What Exactly is the Value of a Jump with a -1 Wrong Edge Takeoff?

[Joesitz (RIP)]

Someone, please tell me what the Lutz base value is and what is it if a -1 is tacked on as a wrong edge takeoff.

I'm under the illusion that it is not much of a penalty.

Joe

 

[goldenpleasures]

The triple lutz base value is 6, so it's not much of a penalty if you get GOE of -1. But some flutzes are treated quite harshly (as they should be), reducing the score to around or even below that of an easy triple.

 

[Mathman]

Someone, please tell me what the Lutz base value is and what is it if a -1 is tacked on as a wrong edge takeoff.

I'm under the illusion that it is not much of a penalty.

As Golden Pleasures says, the base value of a triple Lutz is 6.0 points.

The base value for a flutz (a Lutz attempt dinged with a wrong edge call) is still 6.0.

The GOEs for a Lutz with proper take-off edge range from -3 to +3.

The GOEs for a flutz range from -3 to -1.

Here is the ISU document (starting with page 8) that spells it all out, if anyone is curious about the details.

http://www.isu.org/vsite/vfile/page/fileurl/0,11040,4844-183415-200633-121139-0-file,00.pdf

 

[Ms.Anthrope]

Mathman,

Can you do me a favor? Can you calculate guestimated values for Mao & YuNa's current jump layout that includes - & + GEO's based on the average value they received if both landed all of their jumps?

P.S. I'm not sure if I would count Mao's 3A seriously just because she hasn't landed one cleanly since ?

 

[Mathman]

Can you calculate guestimated values for Mao & YuNa's current jump layout that includes - & + GEO's based on the average value they received if both landed all of their jumps?

P.S. I'm not sure if I would count Mao's 3A seriously just because she hasn't landed one cleanly since ?

Guestimate is right, about the possible GOEs that they might get. I'll check it out, though.

About Mao's triple Axel, even if it is not squeaky clean it can still be a big point getter. In the Grand Prix final, despite a double-footed landing, she got full credit for the jump with only -0.60 in GOEs. This gave her 6.70 for the elemtn. (For comparison, Yu-na Kim got 6.60* + 1.20 = 7.80 for a superb triple Lutz.)

Joe -- If you want to see how a "wrong edge Lutz" is scored, here are the judge's protocols for the ladies short program from Eric Bompard.

http://www.isufs.org/results/gpfra07/gpfra07_Ladies_SP_Scores.pdf

If you look at the second element for Mao Asada, you will see 3Lz (e). The scoring is 6.00 base value and -1.00 GOE for a total over on the right of 5.00 for the element.

Eight judges gave her -1, one judge gave her a -2 and one gave her a -3. At least one of the two worst was thrown out in the randon draw and the other was dropped in the trimming process (drop the highest and lowest).

In the GP final LP Mao also got called for a flutz, with the same result. She got 6.00 base value and -1.00 GOE for a total of 5.00 for the element.

This time she got lucky, because 4 of the ten judges gave her a -2 GOE (the rest were -1) but these were thrown out in the random draw and trimming. If she had had worse luck she might have received a 1.2 or a 1.4 point deduction in GOE instead of 1.0.

 

[Ms.Anthrope]

With such minimal points off for (e) on the lutz, it seems like Mao doesn't have such a great incentive to fix her flutz & chance messing with timing of her other jumps.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

MM - Check me if I have this right

Flutz and Lutz have the same base value = 6.

Flutz, however, can receive a -3 to a -1. I thought when the Caller called e, it was an automatic -1. So we now have accepted the flutz as a legal jump, and then judge how bad it was for actually scoring the error aside from scoring the actual jump, so a skater can flutz and receive a -3 if a judge decided it much much too bad a flutz.. So that usurps the automatic -1 and the judges do have a voice in this decision. Correct?

Now tell me, what is the final score for the element? Is it 6-3=3 if the flutz was so judged? This would mean the Flutz can be penalized much more than a Fall in the program. Correct?

Can we tell how much was taken off the base value if in spite of a sloppy bad take-off error, the skater can get pluses added on for good air posture and landing as it would if it was judged as a Flip?

You will note that I have not put my personal take on all this. Just want to know what the Caller and Judges can do with a non existent jump.

Joe

 

[hockeyfan228]

Now tell me, what is the final score for the element? Is it 6-3=3 if the flutz was so judged? This would mean the Flutz can be penalized much more than a Fall in the program. Correct?

A flutz can never be penalized as much as a fall, because a fall is an automatic -3 plus -1 fall deduction.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

A flutz can never be penalized as much as a fall, because a fall is an automatic -3 plus -1 fall deduction.

I forgot that, thanks.

So, the Fall gets -3+-1= -4, The Fall dropped from base value of 6 to a 2 Correct? What about making the requiste air rotations?

Joe

 

[Mathman]

With such minimal points off for (e) on the lutz, it seems like Mao doesn't have such a great incentive to fix her flutz & chance messing with timing of her other jumps.

Well, that's what the whole controversy is about. The penalty for wrong edge take-off is so slight that skaters can just blow it off and go on with business as usual.

On the other hand, as ChuckM pointed out on the thread in the Nationals folder, those points can add up. If you do three Lutzes, two in the LP and one in the SP, and give up a point or more on each one, while your rival is racking up positive GOEs, it could mean a swing of 5 or 6 points overall.

In the Grand Prix final, Yu-na Kim got +1.00, +1.20, and +1.80 on her three Lutzes = +4.00.

Mao Asada got (e) and -1.00 GOE on her Lutz attempt in the LP, she did not attempt a second Lutz (substituting a lower-valued loop), and in the short she did not get credit for a solo jump at all (0.00 points).

Mao's coach, Raphael Arutunian, has criticised the ISU for all of a sudden popping the "e" on skaters like Mao, who have been merrily flutzing away without penalty for years. (Not entirely true. Even under ordinal judging Tara Lipinski was marked down in tech score for flutzing during the 1997-98 season. Thank goodness Tara corrected the problem in time for the Olympics!)

Maybe this is the first step of the ISU's master plan. Next year they will toughen the penalty, then a little more in 2010,...

 

[Mathman]

MM - Check me if I have this right

Flutz and Lutz have the same base value = 6.

Yes.

Flutz, however, can receive a -3 to a -1... So we now have accepted the flutz as a legal jump, and then judge how bad it was for actually scoring the error aside from scoring the actual jump, so a skater can flutz and receive a -3 if a judge decided it much much too bad a flutz.. So that usurps the automatic -1 and the judges do have a voice in this decision. Correct?

Yes. The judges can give a -2 or a -3 if they think it was a truly terrible flutz (long inside edge entry with no attempt to even pretend at an outside edge) OR if the jump had other problems besides the wrong entry edge.

Now tell me, what is the final score for the element? Is it 6-3=3 if the flutz was so judged?

Yes.

Can we tell how much was taken off the base value if in spite of a sloppy bad take-off error, the skater can get pluses added on for good air posture and landing as it would if it was judged as a Flip?

Not really. If a skater gets -1 GOE, for instance, that might mean the judge took off -2 for the wrong edge but gave back +1 for other positive features.

What the judge cannot do, though, is take off -1 for the wrong edge then add on +1 or +2 to bring the total GOE up to 0 or +1. No matter what, the total GOE must be negative.

If the tech specialist just called it a flip to begin with, then the judges could put on positive or negative GOE as they saw fit, without restriction. However, the skater would have to watch out for Zayak violations. If her program already had two flips and the her Lutz attempt was called a flip, too, she would receive 0 credit for the third jump.

You will note that I have not put my personal take on all this. Just want to know what the Caller and Judges can do with a non existent jump.

To me, there are two issues. First, is the penalty for this error enough or should it be increased? And second -- what kind of a scoring hodge-podge is this, anyway?

As Gold Medalist mentioned in another thread, this is using the GOEs in a completely inappropriate way. The ISU is using GOEs as kind of a half-way-but-not-really attempt to get a de facto lowering of the base value without calling it that. The GOEs are supposed to be used to judge the quality of the element, not as a surrogate for is-it-or-isn't-it a real Lutz.

Your (Joe's) idea of taking a one-point deduction off the total score, like a fall deduction, makes a lot more sense to me. (The judges would still be free to score a reduction in GOEs as well).

So, the Fall gets -3+-1= -4, The Fall dropped from base value of 6 to a 2 . Correct?

Yes.

What about making the requiste air rotations?

Under the current rules, underrotation is the worst mistake you can make. If everything is perfect but you do not complete two and three-quarters revolutions in the air, the base value automatically drops to 1.9 (instead of 6.0). Then you probably get negative GOEs on top of that -- plus you can still get the dreaded "e". So you might end up with next to nothing.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

Well, that's what the whole controversy is about. The penalty for wrong edge take-off is so slight that skaters can just blow it off and go on with business as usual.

On the other hand, as ChuckM pointed out on the thread in the Nationals folder, those points can add up. If you do three Lutzes, two in the LP and one in the SP, and give up a point or more on each one, while your rival is racking up positive GOEs, it could mean a swing of 5 or 6 points overall.

Chuckum's post is what brought this up for me since I believed a -1GoE did not mean a whole point when all the scores were added. No matter, why do you believe it is a minor penalty if Chuckum believes the -l can add up if there are more than one wrongedge takeoff? What happens to the 7th (or 8th) jump pass?
Is it worth giving up the jump if the skater knows he/she is going to flutz (and they do)? That might give this rival even a bigger points advantage. right?

In the Grand Prix final, Yu-na Kim got +1.00, +1.20, and +1.80 on her three Lutzes = +4.00.

Are you saying that a skater can get plusses for a correct takeoff? Why? That's as it should be. Most skaters do correct takeoffs.

Maybe this is the first step of the ISU's master plan. Next year they will toughen the penalty, then a little more in 2010,...

Praise to be. I can't believe they haven't noticed that the definition of a Lutz includes a back outside takeoff which is what makes a Lutz different from a Flip.

Maybe they could legalize the Flutz and call it a Rockover Flip?

Joe

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

Yes.Yes. The judges can give a -2 or a -3 if they think it was a truly terrible flutz (long inside edge entry with no attempt to even pretend at an outside edge) OR if the jump had other problems besides the wrong entry edge.Yes.Not really. If a skater gets -1 GOE, for instance, that might mean the judge took off -2 for the wrong edge but gave back +1 for other positive features.

What the judge cannot do, though, is take off -1 for the wrong edge then add on +1 or +2 to bring the total GOE up to 0 or +1. No matter what, the total GOE must be negative.

This is interesting and very informative. Thank you.

If the tech specialist just called it a flip to begin with, then the judges could put on positive or negative GOE as they saw fit, without restriction. However, the skater would have to watch out for Zayak violations. If her program already had two flips and the her Lutz attempt was called a flip, too, she would receive 0 credit for the third jump.To me, there are two issues. First, is the penalty for this error enough or should it be increased? And second -- what kind of a scoring hodge-podge is this, anyway?

I think the institution of the "e" was to prevent the Caller from changing the jump due to definition.

Your (Joe's) idea of taking a one-point deduction off the total score, like a fall deduction, makes a lot more sense to me. (The judges would still be free to score a reduction in GOEs as well).Yes.Under the current rules, underrotation is the worst mistake you can make. If everything is perfect but you do not complete two and three-quarters revolutions in the air, the base value automatically drops to 1.9 (instead of 6.0). Then you probably get negative GOEs on top of that -- plus you can still get the dreaded "e". So you might end up with next to nothing.

Yes, there should be an automatic deduction of some kind at the real Final Score of the Skater.

Sof, after reading all of this, if I go to the protocols, and see an "e", I will not necessarily know how the penalty actually fit into the final score of the element.
Correct?

Joe

 

[decker]

Are you saying that a skater can get plusses for a correct takeoff? Why? That's as it should be. Most skaters do correct takeoffs.

I don't believe the claim is that merely a correct edge will get a skater positive GOE. It's that one ought not assume that one's properly lutzing opponents will take off correctly and no more. The possibility of +GOE must be considered.

Say Fannie Flutzer decides she's not going to worry about her flutz until next season. She'll take her 5 points and take her chances.

If Lola Lutzkopf gets base value, yes it's a 1-point difference. But if Lola does her correct-edge lutz out of footwork, big and beautiful, with full ride-out, she may well get + GOE. For that matter, if Fannie's flutz has other problems in addition to the wrong-edge take-off, she may get a -2 or -3.

So when all is said and done, Lola may get several points advantage over Fannie ... not just 1. Not because Lola managed to take off from the correct edge, but because her jump had many other worthy qualities.

As I understand it, this is the correct use of GOE. It acknowledges the differences among an almost-failed element, an element that is properly executed but no more, and "holy smoke! did you see that?"

I hope that makes sense. I'm discussing CoP while still on my first cup of coffee

Susan

 

[Mathman]

No matter, why do you believe it is a minor penalty if Chuckum believes the -l can add up if there are more than one wrongedge takeoff?

Well, it's minor compared to falling, underrotating and other kinds of mistakes. Even in PCSs an extra point in, say, choreography, gives a lady 1.6 extra points and a man 2.0 extra points overall, so you could say that this is more important than a flutz penalty.

But as we have seen, some contests are decided by only a fraction of a point, so in that sense any mistake you make, however "minor," might be the difference between winning and losing.

What happens to the 7th (or 8th) jump pass? Is it worth giving up the jump if the skater knows he/she is going to flutz (and they do)? That might give this rival even a bigger points advantage. right?

A skater would not just omit the last jumping pass. He or she would just substitute a different jump.

There is no requirement that a skater has to do a Lutz at all. So for that last jumping pass the skater could do a loop or a Salchow or, as a last resort, a double Axel if they are afraid of losing too many points on their flutz.

A double Axel with +1 GOE = 4.5 points compared to a bad flutz which might only get you 4.0 (6 + -2 GOE).

In the Grand Prix final Mao Asada did 3A, 3F+3T, 3Lz(e), 3Lo, 3F+3Lo, 2A+2Lo+2Lo, 2A. If she were really afraid of that "e" call (she got 5 points for the flutz) she could in principle have changed it to a Salchow (4.5 points + the possibility of GOE).

Are you saying that a skater can get plusses for a correct takeoff? Why? That's as it should be. Most skaters do correct takeoffs.

As Decker points out, you don't get positive GOEs just for the correct edge take-off. But if the take-off edge is correct, then you at least have the possibility of earning positive GOEs if other aspects of the jump are superior.

If you get an "e," you cannot earn positive GOEs even if everything else about the jump is outstanding.

So part of the penalty for flutzing is that you lose the potential for possibly earning extra points.

 

[Mathman]

As I understand it, this is the correct use of GOE. It acknowledges the differences among an almost-failed element, an element that is properly executed but no more, and "holy smoke! did you see that?"

For the edge call, I think the GOEs are being used improperly because the caller directs the judges as to the range of marks that they are allowed to give.

For an underrotation, for instance, the tech specialist says "that was only a double." That decision falls under the responsibilty of the technical panel and results in a reduction of base value.

But the judges must still judge the quality of the jump. They can give positive, negative, or 0 GOE according to their judgement. The underrotation itself is a negative factor (so most underrotated jumps do get a negative GOE), but it is left up to the judges how best to balance negative and positive features of the element.

For an "e" call, the tech specialist does not do anything that belongs to the natural domain of the tech panel. Instead, the tech specialist tells the judges, you may not give a non-negative GOE to this element no matter what you thought of it.

So in that sense I think the rule distorts the intended role of the judges.

 

[childfreegirl]

Praise to be. I can't believe they haven't noticed that the definition of a Lutz includes a back outside takeoff which is what makes a Lutz different from a Flip.

ITA. I'm probably in the minority here, but I'm of the opinion that if you take off from the inside edge, it should be called a flip, even if that change happens at the last second. And if you Zayak, then the score should reflect it. I know juvenile level skaters who are learning not to flutz. If they can do it...

Maybe they could legalize the Flutz and call it a Rockover Flip?

God, I hope not.

 

[Mathman]

It will be very interesting to me to see how all this plays out.

The two exteme positions, it seems to me, are:

(A) When you do a Lutz, a wrong edge take-off is just another kind of error, like two-footing the landing, or a weak body position in the air. This should be reflected in the GOE along with other pluses and minuses of the element.

(B) Stop the program! What the ding-dong was that?! You have just insulted the memory of Alois Lutz. Get off the ice and don't come back until you learn how to do it right.

The ISU seems to be searching for that elusive middle ground.

 

[decker]

I knew I'd confuzzle something due to lack of caffeine! I meant to say only that differentiation of quality is correct use of GOE ... not the edge rule. That is, if Lola does a correct-edge takeoff, there is no issue of GOE abuse. Just perfectly proper marking of how good the jump was.

Susan

 

[gkelly]

For the edge call, I think the GOEs are being used improperly because the caller directs the judges as to the range of marks that they are allowed to give.

For an underrotation, for instance, the tech specialist says "that was only a double." That decision falls under the responsibilty of the technical panel and results in a reduction of base value.

But the judges must still judge the quality of the jump. They can give positive, negative, or 0 GOE according to their judgement.

No, that's not true. For the first year or two of the new system they were calling underrotated triples as doubles and underrotated quads as triples, but that led to some problems with the Zayak rule. (E.g., a program with a downgraded quad and two triple toes would end up not getting credit for the last triple toe -- this happened to Michael Weiss at one of the Grand Prix events the first year.)

The way it works now is that the downgraded jump is called as the attempted jump, with a downgrade, indicated by a < mark in the protocols. The base mark for the downgraded triple is that of a double (and similarly downgraded quads or doubles earn the base marks of triples or singles, respectively), but the jump is not called as if it were the lower-revolution jump.

And the GOE MUST be negative. See the entry for "downgraded" here:
http://www.usfigureskating.org/content/establishingGOE-singles.pdf

For BOTH downgraded jumps and jumps starting from the wrong edge, the required GOE reductions are exactly the same: -1 to -3, -GOE

So downgrades and wrong-edge takeoffs are handled exactly the same as far as the technical specialist's decision dictating what GOEs the judges may or may not award.

The biggest difference is that the downgraded jump also loses a significant amount of base value in addition to the mandatory negative GOE, whereas a fully rotated jump that takes off from the wrong edge is penalized only by the negative GOE