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

[hockeyfan228]

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.

I disagree. The quality of the takeoff is absolutely relevant to the quality of the element, which is what GOE is supposed to take into consideration, just as the amount of rotation is absolutely relevant to the qualify of the element, as is the quality of the landing. The rules have created three areas where the technical panel requires the judges to mark to specific standards, since, according to the protocols, they weren't judging appropriately:

1. Falls, -3 across the board. The -1 penalty is separate, and imposed by the technical panel, like rules violations, over/under length penalties, etc.
2. Underrotations > .25, appropriate -GOE (in the beginning), no more than 0 GOE in later incarnations.
3. Incorrect edge takeoff, max GOE -1

The judges should have been doing this on their own, but from the protocols, it was clear that they weren't. There were some cases of blatant falls in the early years where the judges weren't entering -3 GOE (could have been an entry error, or maybe not), and rink-long telegraphs that required -2 or -3 from the judges, as well as a start value of no less than 0, as the original rules stated that to get a +1, all phases of the jump had to be good, that routinely got + GOE. Fuggedabout flutzes and lips.

I think its a valid argument to say that underrotations have a double-penalty that is excessive, and that underrotations should be given an automatic -3 GOE, for example. (I think GOE should be on a sliding scale based on base score, instead of one point per GOE on all triples and quads, but that's another story.) At the same time, I'd prefer to see automatic deductions for falls to be based on a percentage of [base-GOE], so that a fall would get a deduction of, for example, 50% of [base less value of -3 GOE]. In the case of a 4T, this would be 50% of [9-3], or 3 points instead of 1. In the case of a 3A, this would be 50% of (7.5-3) or 2.25 instead of 1. I think -1 for a fall on a non-element is reasonable, but that falls on elements should be penalized in accordance to the base score.

 

[hockeyfan228]

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

In what protocol did the caller ever change the jump due to definition? Without examples, it's impossible to substantiate that this was ever an issue or concern.

 

[daisies]

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

That's not quite true. A fall is an automatic -3 plus -1 fall deduction in the short program. In the long program, however, a judge is supposed to "reduce" by -3 the GOE he/she would have given had there not been a fall, with the caveat that the end result GOE must be negative. So, if everything else about the jump was spectacular, it is possible that a jump with a fall in the long program could get -1 (unlikely) or -2 (more plausible). Then on top of that, there is, of course, the automatic -1 for the fall.

 

[Mathman]

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

If a jump is scored 3Lz< + -3 GOE, does the skater end up with 1.9 - 3.0 = -1.1 points?

Or with 1.9 + -1 GOE = +0.9 (like a double)?

So any way you look at it, an underrotated triple is worse than a double, yes?

And an underrotated triple Lutz with correct take-off edge is much, much worse than a fully rotated flutz.

The rules have created three areas where the technical panel requires the judges to mark to specific standards, since, according to the protocols, they weren't judging appropriately:

I think this supports my opinion that in these areas the GOEs are not being used in the way that the CoP originally intended.

The intention ws that the tech panel would determine which element was performed. Then the judges would weigh in with reward/punishment for quality.

The ISU didn't like the scores that the judges were giving out, so they took some of that authority away from them.

Is that it?

I believe that all along it has been Coinquanta's intent to put more and more power into the hands of the tech specialists (who work directly for Cinquanta), and leave less and less in the hands of the judges (who work for their member federations).

 

[gkelly]

If a jump is scored 3Lz< + -3 GOE, does the skater end up with 1.9 - 3.0 = -1.1 points?

Or with 1.9 + -1 GOE = +0.9 (like a double)?

The latter.

So any way you look at it, an underrotated triple is worse than a double, yes?

Yup. Personally I think that slightly-more-than-90-degrees underrotated but otherwise nicely landed jumps are penalized far too harshly, but I can't think of an easy way to penalize them appropriately and also allow for an appropriately harsh penalty for jumps that are underrotated by the same amount with additional errors.

 

[Mathman]

...but I can't think of an easy way to penalize them appropriately and also allow for an appropriately harsh penalty for jumps that are underrotated by the same amount with additional errors.

What would you think of doing the same as with the "e"?

You slap them with a "u", they get full base value, then -1 to -3 GOE (fully weighted). So a two-and-a half Lutz might end up with 4 points, about the same as a fully rotated flutz.

 

[gkelly]

What would you think of doing the same as with the "e"?

You slap them with a "u", they get full base value, then -1 to -3 GOE (fully weighted). So a two-and-a half Lutz might end up with 4 points, about the same as a fully rotated flutz.

Something like that, but it would need to be more complicated than that.

Underrotated by more than 180 degrees I think should be downgraded to the lesser-rotation jump and handled as is currently the case, and in cases where it's not part of a combination with a superior other jump the final GOE would be -2 or -3 even for a controlled landing on one foot, -3 for sure with other problems.

Between 90 (or maybe even 45 or so) and 180 degrees, I'd like to see it get a "u" or "<" that automatically deducts something from the base value of the jump separate from the GOE awarded by the judges, but possibly using the same increments as the GOEs and less than the difference between the fully rotated jump (e.g., triple) and the lesser-rotation (e.g., double) jump.

So, let's say a triple loop (base mark 5.0) that's underrotated by just over a quarter turn but otherwise landed on one foot with control and flow out would get a base mark of 4.0 after the underrotation deduction. Then the judges could also take off -1 or -2 in GOE for problems with the air (rotation) and/or landing phases related to the underrotation, but they would not be required to do so because the underrotation is already penalized with a separate deduction and it might have looked clean from their angle. For a solo jump the GOE of a jump called as underrotated could be mandated to be no more than 0, but if only one jump in a combination or sequence is downgraded the GOE for the combo/sequence as a whole could be +1 or +2 if the rest of the element is good enough.

On the other hand, a jump that's underrotated by almost half a turn AND also lands on two feet or has a hand down or step out would get the "u" deduction from the technical panel that would lower the base mark and would also have -2 or -3 GOE. I.e., it would be worth less than a jump with similar underrotation but no other errors.

And a jump that's under by that much and also has a fall would get the base mark "u" deduction and the -3 GOE and the 1.0 fall deduction, so it would be penalized more severely than a jump with similar rotation and no fall.

See what I mean, it's not simple to do this fairly?

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

(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.

With a wrong edge takeoff, one doesn't do a lutz; one attempts to do a lutz. It's not an error, it is doing another kind of jump which they should name, and end this discussion. As you pointed out with the originator of the jump, what's the point in calling it a Lutz. It isn't. It is much more similar to an unintentional Flip.

And then to judge the remainder of the jump as if only a small error occured is outrageous. The jump didn't happen. Call it a Flutz and judge that. Base value should be much lower. It's so much easier than a true lutz.

We know that certain skaters will never do a true lutz. So to use the modifier "Attempted" is so off the wall because they can never learn the true lutz at this point in their lives. To legalize the Flutz would allow them the extra jump pass which is what this is all about.

Why so many posters are so protective of a flutz is beyond me.

Joe

Oh, this is not what I wanted to do. I just want to know what is the total no. of points one can get for a flutz?

Joe

 

[Mathman]

To me, it is hard to know what the right thing to do is.

The most you can get for a flutz under the current rules is 5.0.

If they called it a flip, the same jump would get 5.5.

So maybe the flutzers should protest to the tech specialists that they want that extra half a point because what they really did was a flip.

 

[hockeyfan228]

With a wrong edge takeoff, one doesn't do a lutz; one attempts to do a lutz. It's not an error, it is doing another kind of jump which they should name, and end this discussion. As you pointed out with the originator of the jump, what's the point in calling it a Lutz. It isn't. It is much more similar to an unintentional Flip.

That is your opinion. It is not the rule.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

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.

This is kind of an aside but interesting anyway. My question is simply when a triple is downgraded because of incomplete rotations, wouldn't the resulting double be over rotated in most cases? So a judge would now be judging an overrotation for which there has never been much said about in the ISU rules, as far as I know.

Joe

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

I disagree. The quality of the takeoff is absolutely relevant to the quality of the element, which is what GOE is supposed to take into consideration, just as the amount of rotation is absolutely relevant to the qualify of the element, as is the quality of the landing. The rules have created three areas where the technical panel requires the judges to mark to specific standards, since, according to the protocols, they weren't judging appropriately:

I agree but in the case of a wrong edge takeoff, there wasn't an element to begin with. It did not satisfy the makeup of a true Lutz especially the part that makes a true Lutz different from all other jumps. It's a counter rotation, if you haven't noticed. If there is no counter rotation, then there is no Lutz. No? So the quality of a non existent element is not in question.

Joe

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

To me, it is hard to know what the right thing to do is.

The most you can get for a flutz under the current rules is 5.0.

If they called it a flip, the same jump would get 5.5.

So maybe the flutzers should protest to the tech specialists that they want that extra half a point because what they really did was a flip.

Yes, but the Flutzers (as opposed to others who only flutzed that day}, will get credit for a 7th or 8th jumping pass and add 5 points to their score. It's worth doing an illegal jump, and they didn't have to learn a true Lutz all year.

Joe

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

That is your opinion. It is not the rule.

It's more than opinion. It's common sense to me. Pray tell me the exact Rule.

Joe

 

[gkelly]

It did not satisfy the makeup of a true Lutz especially the part that makes a true Lutz different from all other jumps. It's a counter rotation, if you haven't noticed. If there is no counter rotation, then there is no Lutz.

A lutz has counterrotation that is released at takeoff.

A flip has no counterrotation.

A flutz has counterrotation in the approach that is prematurely released slightly before takeoff.

That is the difference.

 

[GoldMedalist]

I disagree. The quality of the takeoff is absolutely relevant to the quality of the element, which is what GOE is supposed to take into consideration, just as the amount of rotation is absolutely relevant to the qualify of the element, as is the quality of the landing.

With the current rules, someone who falls on a Flutz attempt receives the same amount of points as someone who falls on a Lutz. Obviously not fair.

A Flutz or Lip can have a "quality" takeoff, btw. Changing the edge on the Lutz/Flip is simply making the jump easier. It doesn't suddenly take away from the entire jump. That's like saying a Toeloop or Salchow never deserve much +GOE because their takeoffs are easier than other jumps.

Thus, the base value of the Lutz/Flip is what should be deducted from for a wrong edge mistake. Not GOE.

Also, the Flutz penalty should really be bigger than the Lip penalty. It's a more distracting problem. Because of the quicker take-off on the Flip, people changing edge there is less apparent and, to be honest, many methods of teaching that I've heard teach the Flip as a jump where you are on the flat or slight outside edge of the blade by the time you pull all the way back and leave the ice.

A lutz has counterrotation that is released at takeoff.

A flip has no counterrotation.

A flutz has counterrotation in the approach that is prematurely released slightly before takeoff.

That is the difference.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

I really think much of the pro-flutz posters as a lutz gone wrong are defending the rule as is, and not considering the true lutz as is.

A lutz does not only place itself in a pre counter rotation, it also takes off in that pre counter rotation. If it doesn't take off in that counter rotation edge it is not a Lutz. That's the way it is in Lutzland. Partial credit for a lutz-turned-flip maybe in the rules but I don't have to buy that.

Furthermore, I do not believe in attempts. An attempt to do a double axel but singling it is no longer a double axel An attempt to do a lutz but did a flip instead is no longer a lutz.

What will posters adhering to the rule say if the rule changes as to what I am saying? I will say, good, we will get less sloppy skating and more important, better sportsmanship.

Joe

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

A flip has no counterrotation.

Indeed, and it takes off on the back inside edge, the same as in a flutz, which also has no counterrotation. Not with a back inside edge, there is no counterrotation;

Joe

 

[Mathman]

This is kind of an aside but interesting anyway. My question is simply when a triple is downgraded because of incomplete rotations, wouldn't the resulting double be over rotated in most cases? So a judge would now be judging an overrotation for which there has never been much said about in the ISU rules, as far as I know.

I think the idea is that the triple is still judged as a triple rather than a double, even though it is downgraded. I think that is the point of calling it 3Lz< rather than 2Lz in the protocols.

So the judges are supposed to give a negative GOE for the underroation of the triple. But in the meantime the base value is also lowered to the same base value as a double.

This seems like double jeopardy, or something. The underroation is penalized twice. First you lose base value (from 6.0 to 1.9 for a Lutz), then you still lose some more GOE on top of that for underrotating the triple. This is what makes underrotation the worst mistake you can make, even worse than a fall.

By the way, if I understand correctly, the judges may take something off the GOE for any underrotation that they spot, even if it is less than 90 gedrees and the tech specialist doesn't call it.

 

[Mathman]

Yes, but the Flutzers (as opposed to others who only flutzed that day), will get credit for a 7th or 8th jumping pass and add 5 points to their score.

To legalize the Flutz would allow them the extra jump pass which is what this is all about.

Joe, you have raised this point several times, and I guess I don't understand what the question is.

Skaters have 7 (or 8) jumping passes to work with whether they flutz or not. No skater would omit a 7th (or 8th) jumping pass no matter what. They would do something with their last jumping pass, even if it is just a double Axel. I do not understand how this question is related to flutzing.

If the flutz were absolutely ruled out as not being an element at all, then the skaters who can't do a true Lutz would do something else instead, they wouldn't just leave out a jump. (?)