Figure Skating's Three Jumping Errors and Penalties

[Blades of Passion]

IMO, there are probably a lot of women's skaters out there who could do an UR triple axel. Currently, they don't try them because of the penalties towards UR. If the ISU came up with a table of values as Blades of Passion mentioned, then I think more women would attempt them to at least get partial marks.

That's certainly not what would happen. Most people would fall on the attempt if they tried, which would be worth less points than a clean double axel. Therefore, they definitely wouldn't attempt it. A 3Axel is so much harder...do you understand how scary that move is? People can throw themselves into other Triples, but the Axel? There is serious chance for injury there. NO skater is going to simply throw that movie in competition if they don't have a relatively good amount of control over it.

If someone has the control to land an UR 3Axel cleanly, they should be rewarded for it. An UR 3Axel is on the same level as a Triple Lutz, imo - the hardest move before a 3Axel when you're looking at a jump chart. Not easy at all.

 

[antmanb]

That is your preference and I respect that, but splatfests do not appeal to me. I do not believe full rotation has been achieved when a skater falls anyway. If he had made full rotation, what caused the Fall? Certainly, not good technique.

Joe you seem to believe that under-rotation is the only reason for a fall. Why is that?

Ant

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

Joe you seem to believe that under-rotation is the only reason for a fall. Why is that? Ant

Of course, there are several reasons for a Fall, and underrotation is one of them but not always.

 

[gkelly]

I'd say underrotation is the most common reason for a fall, but not the only one.

Here's one example of a double axel that was rotated but went wrong on the landing:
Eldredge SP http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vwf6vku2l1Q

 

[mskater93]

Of course, there are several reasons for a Fall, and underrotation is one of them but not always.

It's not even the most common reason for a fall. The most common cause of a fall in my experience is in the ability to keep your core strong throughout the jump. This particular problem causes all kinds of alignment issues in the jump from over-rotated upper body, to leaning back, leaning forward, under-rotated upper body, skate under-rotation due to not being straight and tight in the air(different than upper body), leaning right and leaning left, all of which can cause a fall.

 

[antmanb]

Of course, there are several reasons for a Fall, and underrotation is one of them but not always.

If that is the case then what prompted you to say:

"I do not believe full rotation has been achieved when a skater falls anyway"

?

Ant

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

If that is the case then what prompted you to say:

"I do not believe full rotation has been achieved when a skater falls anyway"
Ant

Because it is a moot point on whether a Fall would have been caused by an UR. I believe it's very possible to the point that this is what caused the Fall. The only exception I see is Lambiel's over rotation on the 3A.

But if you think differently, that's ok.

 

[Mathman]

The whole point of a scoring system should be to promote the ideal characteristics of your sport. ( do you like that? I came up with it myself).

To me, that is indeed the question. What exactly is the "whole point of the scoring system?" Another possible answer is that the scoring system should not be trying to "promote" anything, it should be a method for deciding who skated the best.

IMHO the question that the ISU must address is whether figure skating is to be a spectator sport with broad audience appeal (like baseball, say), or whether it will be a sport (like gymnastics) that is of interest only to the athletes themselves and to skating insiders.

The reason for the elimination of figures was that in the good old days skating contests were decided by excellence in detailed skills that were totally invisible to the audience, as certified by a scoring system that no one outside the sport had the slightest clue about.

In that respect, the CoP is retro.

Yes, skating is immensely popular in Japan and Korea and holding its own in Russia despite a temporary lull in the production of champions. Is this because of the CoP or in spite of it?

All I can say to Speedy is, "be happy in the life you have chosen."

 

[antmanb]

Because it is a moot point on whether a Fall would have been caused by an UR. I believe it's very possible to the point that this is what caused the Fall. The only exception I see is Lambiel's over rotation on the 3A.

But if you think differently, that's ok.

Oh ok i understand - i was just asking because sometimes you make very general statements that i'm not sure that meaning of and think it best to clarify before trying to engage in the debate.

Ant

 

[Mafke]

The reason for the elimination of figures was that in the good old days skating contests were decided by excellence in detailed skills that were totally invisible to the audience, as certified by a scoring system that no one outside the sport had the slightest clue about.
In that respect, the CoP is retro.

I could quibble about the real reason for dumping figures but the basic point is right: Every change in competition format since the early 70's until CoP was to make the rules more accessible so that casual viewers could better understand the result.
CoP as practiced is going back in time by placing too much emphasis on bits of technique that the even the most expert viewers don't necessarily see in real time.

My guess is they're trying to rebrand as an extreme sport where spectacular falls are part of the fun. In a few years, I think programs as we understand them now will basically no longer exist, it will be a kind of vague background accompaniment for the time the skaters have to go out there and to their big tricks.

Videos like these are the wave of the future, I fear:

youtube.com/results?search_query=figure+skating+falls&search_type=&aq=f

 

[gkelly]

I could quibble about the real reason for dumping figures but the basic point is right: Every change in competition format since the early 70's until CoP was to make the rules more accessible so that casual viewers could better understand the result.

Changes in competition format maybe, although there may have been other reasons as well. As you say, one could quibble.

Actually, the introduction and then incorporation into final results of qualifying rounds at large championships cannot be attributed to making the results more accessible to casual viewers. So I'd have to disagree that that is true of every change in competition format.

Changes in scoring, no. There have been changes in the scoring that were less sweeping than changing from ordinals to absolute scores. Some might be attributable to pleasing audiences (e.g., making the second mark the tiebreaker in long programs; changing from majority calculations to OBO in the belief that it would cut down on flipflopping). But others, like lessening the maximum deductions in short programs or adding a second mark to compulsory dance scores really can't be. So there have been all sorts of reasons for scoring changes.

The increasingly prescriptive well-balanced program rules in the long programs since the mid-90s, coupled with the relaxed required elements in short programs in the late 80s/early 90s, started a trend toward more similarity in the relative freedom between short and long programs well before the new judging system came in.

 

[gkelly]

BTW, at 1994 Skate America, every single lady except Irina Slutskaya fell at least once in the short program (it was the first major event that allowed two triples in the senior ladies' SP). ABC made a montage of all the falls and showed it on TV along with Slutskaya's clean program.

The CBS coverage of the ladies at 1990 Europeans was pretty similar.

Not sure that's anything new.

 

[Mathman]

This is what I think might work. You could have a CoP-type scoring system for all developmental skating programs and competitions. The purpose of the scoring system would be to insure that skaters master the required techniques of the sport: don't underrotate your jumps, don't jump off the wrong edge, don't fall down. Do make use of all your edges in footwork and moves in the field, do develop advanced and varied technique in spins and spirals.

Then when you are ready for prime time, you must skate before an audience under a judging system that acknowledges the "performance art" aspect of the sport. Skaters who are not technically proficient will not be able to present their programs as well as skaters who are. In most cases this will be quite clear both to the professional judges and to the audience.

I quite agree with skaterbc that giving out prizes for cuteness to little gilrs who have not mastered the basics is wrong-headed in the extreme.

To me, all the controversy would go away if we could somehow resurrect pro skating. You could skate under the CoP through the Oympics, then get serious.

 

[gkelly]

In other words, the current scoring system, or the old system including school figures, or any technically based scoring is fine for skating as sport.

Most of the general public may not be interested in skating as sport.

There's more of an audience for skating as performing art. But for some reason many of those viewers seem to take it more seriously if the performances are structured in the form of a competition. I.e., what we're used to from pro competitions.

It takes good technique to be able to skate artistically, although the recent popularity of various skating with celebrity shows has shown that there are ways to compensate for lack of technique and still entertain audiences. It's not generally considered entertaining/artistic for supposed experts to be visibly struggling with their technique or falling all over the place. And audiences who don't have the technical knowledge or keen eyes to appreciate underrotation or wrong edges on jumps often can distinguish between doubles, triples, and quads and even different jump takeoffs and appreciate when performers include more variety or more difficulty of jumps in their programs.

So pro skating performers would need to come up through some sort of developmental system. Most do so through competitive channels and pass all their country's tests along the way.

But some pros left the competitive track at young ages and only intermediate skill levels and went on to improve both technically and artistically as pros. Maybe they didn't like competing under strict rules or didn't like the pressure of competition. Maybe they couldn't afford to train and needed to earn money through skating in days when that made them ineligible. Maybe they couldn't justify the time and expense of training for competition knowing they didn't have the talent to make it to the elite level. Maybe their parents were touring pro skaters and they grew up and learned to skate while traveling with the tour. Maybe they always preferred focusing on the artistic side of skating and weren't interested in pounding away at difficult technical skills that didn't come easy to them.

So many skaters who never make it to the elite international level can still end up being excellent artists and entertainers.

There are also plenty of skaters who love competing and keep at it as long as they can even though they'll never make it to the elite level, or even if they have been at the top and have already passed their prime. Many such skaters are in it for their own satisfaction and were never interested in performing for audiences. These would not be the skaters that most audience members would want to pay to watch.

The ISU is in the business of regulating the technical sport of skating at the international level, to make it as fair a contest as possible. In these regards they've been more successful in some areas than others. They also want to sell tickets and TV rights; again, sometimes they've been very lucky or have made savvy decisions; other decisions have proven counterproductive of those aims. Some of those decisions have included trying to entertain audiences, although that's not their primary mission -- when successful, it does produce income though. They have always tried in various ways to benefit from the popularity of their elite medalists and to control what those skaters can or cannot do outside the ISU's control while still retaining eligibility to compete.

Individual national federations have the same responsibilities at the national level, and different nations may have very different needs.

It's up to other organizations to produce skating events that are focused on entertaining audiences and on earning profits. These can be more responsive to changing economic realities and changing interests of fickle audiences. If the public wants to see world and Olympic medalists and those also skaters want to retain their eligibility to compete in the sport side of skating, then these other organizations need to find ways to use skaters with those credentials without running afoul of the current ISU eligibility requirements.

The skaters that pro skating producers serve are those who can attract audiences -- those who can't do so won't find careers as pro skaters.

Would it be better for the ISU to set up a separate branch devoted to skating as entertainment?

Or better to leave it to others to follow the varying market trends around the world and to take the financial risks by relaxing eligibility restrictions on participation in non-ISU skating projects?

 

[Particle Man]

Uh yeah, let's just fracture the sport into pieces because the ISU is too stupid to score it properly. :disagree: Or, we could actually fix the system:

- Falls should hurt worse than UR. This is plainly obvious.
- Things like UR which are invisible to the casual viewer need to be highlighted and explained when they happen, not just silently shown in replay. This is 2009, we have something called "technology." Use it.
- Restore the artistic mark to be equal in weight to the technical mark, as it was for decades before CoP. If necessary, implement a hybrid system (as I've explored in previous posts) to accomplish this.

 

[Mafke]

On the one hand, there are always going to be issues of balancing pleasing paying audiences and rewarding technical excellence. There will also (no matter what judging system is used) occasionally be times when a more pleasant or flashier (but technically flawed) performance loses to a less flashier and/or more noticably flawed but overall superior performance. I think audiences can understand that just fine.

The thing is eligible figure skating isn't quite like anything else and the things that make it compelling are in a delicate balance and I'm afraid if it gets mucked around too much, the things that make it work can be lost. CoP has already all but lost me as a viewer and I don't think I'm the only one.

My main problem with CoP is that it's too ..... numbery. To quote my favorite radio show* "Numbers lie. Numbers cover over complicated feelings and ambiguous situations." I have the idea that the designers thought that if they just put in enough decimal places and enough point differentials that people would be cowed into accepting it. Hasn't worked for me.

My secondary problem with CoP is that I don't agree with what it overlooks and punishes. For me, UR is just not that big a deal. It's certainly less a flaw than two-footing a landing or landing on the wrong edge or stumbling or falling out of a landing. Maybe that's because I heard Dick Button talk so much about 'finishing the rotations on the ice' as more or less acceptable technique in decades past. CoP's attitude toward UR is like a crazy person's attitude toward their favorite conspiracy theory.

I'm more of a hardliner on edge calls (but even then change to a flat or the wrong edge at takeoff don't bother me). I only really dislike the flagrant flutzes where the edge changes clearly well before takeoff (Hughes, Lipinski, Bobek or Cohen style) or lips where the skater never gets on an inside edge.

For what it's worth I'm really interested only in something like eligible competition (not interested in shows, exhibitions or pro 'competitions'). If I had my way there'd be separate figures, free skating and dance competitions for singles and a combined event for the best allround skater.

 

[gkelly]

Maybe that's because I heard Dick Button talk so much about 'finishing the rotations on the ice' as more or less acceptable technique in decades past.

Really? It was never acceptable technique, but Button may have glossed over it because as a commentator he was always more interested in the aesthetic impact than the technical details.

I've certainly heard other commentators as well congratulate skaters for landing jumps that were clearly flawed and required deductions by short program rules under 6.0. TV commentary was never the best way to learn how skating was judged.

If I had my way there'd be separate figures, free skating and dance competitions for singles and a combined event for the best allround skater.

Sounds good to me.

 

[vlaurend]

To me, all the controversy would go away if we could somehow resurrect pro skating. You could skate under the CoP through the Oympics, then get serious.

That is my conclusion as well. Have the amateur skaters prove themselves and make their mark under IJS, then have professional competitions that are *real* competitions but judged under 6.0 or some other system that allows for more individuality, creativity and innovation. Of course, the question is how to make sure people start watching pro skating if such competitions were created?

FWIW, I agree with those who say the double penalty on underrotations is unfair. Judges should not give -GOE for underrotation if the jump has already been downgraded due to underrotation, only if it hasn't been downgraded (i.e., -1 GOE for up to 1/4 UR is reasonable). If it's already been downgraded from a triple to a double, the punishment is already pretty hefty, so -GOE should only be given if the jump was 2-footed, there was a touchdown, it had a wrong edge takeoff, there was no outflow, or something else was wrong with it.

 

[gkelly]

That is my conclusion as well. Have the amateur skaters prove themselves and make their mark under IJS, then have professional competitions that are *real* competitions but judged under 6.0 or some other system that allows for more individuality, creativity and innovation. Of course, the question is how to make sure people start watching pro skating if such competitions were created?

Another question would be, who gets to enter them?

If these "pro" events are run by the ISU at an international level, would the ISU invite skaters based on their "amateur" accomplishments, or would national federations be able to send their most accomplished artistic skaters regardless of international success in IJS competitions?

If they're run by independent promoters, do those promoters get to invite whoever they like, based on their own personal preferences and who they think audiences will want to pay money to watch? And what does this have to do with ISU rules other than eligibility rules? What's stopping anyone from organizing such a competition tomorrow?

FWIW, I agree with those who say the double penalty on underrotations is unfair. Judges should not give -GOE for underrotation if the jump has already been downgraded due to underrotation, only if it hasn't been downgraded (i.e., -1 GOE for up to 1/4 UR is reasonable). If it's already been downgraded from a triple to a double, the punishment is already pretty hefty, so -GOE should only be given if the jump was 2-footed, there was a touchdown, it had a wrong edge takeoff, there was no outflow, or something else was wrong with it.

I'd be fine with that, in the cases where the underrotation is barely noticeable and the judge might have been considering 0 or positive GOE before being informed of the underrotation. For combinations in which only one jump is downgraded, I think positive GOE should be allowed.

Sometimes it's really noticeable and egregious, in which case additional penalty aside from the downgrade would be appropriate even if nothing else besides the landing blade touches the ice. But an additional -1 or -2 plus the downgrade could be sufficient, to leave room for even further penalty if the jump is badly underrotated *and* also has other errors.

 

[skatingbc]

FWIW, I agree with those who say the double penalty on underrotations is unfair. Judges should not give -GOE for underrotation if the jump has already been downgraded due to underrotation, only if it hasn't been downgraded (i.e., -1 GOE for up to 1/4 UR is reasonable). If it's already been downgraded from a triple to a double, the punishment is already pretty hefty, so -GOE should only be given if the jump was 2-footed, there was a touchdown, it had a wrong edge takeoff, there was no outflow, or something else was wrong with it.

I think I could live with this type of arrangement, as long as no +GOE was given to downgraded jumps.

My secondary problem with CoP is that I don't agree with what it overlooks and punishes. For me, UR is just not that big a deal. It's certainly less a flaw than two-footing a landing or landing on the wrong edge or stumbling or falling out of a landing. Maybe that's because I heard Dick Button talk so much about 'finishing the rotations on the ice' as more or less acceptable technique in decades past. CoP's attitude toward UR is like a crazy person's attitude toward their favorite conspiracy theory.

Underrotation, imo, is one of the biggest errors a skater can make. In your opinion, what makes two-footing a landing, hand down on landing worse than an UR? Because the latter is less obvious?

One thing I like about CoP is being able to see where the numbers come from. I like the idea of competing against oneself, in a sense, to get your personal best, and finding ways to improve on that. Sure it has it's problems, but honestly, what doesn't?