Vasiliev on ISU pair skating changes

[Ptichka]

Regarding Vassiliev's astute statement, it's possible he mixed up what he was explaining, or as some would have it, lost in translation. I wouldn't accuse him of being wrong until it becomes clear he erred in his statement.

I checked - the translation is correct (not that this interpreter has always never erred!). I think he just misspoke.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

Thanks Ptichka - I really didn't think you would mistranslate.

gkelly - I will read the communique 1504 more carefully.

I'm willing to bet that at some point during the coming season at least one lady, most likely Mao Asada, will do an otherwise lovely triple lutz with a questionable takeoff edge and receive a ! call and positive GOE.

If any skater takes off for a lutz without the counter rotation of the back outside edge, it is not a Lutz regardless of what the intention was. There is nothing lovely about it. A skater is to be judged on what a skater does.

The nature of the Lutz is not the triple air turns (all jumps have that). What makes the Lutz a Lutz is it's counter rotation. That is what makes the Lutz unique and difficult. Triple air turns are much easier from an easier edge that doesn' involve counter rotation.

Grading the so-called wrong edge takeoff is just another form of nonsporting subjectivity.

Mao is an incredible figure skater. I'll bet her lutz take off is right on.

Antmanb - A Flip is not involved in a counter rotation. However, if a skater lips, he/she is rocking over to an edge which is easier for him/her despite the difficult counter rotation it causes. I agree, it's not a Flip.

We are talking about exceptions to Definitions here. Where not talking about exceptions to Rules.

 

[gkelly]

Mao is an incredible figure skater. I'll bet her lutz take off is right on.

She got quite a number of e calls last year from different technical panels, and GOEs ranging from -1 to -3 (mostly -1 and -2) for those jumps.

Experts agreed that the takeoff was, at best, not a pure lutz.

Most of the judges also agreed that those jumps were not nearly worthless, as you would have it in principle, just because of the problem with the takeoff edge.

 

[antmanb]

If any skater takes off for a lutz without the counter rotation of the back outside edge, it is not a Lutz regardless of what the intention was. There is nothing lovely about it. A skater is to be judged on what a skater does.

That's not the way the ISU view it, or the way the COP deals with. Regardless of your personal thoughts on how a change of edge on the take off of either the flip or the lutz, both Vasiliev and the rest of us are discussing what the effects of "!" and "e" calls are.

In your system there would be no "!" or "e" calls, only skaters who do flutzes getting credit for doing a flip, and skaters doing lips getting credit for lutzes.

Ant

 

[Mathman]

As promised, I will talk today of the ISU Congress that took place in Monaco this past summer, and of the changes adopted there.

What bothers me most about this blog entry is this. Mr. Vasiliev serves on the Technical Committee of the ISU. It is the responsibility of this important Committee to conduct a continuing review of the ISU judging system and to make periodic recommendations for changes. Vasiliev went to the trouble of composing this blog entry for the purpose of reporting on the changes adopted at the Monoco meeting of the ISU Congress.

Why, then, does he seem not to know what those rule changes are? If he was absent that day, couldn't he have read ISU document 1504 afterward just like the rest of us? Or asked his friends on the Committee what the new rules are, before giving out this erroneous report?

A few days before the start of Congress, the ISU technical committee puts together a list of suggestions from national federations, coaches, and athletes. For example, I received a letter from coaches in America that had fourteen pages of suggested changes to the current judging system. Clearly, this couldn’t be ignored...

... as it is professionals’ opinions, and I correspondingly addressed each point.

I would be curious to know -- and I bet the members of the U.S. coaches group would be, too -- exactly how each of their points was "addressed" by Mr. Vasiliev. "Point, number 23, this is circular file. Circular file, meet point #23." hwell:

According to GSRossano's post #11 above, Vasiliev is not just a member of the ISU Technical Committee, he is specifically the coaches' representative to that committee. I am sure that the U.S. coaches group expected Vasiliev, as their advocate, to forward their proposals to the Technical Committee for their consideration.

Evidently this was not done. the bill was killed in the "subcommittee of one" and never came to the floor even of the Technical Committee, much less the full Congress.

 

[gsrossano]

What bothers me most about this blog entry is this. Mr. Vasiliev serves on the Technical Committee of the ISU.

And why, I would ask, is he blogging at all? He does not speak for the Technical Committee. That is Lakernik's job. Also, he is not a spokesman for the ISU. That too is someone else's job. Committee members should not be blogging at all, and confusing people with incomplete or inaccurate information.

Getting back to the e vs. !. When I hear an edge alert call I just ignore it and mark according to my own judgement if the edge was correct or not. As a judge I find the ! meaningless. Yes, maybe there was a small change of edge in the jump, thank you very much for that helpful piece of information, but I have already decided on the correctness of the edge and my GoE before the caller even gets "edge alert" out of their mouth.

And BTW, Mathman refers to the proposals coming from a group of U.S. coaches. Actually the group who prepared them was very international.

 

[dorispulaski]

There are also changes in how twists are judged. Before, one of the requirements for the more difficult level was three base positions on each leg; now, three positions on one leg suffice. Previous requirements were unreasonably harsh and unreasonable, though many athletes complied with it. This change has allowed my team to decrease the time and number of rotations on side-by-side spins in both programs. Now, they spin for three or four seconds less, which reduces errors. That element is relatively undemanding physically, but it requires a very high concentration. A combination spin with a change of leg requires about 15 rotations, and most of the small errors at competitions happen on the spins.

Should the word "twists" actually be spins? Or are there changes in the judging of twists as well. The rest of the paragraph seems to be about spins.

 

[Ptichka]

Should the word "twists" actually be spins? Or are there changes in the judging of twists as well. The rest of the paragraph seems to be about spins.

Oops, that one is my fault - it's spins. :frown2: