Double penalty on under-rotation: Pros and Cons?

[Bennett]

I feel that the Worlds highlighted the problems embedded in the rule on the double penalty on under-rotated jumps, i.e., if your jump is downgraded, you also get minus GOE.

On the other hand, I am also wondering what may have been the rationales for setting this rule. I suppose there would be some good reasons as this rule has been there for a while.

 

[Wrlmy]

As I said earlier this season, double penalty is just too much IMO.
But, blatant, Sarah Hughes-like cheating should be penalized. It's poor sportsmanship.
Actually, double penalty is nothing new under COP. It's been done for few years. Are callers more strict now, or are skaters becoming poor jumpers?
I think jumps slightly short of rotation should receive minus GOE OR ur call.

 

[Mathman]

I believe that the ISU instructed the tech specialists to toughen up on underrotations at the same time that they added the wrong edge call. I think the reason was that judges were not following the rues for GOEs, allowing skaters to get away with both underrotation and wrong edges without penalty.

If the judges were strict, there would be no need for these calls at all. For a severe underroation on a legitimate triple toe attempt, for instance, the judges could give as much as a -3 GOE. The value of the jump would then be reduced to 1 point instead of 4.

Same with edge calls. A triple flutz would be worth only 3 points instead of 6. All this could be done simply by the judges following the GOE guidelines more strictly.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

After the downgrade has been announced, do they still take off for the resulting overrotation? Anyone who knows, please. Not interested in conjecture. I can do that.

Joe

 

[gkelly]

If the judges were strict, there would be no need for these calls at all. For a severe underroation on a legitimate triple toe attempt, for instance, the judges could give as much as a -3 GOE. The value of the jump would then be reduced to 1 point instead of 4.

That would be fairer than a double penalty for jumps in which the only error is the underrotation.

But how can we penalize underrotation and other errors separately so that a jump that's a jump that's underrotated by ~150+ degrees but otherwise landed on one foot with control gets penalized by -3 by most judges, and a jump that's short by ~150 degrees and comes down on two feet without control and the skater stumbles out and maybe puts a hand down is penalized more severely?

On the other hand, say a skater does a three-jump combination that was entered with good speed and no telegraphing, had beautiful air positions with good height and distance and flowing landings on the first two jumps, and the third jump was short of rotation? Without the third jump, judges might have considered +2 for the combination; shouldn't +1 or at least 0 be an option for the whole combination even with the downgrade on the last jump?

Maybe the underrotation penalty needs to be less severe than reducing the base value of the jump to one fewer rotation but it needs to be applied automatically by the technical panel. And then judges would be informed of the underrotation but would be free to reduce the GOE because of the underrotation or not depending on quality, to give additional penalties for other errors up to the maximum of -3, and would be allowed to balance the underrotation GOE reductions with positive GOEs for other parts of the elements so that the maximum GOE for jumps with that call would be -1 for solo jumps and 0 for combos, or maybe even +1 for three-jump combos.

And of course jumps short by 180 degrees or more should be downgraded to the lower revolution jump as is currently the case.

 

[Mathman]

After the downgrade has been announced, do they still take off for the resulting overrotation?

No.

There is no penalty (ever) in the rules for overrotation, unless it results in a bad landing (wrong edge, two-foot, etc.)

A downgraded triple is not listed in the protocols as an overrated double. It is an underrotated triple, designated, for instance, 3T<.

What the controversy is about is that after you lose points for the downgrade, then you lose even more points in GOE for underrotation. So you are penalized twice for the same thing (underrotation.)

If a jump is downgraded by the tech specialist, the judges are required to give a GOE of -1, -2 or -3 as an additional penalty on top of the downgrade.

However, the GOEs are pro-rated. That is, the rules for negative GOEs on doubles are applied.

Example: A tiple toe is worth 4.0 points. If the caller says 3T<, the base value is reduced to 1.3 points. The permissible GOEs from the judges result in an additional reduction of either 0.3 points (-1 GOE), 0.6 points (-2 GOE) or 1 point (-3 GOE.)

So the most you can get for an underrotaed triple toe is 1.0 point, and the least you can get is 0.3 point.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

what about Quads, as an example? Downgraded to a Triple still would bring in big scores.

Has anyone ever attempted a quad that was downgraded for underrotation?

Although he was not in the CoP scoring, Michael Weiss could do the 4 rotations at least 8 out of 10 tries but he had the habit of two-footing them..

Johnny Weir just did that in Gotenborg. Did he get creit for the rotations?

MM - If you please: A downgraded Quad Toe gets a ??? score. A two-footed landing gets a ??? score. A Fall gets a ??? score.

Joe
.

 

[Buttercup]

Johnny's quad was downgraded, he got the negative GOEs, and ended up with only 1.57 for the element. So that didn't work out too well for him.

 

[jcoates]

Buttercup is correct. In Johnny's case, likely b/c he does them so rarely, his quad attempts tend to be underrotated and two-footed. Others with flawed quads who attempt them more regularly (Lambiel, Lysacek, etc.) usually fully rotate the jump but may lose a -1 to -3 on GOE for two-footed or turned out landings. Even Buttle gets full credit for the rotation when he does quad toes then loses points for the fall and GOE. Those errors still add up to more points than an error like Johnny's does.

 

[Mathman]

Has anyone ever attempted a quad that was downgraded for underrotation?

It's not uncommon. As Buttercup and JCoates noted, at Worlds's Weir's 4T was downgraded and also received -2.43 additional penalty for underrotation and ended up with only 1.57 for the element.

Takshashi's second quad was downgraded, plus he received -3.00 GOE, plus he was tagged with a "+SEQ" (a 20% penalty for doing a second quad not in combo), and ended up with 0.20 points for the element. (Besides that, the SEQ was punished again by taking away all cerdit for his final combo.)

Lambiel's second 4T was downgraded. He got a base score of 4.40 (including second half 10% bonus), a -2.43 GOE, and ended up with 1.97 for the element.

MM - If you please: A downgraded Quad Toe gets a ??? score.

1.0 to 3.0 points, depending on GOE.

A two-footed landing gets a ??? score.

6.0 to 8.0, depending on GOE.

A Fall gets a ??? score.

5.0

 

[Mathman]

But how can we penalize underrotation and other errors separately so that a jump that's a jump that's underrotated by ~150+ degrees but otherwise landed on one foot with control gets penalized by -3 by most judges, and a jump that's short by ~150 degrees and comes down on two feet without control and the skater stumbles out and maybe puts a hand down is penalized more severely?...

In general, I think we are going in the wrong direction when we pile on more and more nit-picky rules. It seems to me that the GOE should be returned to its original function -- to allow the judges to evaluate the overall quality of the jump.

I think that the current range of -3 to +3 is quite adequate to punish bad technique and reward good, and that the judges are competent to weight bad features against good and come up with an overall mark. Equally well-intentioned, unbiased and expert judges will disagree on the relative weights to assign to different good and bad features, but that's figure skating.

As to the question about extra penalties for someone who was truly, truly awful, rather than just awful, by the time you take -3 GOE off a 4-point element, maybe it doesn't matter too much that the truly, truly awful guy really deserved only a 0.9.

 

[Tinymavy15]

Johnny's quad was downgraded, he got the negative GOEs, and ended up with only 1.57 for the element. So that didn't work out too well for him.

It is times like that when you just shake your head at CoP. Jonny's quad wasn't that bad. I really didn't see any under-rotation, to me it looked a little overrated and double footed. This should have given him 2 or so points off the base value, a net total of 7 points. 1.57 is absurd. It is amazing to me that he is willing to try it again.

 

[Bennett]

It's not uncommon. As Buttercup and JCoates noted, at Worlds's Weir's 4T was downgraded and also received -2.43 additional penalty for underrotation and ended up with only 1.57 for the element.

In Johnny's case, the two-foot may have been at least equally a problem. He clearly two-footed, which would be penalized by -2 GOE (If it's a slight two-foot, he would have gotten -1). Then he underrotated. Underrotation is penalized by -2 GOE. So -2.43 wouldn't be too bad (as far as within the context under the current system).


--------------------
I personally feel that double penalty is a bit too much.

On the other hand, if you get a downgrade on your triple jump, then it makes sense to me that you won't get the credit for a triple jump.
Then it also makes sense to me that you won't get plus GOE. I feel that that may be the logic behind it.

But perhaps -2 on 1/4 underrotation may be a bit too much.

 

[Mathman]

In Johnny's case, the two-foot may have been at least equally a problem. He clearly two-footed, which would be penalized by -2 GOE (If it's a slight two-foot, he would have gotten -1). Then he underrotated. Underrotation is penalized by -2 GOE. So -2.43 wouldn't be too bad (as far as within the context under the current system).

Minus 2.43 is about right for GOE. But that's on top of losing 5 points already for underrotation. So his penalty was 7.43 points on that element.

Was it really that bad?

...Then it also makes sense to me that you won't get plus GOE. I feel that that may be the logic behind it.

I believe the "logic behind it" is this. When the CoP first came out it was expected that the judges would give out significant negative GOEs for mistakes like cheating the landing and wrong edge take-offs.

They didn't. So the ISU took that prerogative away from the judges and gave it to the technical panel.

Has anyone ever attempted a quad that was downgraded for underrotation?

I wanted tio add...although sometimes quads are downgraded, it is unusual for a man to have a triple jump downgraded. Ladies, on the other hand, are dinged for underrotation often, especially little ladies like Caroline Zhang.

Viva la difference -- men can launch themselves into spectaclar leaps with greater muscular vigor than ladies can.

 

[PolymerBob]

My problem with all this is the sharp delineation between good and bad for something that can’t be measured. (What the heck does that mean??) If you are playing football, and your team is on the 30 yard line, and you move the ball 30.05 yards, you get 6 points. But if you move the ball 29.95 yards, you get nothing. That difference of 0.1 yard, just 3.6 inches, is the difference between score and nothing.

Now that’s not too bad since there are lines on the field to tell us how far the ball is moved.

Now in skating, if a skater underrotates by 89.9 degrees, he/she gets full credit, but if the skater underrotates by 90.1 degrees, he is penalized. Now how is such a small difference measured? Is there a measurement device? Is there a panel of tech callers to vote on the issue? Or is there just one tech caller? Is he impartial, or does he happen to like or dislike a particular skater?

 

[Kinga]

UR - 1.0 to 3.0 points, depending on GOE.
two foot landing - 6.0 to 8.0 , depending on GOE.
fall 5.0

For me that is insane that a jump with a fall gets so much more points than a slight UR. It disturbs the flow of the programme so much more but it is more rewarded, if only the jump is fully rotated. THAT IS MADNESS! The same concerns two foot landing. For me two foot landing is much worse than small UR. Somehow I feel that THIS is cheating (correct me if I am wrong, under 6.0 system two-foot landing was treated much harsher?) more than URing. Two foot is ugly... 1/4 UR you can BARELY notice and it does not distrupts the performance.
Aside from UR... I am just wondering.... If judges are so disrupted with f.e Yukari's leg wrap, why aren't they equally disrupted with ugly two-footing, step out or hand down? For me, it seems the latter set is much worse. But her leg wrap seems to be punished more than f.e two-footed jump.

 

[Medusa]

(correct me if I am wrong, under 6.0 system two-foot landing was treated much harsher?)

Watch Oksana Baiul's Gold-medal winning performance.

 

[Buttercup]

This thread has made me think again about the quad debate from Worlds and about Joubert's comment about taking risks. I don't think by any means that Buttle was skating an easy program - to the contrary - but it does appear to me that there is so much that can go wrong when you do quads compared to other elements, and that the risk of putting one or more into your program is not being adequately rewarded, while screwing one up can be very harshly punished (e.g. Johnny, Takahashi). The question is, are quads important to the sport? If they are, then the way they are marked needs to be re-thought.

Either way, the way UR is penalized has bothered my the last few seasons, particularly the fact that it costs a skater more than a fall. I think it would be fairest to grade it as the planned jump but make it a -3 GOE; harsher than other mistakes and problems with technique, but not as bad as a fall because there would be no -1 deduction.

 

[Mathman]

Now in skating, if a skater underrotates by 89.9 degrees, he/she gets full credit, but if the skater underrotates by 90.1 degrees, he is penalized. Now how is such a small difference measured? Is there a measurement device? Is there a panel of tech callers to vote on the issue? Or is there just one tech caller? Is he impartial, or does he happen to like or dislike a particular skater?

There is a three-person technical panel that votes on it. The Technical Controller, the Techical Specialist ("caller") and the Assistant Technical Specialist. (I think it is rare that the original call of the tech specialist is challenged by the other two, however.)

There is no measuring device except eyeballing it. But the tech panel does have access to slow motion instant replay (unlike an edge call, where the infraction must be "obvious (to the tech panel) in real time.")

Is the tech caller impartial? Of course he is -- just ask Cinquanta!

Correct me if I am wrong, under 6.0 system two-foot landing was treated much harsher?

Watch Oksana Baiul's Gold-medal winning performance.

It's hard to say, because all errors were swept up into one mark -- an artificial placeholder at that.

However, if you two-footed your landing the jump wasn't "ratified." I'm not sure what this "ratification" was good for in terms of scores, but for instance Michael Weiss was naver able to claim on his web-page that he "landed a quad" because he always two-footed the landing (often after full rotations, however -- I think he even rotated a couple of two-footed quad Lutzes near the end of his career).

I know that U.S. television commentators likeDick Button always pointed out double-footed landings and made remarks like, oh, too bad, he won't get credit for that. (But the judges were free to give or to withhold as much credit as they liked.)

If you look up a skater's "official jump statistics," double-footed landings are always so designated, like they are not "really" a triple toe after all.

On the other hand, under 6.0 cheated landings and flutzing did not carry any specific penalty, the judges just gave slightly lower scores if the wanted to.

 

[sillylionlove]

ok...this all makes me so glad I am not a judge.

Now I got lost halfway through this thread...but I do want to say this.....
a jump is suppossed to be landed on one foot. So when it's landed on two feet there should be a deduction...a big one since they didn't really land the jump...they needed that extra foot to help them land or their butt would be getting a little icey..but if they land on one foot but are slightly underrotated like by 1/4 then it should not be penalized as much as a two footed landing because they landed the jump they just didn't get all the way around.When I am watching I can usually see a two footed landing but underroated by 1/4...usually I can't tell unless it's pointed out or they show it in slow motion.

Yeah I know not techincal here but I just don't get the techincal stuff too much