- Joined
- Mar 7, 2015
Between elements there is no BV. Minus one deduction and PCS cap as usual. Fall on other elements, same as jumps. That would be my proposal. I trust Canada to make sure everything is clear lol
ISU releases official agenda with proposals for 2024: age limits, jump limits and more
- Thread starter el henry
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2022
Yes, that is exactly right, and has been the case for a while now (if not always). The increase of the RD minimum TES this season was also not voted on by the congress.
Keep in mind that ISU congresses aren't usually held each year, so expected changes that need the approval of the congress are usually proposed sometime in advance (like for example the SP requirements in Juniors), while minimum TES might even have to be adjusted in the middle of a running season (if there are way too many or way too few qualifiers for Worlds or Euros/4CC).
Communication No. 2205, page 4
Two separate minimum TES standards applied to scores achieved in the 2017-18 and 2018-19 seasons, with the minimums for the scores achieved in the 2017-18 season having been raised by a few points compared to the TES minimums required for 2018 Worlds, Euros and Jr Worlds.
Example: Worlds minimums in the SP/RD
| 2018 Worlds - 2016/17 & 2017/18 | 2019 Worlds - 2017/18 | 2019 Worlds - 2018/19 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Men | 34 | 36 | 34 |
| Ladies | 27 | 29 | 29 |
| Pairs | 25 | 27 | 27 |
| Ice Dance | 29 | 30 | 31 |
Last edited:
In my book a mandatory reduction in Components, which at the moment it is not; but clearly if you fall outside an element there is a balance issue, there is a part of choreography not accomplished and a part of the program not presented.
Falls in spins and StSq or other elements (Pairs and Dance): good point, the idea is only to attach the "f" to jumps as there is now simply too much residual value. Thinking other elements I think a -4/-5 GOE plus possible reduction in Components is enough.
Last edited:
Exactly! Remember in the good old days of 6.0 the rulebook said "Elements marred by a fall must not be marked" i.e. score 0.
Now the 50% reduction could be up for an amendment on the floor at Congress, but we feel this 50% in general could be adequate. Also, at this moment we don't know if there will be changes to the SOV (base value of StSq and spins could go up as I understood), plus the reduction in jump passes (we were not aware of that when crafting this proposal) so it could also be a lot of changes with unclear impact at the same time.
Last edited:
Thinking about falls on step sequences, and choreo sequences, and maybe even death spirals or spin exits...
A fall at the beginning of some of these elements, or early enough that the requirements have not been met, would mean that the element really doesn't happen and gets no value; anything the skater does after the fall is just a placeholder
But a fall at/toward the end of a many-second leveled sequence or spin could mean that the skater has already achieved level 4 and already executed enough quality in 90+% of the element to achieve multiple positive GOE bullet points. The GOE reduction for the fall is -5, and currently the judges are not allowed to start from higher than +2 for an element with a fall. So that means an otherwise excellent element with a fall at the end could end up with a final GOE of -5, -4, or -3.
According to this proposal, would the base value of the element be halved from the level 4 value if achieved, and the -GOE pro-rated to that value, as with the jump examples?
Also, occasionally skaters are getting called for falls during a low-to-the-ice move when they lose enough control that body parts other than the blades touch the ice, even sometimes in something like a knee slide when their weight was already on body parts other than the blades but the loss of control resulted in a "fall" call.
In those cases, the skater didn't fall down -- they were already down -- so it wasn't as disruptive as falling from an upright position.
Just how much should those kinds of falls be penalized? Are the current penalties (-5 reduction in GOE with a maximum final GOE or -3; and -1.00 from total segment score) too harsh? Not harsh enough? Would removing the deduction from the TSS and halving the base value be a harsher penalty for level 4 elements than for level B elements? If so, do we really want to discourage skaters from "racking up points" by achieving higher levels on leveled elements for the same reasons as punishing falls on quad jumps more harshly than falls on doubles?
Removing the TSS deduction would make it more appropriate to mandate or at least encourage judges to reflect the error in PCS, regardless of the component scoring range. Especially for falls outside elements/element attempts. (The current maximums only apply to skaters who would otherwise be scoring 9s or higher.) But by how much? 0.25 from each component in a men's free skate would have a much bigger impact than 0.25 from one component in a women's short program, for example -- more or less proportional to the TES for those programs. Would that be preferable to the flat 1.00 deduction for all program types?
But of course there is no way to keep track of whether a judge who gave a skater 6.5 for a given component really wanted to give 6.75 and took off for the fall, or whether 6.5 was their overall assessment of that component for the program as a whole.
A fall at the beginning of some of these elements, or early enough that the requirements have not been met, would mean that the element really doesn't happen and gets no value; anything the skater does after the fall is just a placeholder
But a fall at/toward the end of a many-second leveled sequence or spin could mean that the skater has already achieved level 4 and already executed enough quality in 90+% of the element to achieve multiple positive GOE bullet points. The GOE reduction for the fall is -5, and currently the judges are not allowed to start from higher than +2 for an element with a fall. So that means an otherwise excellent element with a fall at the end could end up with a final GOE of -5, -4, or -3.
According to this proposal, would the base value of the element be halved from the level 4 value if achieved, and the -GOE pro-rated to that value, as with the jump examples?
Also, occasionally skaters are getting called for falls during a low-to-the-ice move when they lose enough control that body parts other than the blades touch the ice, even sometimes in something like a knee slide when their weight was already on body parts other than the blades but the loss of control resulted in a "fall" call.
In those cases, the skater didn't fall down -- they were already down -- so it wasn't as disruptive as falling from an upright position.
Just how much should those kinds of falls be penalized? Are the current penalties (-5 reduction in GOE with a maximum final GOE or -3; and -1.00 from total segment score) too harsh? Not harsh enough? Would removing the deduction from the TSS and halving the base value be a harsher penalty for level 4 elements than for level B elements? If so, do we really want to discourage skaters from "racking up points" by achieving higher levels on leveled elements for the same reasons as punishing falls on quad jumps more harshly than falls on doubles?
Removing the TSS deduction would make it more appropriate to mandate or at least encourage judges to reflect the error in PCS, regardless of the component scoring range. Especially for falls outside elements/element attempts. (The current maximums only apply to skaters who would otherwise be scoring 9s or higher.) But by how much? 0.25 from each component in a men's free skate would have a much bigger impact than 0.25 from one component in a women's short program, for example -- more or less proportional to the TES for those programs. Would that be preferable to the flat 1.00 deduction for all program types?
But of course there is no way to keep track of whether a judge who gave a skater 6.5 for a given component really wanted to give 6.75 and took off for the fall, or whether 6.5 was their overall assessment of that component for the program as a whole.
I don't think any skater is racking up points on levels for step sequences or spins. I made a table to compare the values of elements with a fall for step sequences, flying sit spin (assuming the fall didn't make the spin invalid) and toe loops. Base value vs highest current value, assuming the element is the first fall in the program:
| Element | BV | -5 GOE | Deduction |
| StSqB | 1.5 | 0.75 | -0.25 |
| StSq4 | 3.9 | 1.95 | 0.95 |
| FSSpB | 1.7 | 0.85 | -0.15 |
| FSSp4 | 3.0 | 1.5 | 0.5 |
| 1T | 0.4 | 0.2 | -0.8 |
| 4T | 9.5 | 4.25 | 3.25 |
So for step sequences and spins, the fall makes the spins and step sequences worth less than a point for level 4. With the jumps, the toe loop is in line with the base values for step sequences and spins going into a negative value for that element. The quad toe loop is worth more than the base value of a spin with a fall.
If I was a skater, falling on a quad gets more than the BV of a FSSp4. They're not being encouraged to rack up the points by working on step sequences or spins.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
I'm in favor of rule changes that enhance the risk/reward element of our sport.
For instance, I enjoy Ilia's skating. If he lands all those quads, he should be richly rewarded for it. If he falls, he should be severely punished. And I mean by more than currently. I'm fine with an element score of "0."
Similarly, I call for more severe punishments for downgrades, under-rotations, and edge calls. If you don't complete the element by the book, then did you really do it?
And while I'm on a rant, I call for public executions for not-really-illusion spin entries and not-really-butterfly spin exits.
I've called out Ilia because he takes the most risk, but sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, so remember the rule would include everyone else's favorites, too.
For instance, I enjoy Ilia's skating. If he lands all those quads, he should be richly rewarded for it. If he falls, he should be severely punished. And I mean by more than currently. I'm fine with an element score of "0."
Similarly, I call for more severe punishments for downgrades, under-rotations, and edge calls. If you don't complete the element by the book, then did you really do it?
And while I'm on a rant, I call for public executions for not-really-illusion spin entries and not-really-butterfly spin exits.
I've called out Ilia because he takes the most risk, but sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, so remember the rule would include everyone else's favorites, too.
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2015
I agree with your post. Small nuance : does Ilia take the most risk ? I don't ever feel he is ever going to miss his jumps... which is not the same when I watch some other quadsters
In that sense, he is so good that he is still skating within his comfort zone most of the times So he will get the reward for the risky elements, which is fair. But is it really a big risk for him ? Not so sure. He is just a better jumper.
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
Well, let's compromise and say he has the highest BV.I agree with your post. Small nuance : does Ilia take the most risk ? I don't ever feel he is ever going to miss his jumps... which is not the same when I watch some other quadsters
As for whether he misses? I think the only competition he had this season with a clean SP and a clean LP was Worlds, The others all had mistakes. US Nationals, for instance, had an awful LP. GPF had a 4A fall. And, he was beaten by Adam in France... so not invincible by any stretch.
They're removing illusions as counting for difficult entry/exit from an earlier communication, so hopefully no executions needed.
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2019
Try using search function. Pdfs have a built-in one
When voting for proposals, is it a simple "yay" or "nay"? Or is it possible for them to negotiate the proposal for a consensus to pass it? For example, instead of raising the age to 21, as per the proposal, can they agree on making it 20?
Or can they only vote on the proposal as it is set forth?
Or can they only vote on the proposal as it is set forth?
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2019
Could you elaborate?
In this case I actually agree with the ISU. Apart from providing a rough framework (which they do), switching feds is none of the ISU's business. This is between the involved national feds which are all separate legal entities and might have different regulations. One might blame them for not thinking of the athletes.
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
When I searched for "Team" I got a TON of info on Synchro, but I didn't see anything related to the Olympic Team Event. Of course, I absolutely could have missed it.
Speaking of which... there is a lot dedicated to Synchro, which I didn't anticipate. I guess that's because it's not a discipline that interests me, although clearly the Rules Committee is interested. All that text is Byzantine to me.
I don't think the ISU has jurisdiction over the Olympic team event? My understanding is that the IOC can follow or ignore ISU rules as it sees fit. It has generally followed them in the recent case, but I'm not sure that isn't simply about trying to cover its own back.
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2023
blah, at this point just go back to 6.0 and call it a day
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2014
Didn't Tara Lipinski only have six jumping passes? Was that because she could pack all the difficulty she needed in six or was six just the most common back then? If so, why did the women go up to seven in the first place?
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2019
I made an attempt to watch synchro once, at nationals, since we were there anyway, and it’s not for me.
Similar threads
