when I win the lottery you will know where I will be.
I vote for the Zamboni. My second favorite thing next to watching skating is watching the Zamboni!! That's no joke either. During intermission of shows..I won't go to the bathroom...I watch the Zamboni. I head that they have a Zamboni fantasy camp for 2000 dollars. So when I win the lottery you will know where I will be.
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2003
The rule was introduced in the 80's after Elaine Zayak would increase the number of jumps in her program by repeating the triple toe loop again and again and again. As the rule currently states (I think), in a long program:
* Any particular type of triple or quad jump can only be done twice in the same program, and the second time must be in a combination (though if a skater does the second one as a solo jump, judges will mark it as a part of a combo where the second jump hasn't been performed);
* No more than two types of jumps can be repeated at all.
A rule that's related is a rule limiting the number of jumps in the long program one of the problems I have with CoP (as I said earlier) is that one can be penalized for doing a jump that doesn't get any credit. For example, say a skater does the following jumps (in that order): 2-axel/ 3-toe, 3-toe/ 3-loop, 2-axel, 3-lutz, 3-flip, 3-lutz/ 3-toe/ 2-loop, 2-flip, 3-axel. 3-jump combo gets no points because that's the 3d time a 3-toe is performed. However, since it does count as a jumping pass, the last 3-axel won't count because that's the 8th jumping path.
Why should a skater get any sympathy (and a second chance) if a jump is stared out because they DON'T KNOW/FOLLOW the rules?
Currently, the only way a jump element can be stared out is if the skater violates the well balanced program rules or executes an illegal element. There is no way an error of execution can cause a jump element to be stared out. The rule on failed combinations and sequences has been changed for this season so the skater no longer is at risk of losing a jump element due to an execution error.
But if they choose to break the well balanced program rules (or can't be bothered to read the rulebook), I say tough luck. Reap what you have sown.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2006
Thank you for the explanation Ptichka.
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
1. Executing a wrong edge takeoff on a jump then is not illegal?
2. Does it matter if the wrong edge takeoff (flutz) is executed deliberately to satisfy the maximum number of jump passes?
Joe
I said a violation of the well balanced program rules. The flutz issue is not a part of the well balanced program rules. Stay on point.
And yes, the ISU does not consider the wrong edge take off an illegal element.
And yes, the ISU does not care if the flutz is done on purpose.
You may think it should be illegal. You may care. But the ISU does not.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
Thank you for standing up for the ISU.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
Just to make sure I understand the rule -- Kimmie Meissner's first element was triple Lutz combo, but she only did the Lutz and no second jump. 6 points, before GOE.
At the end she did a solo triple Lutz, scored as 3Lz+SEQ. 4.8 points before 2nd half bonus.
If she had managed to get off a double toe at the end of her second Lutz, would she have gotten (6.0 + 1.3) x 1.10?
Yes you do.
But what I was referring to is that last season if the skater had planned, say a 2A into 2F sequence, and made an error on the 2A that the broke the sequence, it would have been scored as two jumps, and the last planned jump element (now over the limit) would be stared out as an extra element.
This year the 2F is not scored and the last jump element would not be stared out.
So for an error that breaks a 2A+2F+SEQ, the scoring was/is:
LAST SEASON
2A
2F
...
last jump element stared out
THIS SEASON
2A+SEQ
...
last jump element scored (not stared out)
The skater no longer loses the last jump element for an error of execution in a combination or sequence.
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
Some skaters are well protected if they do not conform to definitions. It's a question of protecting the poor babies. How sweet.
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2003
grossano, thank you very much for explaining the new rule. I didn't understand it until now.
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2003
gsrossano, this actually does make sense. This rule change seems to have addressed most of the concerns I had about how jumps were starred out.
To me, I guess it's more of a conceptual inconsistency - I don't see how an element that gets no base points at all can count toward anything in the program. Even if in reality this does not hurt any skaters, to me it is just illogical.
To me, I guess it's more of a conceptual inconsistency - I don't see how an element that gets no base points at all can count toward anything in the program. Even if in reality this does not hurt any skaters, to me it is just illogical.
