ISU Communication 1494

[mskater93]

I don't know about the jumps but a change of edge spiral is technically 6 seconds also. a 3 sec hold before and a 3 sec hold after the change.

Actually, a COE spiral is TWO separate spirals - an inside edge spiral and an outside edge spiral (depending on how the change is completed, starting edge is different) and won't count as the 6 second minimum if held 3/3. The 6 second rule applies to one edge and one spiral position since everyone started grabbing at their blade as soon as one spiral for 3 seconds was achieved this past season.

 

[Winnipeg]

I think Carolina Kostner should be penalized for her long entrances into some of her jumps. She travels almost the length of the rink on setups.

I agree but isn't that accounted for in the deductions available from the base value for a jump?

 

[gkelly]

I agree but isn't that accounted for in the deductions available from the base value for a jump?

Yes, and it could also affect the Transitions component, and possibly Choreography as well.

 

[saltypig]

Hmmm...this is quite interesting. While I'm not really into the scoring of programs (I just like to watch clean performances) - here is what I noticed. Only the underlined items in the link in the original post have changed. I guess the big thing is while they increased the value of the triple axel and quads they also increased the negative GOE on those jumps.

Here is a link to the old system for those that want to compare:

http://isu.sportcentric.net/db//files/serve.php?id=482

There is also seems to be some confusion (or maybe I'm the one confused) about deduction and reduction. A reduction is a reduction of the base score and not like a deduction for falling. Take for example - long preparation gets a -1 reduction from the element's base score which was already in the old rules. Please correct me if I'm wrong I'm only a novice when it comes to COP.:scratch:

 

[gkelly]

There is also seems to be some confusion (or maybe I'm the one confused) about deduction and reduction. A reduction is a reduction of the base score and not like a deduction for falling. Take for example - long preparation gets a -1 reduction from the element's base score which was already in the old rules.

Yes, that's true.

The GOE reductions (minuses) are often very similar to the mandatory deductions on required elements in the short program under the 6.0 system, which is why people tend to refer to them as "deductions" even though that terminology has a different meaning in the current system.

 

[ChrisH]

When I looked at previous editions of the "Guidelines for marking GOE of Single/Pair Elements", the shorthand was confusing. Now I think I've figured out what the shorthand means.

"-GOE" means that the overall grade the judges give needs to be -1, -2, or -3 (that is, negative). "-3" means that the grade the judges give should be reduced by 3 due that type of error, but the overall grade doesn't have to be -3. Contrast that with "GOE –3", which means that the overall grade is automatically -3. So the "–3, –GOE" for a fall on a solo jump can be graded -1 or -2.

I am a bit dissaponted that the double penalty on downgrade is not really solved.

Really sad, especially with respect to combos/sequences where I think there is still a triple penalty.

And there's no indication that the downgrading rules for the technical specialist will be improved either. Now, if a jump were downgraded due to two or more serious types of errors, that would work. Like if a jump was more than 1/4 turn under-rotated and two-footed. But downgrades due to being slightly more than 1/4 turn under-rotated lacks real justification.

They increased the value for the Quads - but also increased the deductions for a fall!

Right. The negative scaler for quads has increased. It's now -1.6 instead of -1.0. The positive scaler for quads remains at +1.0 though.

They still haven't corrected the problem that a poor 2A is worth more than a poor 3T. The base value and the positive scaler for the 2A is too high.

 

[gkelly]

And there's no indication that the downgrading rules for the technical specialist will be improved either. Now, if a jump were downgraded due to two or more serious types of errors, that would work. Like if a jump was more than 1/4 turn under-rotated and two-footed. But downgrades due to being slightly more than 1/4 turn under-rotated lacks real justification.

"Downgrade" in this context means redefining the attempted jump as a jump of the same takeoff with one fewer revolution for purposes of assigning base mark (but not, since 2004, for purposes of counting repeated jumps).

Logically, downgrading a triple jump to a double (or quad to triple or double to single) based on underrotation makes sense -- calling a triple a double because of a two-foot landing doesn't make sense.

I do think that double penalty of required downgrade along with required negative GOE for a jump that's underrotated by just over 90 degrees is too harsh. But there are other possible solutions to that problem that have been discussed in other threads.

 

[Mathman]

Really sad, especially with respect to combos/sequences where I think there is still a triple penalty.

However, I see that one of the changes is to distinguish between downgrade of both jumps (-3, -GOE) and downgrade of only one jump (-1 to -2, -GOE).

Also, the judges have been given slightly more discretion in assigning negative GOEs to underrotaed jumps that are not downgraded (-1 to -2).

 

[dorispulaski]

The pair base values for throw triple axel and for throw quad toe & quad salchow (all of which have been done at one time or another) have not changed as for the SBS jumps, but the GOE for missing one has gone up.

I'm not particularly crazy about any of these changes.

I wish they would handle COP changes on a less frequent basis than every year-once an Olympiad would be quite enough.

 

[Medusa]

What I find a bit strange is that they increased the Quad-values by 0.8 - why not 1,0? That would make it easier for the commentators and the viewers. It's difficult anyway with that bonus in the second half - now you start with 9.8 - have to multiply that with 1.1 if it's in the second half and end up with 10.78. Then the complicated reductions for GOE - let's say someone double foots a Quad, you take 3.2 and end up with a number of 7.58. Try to explain that to a guy who is not that interested in figure skating or does not have the time to be.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

When I looked at previous editions of the "Guidelines for marking GOE of Single/Pair Elements", the shorthand was confusing. Now I think I've figured out what the shorthand means.

"-GOE" means that the overall grade the judges give needs to be -1, -2, or -3 (that is, negative). "-3" means that the grade the judges give should be reduced by 3 due that type of error, but the overall grade doesn't have to be -3. Contrast that with "GOE –3", which means that the overall grade is automatically -3. So the "–3, –GOE" for a fall on a solo jump can be graded -1 or -2.

ChrisH - I've gotten used to the minus GoEs and accepting the differences I see in the protocols. However, the plus GoEs have never been clear to me.

If skaters execute a text book jump by definition, I can understand them getting full base value. What is it that makes the scoring of some of them to get plus GoEs? What would make a perfect lutz by skater A better than a pefect lutz by skater B?. Is it just an arm in the air? the steps leading to the entrance of one was viewed as more difficult? the jump was in time with the music? All of these possibilities and more? If it is so, wouldn't one consider that these additional nuances are more in line with presentation than technical? The jump itself, after all, is the technical; the technique is the presentation, or maybe not? I dunno.

Joe

 

[fiercemao]

More crazy stuff jammed in this CoP scheme. I blame S&P for this ridiculous system.

 

[Mathman]

I've gotten used to the minus GoEs and accepting the differences I see in the protocols. However, the plus GoEs have never been clear to me.

If skaters execute a text book jump by definition, I can understand them getting full base value. What is it that makes the scoring of some of them to get plus GoEs? What would make a perfect lutz by skater A better than a pefect lutz by skater B?.

Here is the document that answers these questions. (Scroll down to page four for instructions to the judges about positive GOEs.)

http://www.isu.org/vsite/vfile/page/fileurl/0,11040,4844-168551-185769-65184-0-file,00.pdf

 

[silver.blades]

More crazy stuff jammed in this CoP scheme. I blame S&P for this ridiculous system.

That's not fair, they had nothing to do with the new system. If you must place blame, blame the cheating judges and federations at the Salt Lake Olys.

 

[Hsuhs]

Trying to figure who benefits the most from this. Would Buttle still be in 1st, would Joubert still be in 2nd?

 

[Bennett]

Trying to figure who benefits the most from this. Would Buttle still be in 1st, would Joubert still be in 2nd?

Totally. The only advantages for Joubert by this change would have been increases in points on 4T and 3A. But Jeff would have also increased points on 3A. Furthermore, he landed two 3As whereas Joubert just one, which would almost cancel out the margin that Joubert would have gotten by the added value on 4T.

4T 0.8 point increase
3A 0.7 point increase

Joubert 4T and 3A 1.5 point increase
Jeff 3A and 3A 1.4 point increase

 

[Hsuhs]

Even St and Sp considered? But what's the point then? Seems like Baboo better starts training an 8 clean triples program. Since he's outscored Buttle in PCS, he's got a chance.

 

[Bennett]

I forgot the SP. Yes, Joubert would score 0.8 more then. But still the large margin between the two would remain.

Steps wouldn't affect their scores. IIRC, I thought both got level 3s.

 

[Hsuhs]

I think it is safe to assume nothing has changed. Just as I thought.

 

[enlight78]

What I find a bit strange is that they increased the Quad-values by 0.8 - why not 1,0? That would make it easier for the commentators and the viewers. It's difficult anyway with that bonus in the second half - now you start with 9.8 - have to multiply that with 1.1 if it's in the second half and end up with 10.78. Then the complicated reductions for GOE - let's say someone double foots a Quad, you take 3.2 and end up with a number of 7.58. Try to explain that to a guy who is not that interested in figure skating or does not have the time to be.

commentators will just round it up probably. You neve hear in football about some drive being 38 and 3/8 yards long. When giving out quick information approximation is good enough.