Ladies LP

[evangeline]

I would accept this argument if it were applied consistently acroos the board, rather than selectively.

If you take off from the wrong edge on your Lutz attempt, then you have failed to do a Lutz jump. 0 points.

If you fall on the landing you have not completed the jump. 0 points.

What I object to is singling out underrotation and treating it differently from other types of errors which are just as bad.

ITA with this. It's strange that underrotation seems to be singled out for a harsh penalty--especially since it's one of those errors generally imperceptible to the mainstream, not-obsessively-on-Goldenskate-type viewers. And really, determining whether the rotation is under 1/4 turn short--especially when it's very close--can be such an arbitrary thing that can depend on many factors like camera angle, etc.

But I think it's unlikely ISU will do something as drastic as completely re-tooling the point values before an Olympic year. More likely they'll just do what Mathman said--relax the rules a bit to prevent another wuzrobbed debacle.

 

[Blades of Passion]

About the UR penalty issue, I think the problem is this. The penalty for UR is more about to prevent a skater from attempting habitual UR because in this case the skater obviously doesn't have that jump yet. And I strongly agree with this idea.

And nobody is saying there shouldn't be a penalty for it. The penalty just needs to be less.

While the diving analogy IS actually valid, Blades has completely misapplied it. If the dive on your list is a, say, forward 3 and a half, and you do a 3 and a belly flop, YOU GET A FAIL DIVE for not completing what you attempted.

No, not if you do the rotations. I'm talking about doing all of the elements of the dive but having a terrible splash at the end.

Are you saying that a triple jump that is 2 2/3 rotated should be able to receive positive GOE?

Yes. You already get the mark down in base value as the penalty; if the jump is beautiful then it should be marked as such. Of course, underrotated jumps usually don't look amazing. But, if someone did a huge Tano Lutz and missed a little bit of the rotation (but landed nicely), yes, it deserves +GOE.

A double axel has less rotation than a Triple Loop. Does that automatically mean it shouldn't be allowed to have +GOE? All that underrotation means is the jump has become easier...it doesn't automatically mean that every other aspect of the jump wasn't well executed. Obviously if a jump is severely underrotated it will cause a noticeable turn on the ice and then that would be cause for further deduction (in the form of -GOE marks).

 

[skatingbc]

Yes. You already get the mark down in base value as the penalty; if the jump is beautiful then it should be marked as such. Of course, underrotated jumps usually don't look amazing. But, if someone did a huge Tano Lutz and missed a little bit of the rotation (but landed nicely), yes, it deserves +GOE.

A double axel has less rotation than a Triple Loop. Does that automatically mean it shouldn't be allowed to have +GOE? All that underrotation means is the jump has become easier...it doesn't automatically mean that every other aspect of the jump wasn't well executed. Obviously if a jump is severely underrotated it will cause a noticeable turn on the ice and then that would be cause for further deduction (in the form of -GOE marks).

:scratch: I have no words...

 

[Blades of Passion]

What is confusing you?

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

ITA with this. It's strange that underrotation seems to be singled out for a harsh penalty--especially since it's one of those errors generally imperceptible to the mainstream, not-obsessively-on-Goldenskate-type viewers. And really, determining whether the rotation is under 1/4 turn short--especially when it's very close--can be such an arbitrary thing that can depend on many factors like camera angle, etc.

But I think it's unlikely ISU will do something as drastic as completely re-tooling the point values before an Olympic year. More likely they'll just do what Mathman said--relax the rules a bit to prevent another wuzrobbed debacle.

It is strange that underrotation gets a strong penalty while a flutz (which is not a lutz by the way). It is by definition, a disguised Flip although an obvious disguise.
Falls which are most obvious show that the jump was not executed by definition.
Given the Sports penchant for partial credit, there is no reason not to give an UR such a drastic lowering of a jump. At least, most URs do not disturb the flow of the program. A standard and equal deduction for all three major errors in skating should be de rigeur

I agree, too late for the ISU to do anything about this now but it really should be looked into right after Worlds 2010, and who cares if the coaches have students who can not do the jumps properly. It's a competition - not a beauty pagaent.

 

[skatingbc]

What is confusing you?

Nothing is confusing me. I just can't put to words how much I disagree.

 

[i love to skate]

I agree, too late for the ISU to do anything about this now but it really should be looked into right after Worlds 2010, and who cares if the coaches have students who can not do the jumps properly. It's a competition - not a beauty pagaent.

I'm not sure what you are saying...are you suggesting that it's not important for students to have proper jump technique? If that is what you're saying I find that ridiculous. One of the best things about this new system is that if you do not do a jump correctly you are going to get penalized for it. For far too long technique was not seen as a big issue and it was pretty much ignored - ie. Tara Lipinski's flutz and Sarah Hughes underrotations.

If I have mistaken what you were trying to say you can ignore this post!

 

[Particle Man]

While the diving analogy IS actually valid, Blades has completely misapplied it. If the dive on your list is a, say, forward 3 and a half, and you do a 3 and a belly flop, YOU GET A FAIL DIVE for not completing what you attempted.

And how many people watch diving?

 

[Blades of Passion]

Nothing is confusing me. I just can't put to words how much I disagree.

Well that doesn't help your argument.

Maybe these examples will help to better show my perspective:

-If a jump gets a ! mark, it is still possible for that jump to get +GOE. If the judge feels that the quality of the jump (height, distance, position, landing) deserves +2 GOE and that the ! merits -1 GOE, then the overall GOE for that jump is +1. (although, edge deductions also should be taken off the base value of a jump)

-Think of underrotated jumps a different element altogether (they just aren't for Zayak purposes). If a skater plans a 3Axel and does a 2Axel, they have made the jump much easier and therefore need to be marked down in base value. However, that 2Axel might have been perfectly good and deserving of +GOE. If a skater plans a 3Axel and underrotates it, the same situation applies. They have made the jump easier and as such the base value needs to be marked down (but not as much as if they had doubled the jump, since they completed much more rotation than just a double). Why, then, should the skater still not be allowed to receive +GOE for the element if it was executed well enough to be deserving of such a mark?

 

[skatingbc]

Well that doesn't help your argument.

I don't want to argue. It's bad for my blood pressure!

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

I'm not sure what you are saying...are you suggesting that it's not important for students to have proper jump technique? If that is what you're saying I find that ridiculous. One of the best things about this new system is that if you do not do a jump correctly you are going to get penalized for it. For far too long technique was not seen as a big issue and it was pretty much ignored - ie. Tara Lipinski's flutz and Sarah Hughes underrotations.

If I have mistaken what you were trying to say you can ignore this post!

My writing skills are not the best, sorry.

What I am saying, it has nothing to do with Technique. It has to do with a jump that can be described as a Flip. Dual single jumps in a routine are not scoreable. The Tech Asst sees it as an attempted lutz. How does he know that? The skater feels good about getting out of that counter rotation mood. And, for me, there is no attempt. It is a separate Flip.

The best way to handle wrong edge takeoffs for a lutz, is to leave the jump out of the program or sacrifice it as a Flip. It's not the end of scoring, if it is left out.

 

[i love to skate]

My writing skills are not the best, sorry.

What I am saying, it has nothing to do with Technique. It has to do with a jump that can be described as a Flip. Dual single jumps in a routine are not scoreable. The Tech Asst sees it as an attempted lutz. How does he know that? The skater feels good about getting out of that counter rotation mood. And, for me, there is no attempt. It is a separate Flip.

The best way to handle wrong edge takeoffs for a lutz, is to leave the jump out of the program or sacrifice it as a Flip. It's not the end of scoring, if it is left out.

No worries about writing skills I agree with your last point of your post!

 

[Particle Man]

I totally agree, Blades of Passion. That is an excellent explanation of why mandatory -GOE makes no sense. Perhaps those that "can't find the words to how much they disagree with you" simply can't find the right words which would combat basic logic. (I'm sure they will continue to try though.)

 

[skatingbc]

I totally agree, Blades of Passion. That is an excellent explanation of why mandatory -GOE makes no sense. Perhaps those that "can't find the words to how much they disagree with you" simply can't find the right words which would combat basic logic. (I'm sure they will continue to try though.)

Nope. It's just that I have already stated my opinions numerous times. I feel no need to repeat myself again. We disagree. Simple as that.

 

[Dipyramidal]

Oh my... I just noticed that kim got +2.00 for her spiral O_O. and also the HIGHEST goe for her step squence. ......

 

[icyboid]

Another point nobody's brought up: adding a rotation to a jump doesn't happen overnight. Skaters have to build up to upgrade a jump.

Skaters will land more than their share of underrotated jumps in practice from fighting to save the landing while getting a feel for the new rotation.

 

[flying camel]

Can someone tell us who don't know the code how were Rachael jumps? Did she have any wrong edge or underation calls?

 

[Particle Man]

If you downgrade a triple to a double, it is no longer an "underrotated triple" since you've already labeled it an "overrotated double." So if you're even going to attempt a logical discussion, begin there. Should a jump then be penalized AGAIN for being overrotated if it was TRYING to be a triple? Even when it's just a tiny edge difference which is only visible on slomo replay, slam it with -3 GOE in addition to the downgrade? Tiny Edge Difference = Worse Than Fall? Fail, fail, fail on so many levels. There's no logical defense of it. It's terrible for the sport that it's been allowed to continue for so long.

 

[Dipyramidal]

I really think Mao was underscored here -_-.

 

[Mathman]

Can someone tell us who don't know the code how were Rachael jumps? Did she have any wrong edge or underation calls?

Rachael's opening 3F+2T was downgraded to the base value of a 3F+1T.

This was unfortunate because she had visions of a 3F+3T (base value 9.5), but her landing on the flip was wonky, so the best she could try for was 3F+2T (base value 6.8), But she didn't get around even enough for a 2T, so the 2T was downgraded and, after negative GOE, she ended up with 3.90 for the element.

Otherwise, Racahel did not receive any edge calls or other underrotations, and she got positive GOEs on all of her other jumps except a small negative GOE on her 3Lz+2T.

The same sort of thing happen with Yu-na Kim's Salchow. She intended a triple, but she didn't even make it around enough for a double. It was scored as 2S< and Kim received a total of 0.44 for the element (which was about 0.44 too much. )