What if the "flutz" and "lip" jumps were ratified?

[gourry]

In my mind, it just makes more sense to just say, "Okay. This has technically become a new jump, so we might as well give it a base value and grade it on how it's performed." The fact of the matter is, right edge or not, it could still be done with three beautifully positioned and complete revolutions in the air with a clean landing worthy of positive points. Somehow it just makes more sense to say, fine, a flutz is worth a base of 3.0 (just an example), and have it be judged it from there. That way, you are awarding the true lutz more and it can't be taken advantage of by a skater who can't properly do one adding it as a part of their program for points or just to have it, even though they know they will have edge deductions and negative GoE's for their "attempt."

I'm not so sure whether it makes sense or not but if we regard flutz and lip as ratified new jumps, technically aren't skaters supposed to learn and excute all four flip, lutz, lip and flutz to maximize their scores? In that way, they can do at least two more triples.
That sounds very, very strange. It seems to be very funny answer to me.

 

[Mathman]

I'm not so sure whether it makes sense or not but if we regard flutz and lip as ratified new jumps, technically aren't skaters supposed to learn and excute all four flip, lutz, lip and flutz to maximize their scores? In that way, they can do at least two more triples.

That sounds very, very strange. It seems to be very funny answer to me.

That's a great point. If the flutz and lip were ratified, without a further change in the number of passes and the Zayak rule, a skater (lady) could present this jump card:

3Lz, 3F, 3flz, 3lip, 3flz+2T, 3lip+2T, 2A.

There is another strange thing, too. If the flutz were a recognized jump, which a skater could do without penalty, then what would be the rationale for giving it a lower base value than easier jumps like the toe-loop and Salchow?

The suggestions on the board have mostly been somewhere around 3 points base value for a correctly done flutz -- less than a double Axel. This means that we have not really recognized the flutz after all. Three points is about what a skater can get for a flutz already, after GOE deductions for wrong edge.

So this would not really be a change. Skaters would still try to do a real Lutz to get the full six points, and if they messed up the entry they would have to settle for fewer points.

I still like the coaches' proposal. If you are worried about definitions, come up with a new jump with its own definition. That will satisfy everyone, and have the additional advantage that the top skaters will not be able to leave other jumps, like the loop, out of their programs.

 

[ManyCairns]

I still like the coaches' proposal. If you are worried about definitions, come up with a new jump with its own definition. That will satisfy everyone, and have the additional advantage that the top skaters will not be able to leave other jumps, like the loop, out of their programs.

I'm liking this more and more, too, as the discussion has unfolded. We've seen here right on this thread that, to some reasonable minds, a flutz is ultimately a flip, even if the entry was different and the switch of edge occurred right before takeoff. Others see it as a different jump because of the different approach and entry into the rotations by the arms/upper body.

As the coaches propose, let's just call it one jump, but give more points to the harder lutz/outside edge takeoff.

 

[gkelly]

As the coaches propose, let's just call it one jump, but give more points to the harder lutz/outside edge takeoff.

But that penalizes skaters who really can do the jumps as two completely different takeoffs clearly from the outside or inside edges.

Personally, I'm quite satisfied with the way they are currently handled: jumps called "e" with blatant edge change must have negative GOE, jumps called with "!" for a possible/minor edge change will be penalized slightly but other aspects of the element especially in combination can allow for positive GOEs where appropriate, and jumps indisputably done from the correct edge will be rewarded or penalized for whatever else is good or bad about them. Or I suppose if the outside edge takeoff is especially strong on a lutz, that in itself could make the difference to bump up the GOE one point higher.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

Nonsense. Good jumpers will attempt a perfect lutz. Bad jumpers will Never Ever do a perfect lutz. Bad jumpers know how to get an extra jump pass without attempting and turning a difficult jump into a much easier one. Show a back outside edge, straighten that edge to a flat, then put pressure on the inside edge and you have a perect Flutz with big cop points and only a -1 deduction because you fooled the caller who thought you were attempting a ratified Lutz jump.

I still like the coaches' proposal. If you are worried about definitions, come up with a new jump with its own definition. That will satisfy everyone, and have the additional advantage that the top skaters will not be able to leave other jumps, like the loop, out of their programs.

Which coach said that? New definitions??? when they can't satisfy the ones in existent. BTW, I for one am not worried about the present definitions. If they re meant to be broken, say so. Put it in writing that a loop jump may at the discretion of the skater take off on two feet but must land on one.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

The suggestions on the board have mostly been somewhere around 3 points base value for a correctly done flutz -- less than a double Axel. This means that we have not really recognized the flutz after all. Three points is about what a skater can get for a flutz already, after GOE deductions for wrong edge. [/I]

Nonsense. Good jumpers will attempt a perfect lutz. Bad jumpers will Never Ever do a perfect lutz. Bad jumpers know how to get an extra jump pass without attempting and turning a difficult jump into a much easier one. Show a back outside edge, straighten that edge to a flat, then put pressure on the inside edge and you have a perect Flutz with big cop points and only a -1 deduction because you fooled the caller who thought you were attempting a ratified Lutz jump.

I still like the coaches' proposal. If you are worried about definitions, come up with a new jump with its own definition. That will satisfy everyone, and have the additional advantage that the top skaters will not be able to leave other jumps, like the loop, out of their programs.

Which coach said that? New definitions??? when they can't satisfy the ones in existent. BTW, I for one am not worried about the present definitions. If they re meant to be broken, say so. Put it in writing that a loop jump may at the discretion of the skater take off on two feet but must land on one.

 

[Mathman]

Which coach said that?

This was the Coaches' Committee that formulated a long list of recommendations for improvements to the CoP. For instance, they proposed much higher base values for the hardest elements like triple Axels and quads.

This list of proposals was debated at some length on the board. The proposals were forwarded to the ISU technical committee, but without any guarantee that the committee would give them a serious hearing.

We never did find out exactly which "internationally renowned" coaches actually took part in these proposals.

Personally, I'm quite satisfied with the way they are currently handled: jumps called "e" with blatant edge change must have negative GOE, jumps called with "!" for a possible/minor edge change will be penalized slightly but other aspects of the element especially in combination can allow for positive GOEs where appropriate, and jumps indisputably done from the correct edge will be rewarded or penalized for whatever else is good or bad about them. Or I suppose if the outside edge takeoff is especially strong on a lutz, that in itself could make the difference to bump up the GOE one point higher.

The main advantage that I see to the proposed "New Jump" is this. In any sporting event, you want the contest to be decided on the field of play, not by an arguable referee's decision.

The best thing is when you don't even notice that the sport has referees and judges. The worst is when a controversial judgment call takes the victory from one athlete and gives it to another.

In the case of figure skating, you don't want the gold medal to be determined by which skater was out of favor with the technical caller and gets hit with a slew of questionable e's and <'s.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

^^^

Indeed. There is the element of revenge. I forgot about that.

 

[gkelly]

The main advantage that I see to the proposed "New Jump" is this. In any sporting event, you want the contest to be decided on the field of play, not by an arguable referee's decision.

Compared to all the other decisions that go into scoring a figure skating program, deciding whether a jump was a correct lutz, correct flip, intended lutz left the ice from an inside edge, or intended flip left the ice from an outside edge is minuscule. It's almost never going to be the primary deciding factor.

And all the other decisions by the technical panel and the judges (the referee in figure skating does not make any decisions that factor into scoring -- I think you used that word to mean "technical specialist") are still going to be arguable. If you flatten out the difference between lutz and flip and remove that as a point of discriminating between skaters, then some other arguable decision or combination of many on the part of both panels -- number of revolutions in jumps, levels of elements, whether an element failed to meet the definition of an allowable to fill an available element slot, whether to reward or penalize the quality of an element with both good and bad points with positive or negative GOE or just 0s, how to score the various program component criteria, etc. -- will end up being the deciding factor(s). And anyone who disagrees with the final result will find plenty of individual decisions to argue against.

The best thing is when you don't even notice that the sport has referees and judges. The worst is when a controversial judgment call takes the victory from one athlete and gives it to another.

I defy you to come up with a system for scoring a sport as qualitative and complex as figure skating that does not rely on judgment calls.

Redefining lutz and flip and flawed versions of either as all the same jump and allowing judges to determine whether and how much to reward or penalize the takeoff edge only shifts the responsibility of defining the jump from the technical panel to the judging panel. It doesn't remove reliance on judgment calls.

The way the system is set up now, or under the old system to the extent that judges did factor the takeoffs of these jumps into 0.1-0.3 of the required element marks in short programs or some fraction of 0.1 worth of technical merit in long programs, if there are differences of opinions among the judges, all their opinions will get factored into the results somehow, whereas with the technical panel decision, whatever at least two of the three members decides determines the base value of the element and whether or not there's any alert to the judges to reduce the GOE.

In the case of figure skating, you don't want the gold medal to be determined by which skater was out of favor with the technical caller and gets hit with a slew of questionable e's and <'s.

There are three members of the technical panel. It would be very difficult for a single technical specialist to systematically make multiple questionable calls against an out-of-favor skater without the controller and the assistant TS actually questioning those calls and overruling them if they both disagree with the TS.

 

[Medusa]

I don't get this. Or at least I think that I don't get this.

A Flutz is not a Lutz because you actually take off on the inside edge instead of the outside edge. The jump that takes off on the inside edge is actually the Flip. So isn't the Flutz just a Flip with an unusual entrance? And a Lip just a Lutz with an unusual entrance?

So why reinvent a new jump - why not just call the Flutz a Flip and the Lip a Lutz and therefore force the skater to either learn a real Lutz / Flip - or reduce their number of possible Triple jumps because of the Zayak-rule. A woman could still do 6 Triples, if she can do all the other usual Triples. If Asada relearnt her Salchow and couldn't correct her Flutz - she still would have a 7-Triple program.

By the way, I am against the "!" - the "e" is alright, because the judges have to take off points. But a "!" basically tells the judges: take GOE off if you don't like the skater, don't take GOE off if you do like the skater.

 

[Mathman]

I have a question that pertains to all this. In the case of skaters who cannot really do a triple Lutz at all, but who instead flutz badly on every attempt -- can such skaters usually do a double Lutz correctly?

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

I don't get this. Or at least I think that I don't get this.

So why reinvent a new jump - why not just call the Flutz a Flip and the Lip a Lutz and therefore force the skater to either learn a real Lutz / Flip - or reduce their number of possible Triple jumps because of the Zayak-rule. A woman could still do 6 Triples, if she can do all the other usual Triples. If Asada relearnt her Salchow and couldn't correct her Flutz - she still would have a 7-Triple program.

By the way, I am against the "!" - the "e" is alright, because the judges have to take off points. But a "!" basically tells the judges: take GOE off if you don't like the skater, don't take GOE off if you do like the skater.

Good points. I would call a flutz a flip and a lip a lutz. Problem with that is the Zayak Rule, and the poor senior skaters, yes seniors, that do not do a proper lutz or flip will screw up their jump passes.

I was thinking, they could take away the names of the lutz and flip and call them ToeOff I and ToeOff II . Doesn't matter how they take off. All jumps turn in the same direction. It's the air rotations and the landings that matter. There would be no intererence with Zayak and no need for 'e'. Btw, what is the 'I'? That little notation flew by me.

 

[gkelly]

I have a question that pertains to all this. In the case of skaters who cannot really do a triple Lutz at all, but who instead flutz badly on every attempt -- can such skaters usually do a double Lutz correctly?

Well, it's not that common for skaters who can consistently land triple flutzes to show us their double (f)lutzes on purpose. The best bet is looking a little earlier in their careers, before the triples were quite ready.

Here are a few examples I could find. See what you think.

Preston's triples may not always have been flutzes, but at least sometimes they were:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyESOAmaKkY @1:04

Earlier in her career, double lutz combination at 3:37
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_naiwRyPnY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mI--bSAViTk
First jump combination is double lutz-triple toe

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYary0GW4ME
Double lutz @ 2:40

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjvFdh84v4g
Double lutz @1:07

 

[Mathman]

I was thinking, they could take away the names of the lutz and flip and call them ToeOff I and ToeOff II . Doesn't matter how they take off. All jumps turn in the same direction. It's the air rotations and the landings that matter. There would be no intererence with Zayak and no need for 'e'.

That is exactly the proposal of the Coaches' Committee.

Btw, what is the 'I'? That little notation flew by me.

I think this new designation '!' means a slight flutz or lip, while an 'e' means a severe one. This is a new rule refinement for the 2008-09 season.

The difference in scoring is that if the tech panel gives an 'e', then the judges must give at least a -1 GOE no matter how good the other features of the jump are.

If you get a !, then the judges can use their discretion about how to balance the slight wrong edge with other factors in giving an overall GOE.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

^^^

OK - We must save embarassment to the Seniors. Oh those beautiful air turns and those beautiful landings, even if it may technically be another jump. Good and complete air turns and perfect landings are what the base score is all about. Isn't it? That's what they should be!! and no additional +s for them. Let the +s go to something special and not to the correct definition which is already covered in the base values.

As for the 'I', I can't go along with evaluating a mistake.

 

[gkelly]

^^^

OK - We must save embarassment to the Seniors.

The same rules apply to juveniles too. Except they're doing doubles instead of triples. And all levels in between.

As for the 'I', I can't go along with evaluating a mistake.

Then skating isn't the sport for you, because the judging is all about evaluation. And the skaters make a lot of mistakes.
You might prefer to stick to watching exhibitions.

And the ! notation is an exclamation point.

 

[Mathman]

Here are a few examples I could find. See what you think.

Thanks for these clips. Here's what I think -- I am in awe at how quick a person's eyes have to be to serve as a figure skating judge or (especially) a technical specialist.

For Karen Preston , I thought the first one, though really quick, was definitely a slight flutz at the last minute. I could easily forgive a spectator who missed it. In the second clip, I couldn't tell.

For Nicole Bobek , the first clip showed a definite flutz (more obvious than Preston's). The second clip, I couldn't tell.

For Tara , it wasn't so much that she switched over at the end of the approach, but rather the whole jump was done on the flat. I thought her technique was the worst of the three (she was very young at the time, of course).

I guess my question was, which is the more common scenario: (a) The skater never learns how to do an outside edge take-off at all, and her coach just rushes her up through all the triples as fast as possible regardless. Or (b) The skater learns the single and double Lutz properly, but when it comes time to crank out that last revolution, something has to give -- and that something is the quality of the take-off edge.

These clips seem more like (a).

 

[gkelly]

I guess my question was, which is the more common scenario: (a) The skater never learns how to do an outside edge take-off at all, and her coach just rushes her up through all the triples as fast as possible regardless. Or (b) The skater learns the single and double Lutz properly, but when it comes time to crank out that last revolution, something has to give -- and that something is the quality of the take-off edge.

These clips seem more like (a).

I think (a) is true, but in the cases of Bobek and Lipinski I understand the impetus for rushing came from the skaters rather than from their coaches.

 

[Mathman]

I think (a) is true, but in the cases of Bobek and Lipinski I understand the impetus for rushing came from the skaters rather than from their coaches.

Interesting. Bobek's and Lipinski's coaches weren't exactly pushovers (Carlo Fassi and Richard Callaghan.)

This makes me think that the ISU really does need to look at this issue. Are skaters and coaches just routinely blowing off the Lutz jump in training, expecting to get by by faking it?

 

[mskater93]

Fassi wasn't always Bobek's coach. She was on the coaching carousel for a while, so he may have inherited that.

The "!" designation is for more a flat than a change of edge before the take off and whether a "!" is called over an "e" at any level is the discretion of the tech panel. I was at a competition two weeks ago where one panel was particularly harsh on edge calls (even at the Intermediate and Novice levels) and even some skaters who have never had an "e" call got one for jumps that should probably have gotten a "!". The panel was CONSISTENT in their application of both designations, so it wasn't a case where they were after certain skaters, just trying to provide areas for improvement.