THIS.
Now I want to see Yuna continues her competitive career, especially with these new rules.
Base values of quads and triple Axels raised, new 1/4-1/2 rule for under-rotations
- Thread starter Mathman
- Start date
THIS.
Now I want to see Yuna continues her competitive career, especially with these new rules.
It depends on the kind of error involved. As you know, the < sign was not shown to judges in the 2009-2010 season but was in the 2008-2009 season but now, we are back again in the 2010-2011 season. ISU really struggled to keep this policy consistent... Judges are called upon to key in the GOE based on the real time assessment of the elements and the use of replay has to follow certain restrictions. Certain elements will go into what's a called "review process" and judges are generally notified when the status of an element is deemed contested. This is not just the jumps, any elements in the program can be reviewed, including the spins and step sequences. In most cases, the judges don't concern themselves with these because their job is to give GOE based on how they see it. In a few cases, such as when there is a potential edge call where there may be an implication of mandatory negative GOE involved, the review process by the Tech Panel will only take place after the skater finished skating. Therefore, the judges will only be notified the result of the contested edge call after the Tech panel had a chance to review it. At that point, the judges will have an opportunity to correct their marks, if necessary because an "e" call requires the GOE to be negative.
Last edited:
Can we please stop talking about this based solely on Yu-Na or Mao? There are other skaters in this world you know.These changes look reasonable to me as a whole and I don't think it favors anyone in particular except that there is definite emphasis on higher technical difficulty as they should be. I, myself, have voiced concerns about the value of the Double Axel and its accompanying GOE for quite some time and I am glad to see this suggestion be considered and acted upon. As for reducing the value of GOE on Triples, note the GOE has been slashed across the board for all jumps, including Quads. In the past, negative GOE on Quad follows a factor of 1.6, creating an imbalance between the upside and downside risk. Now, both sides are equal and at a reduced factor of 1.0 Such change will likely encourage more skaters to try the Quads. As for reducing the GOE on Triples, there has been some comments that the GOE on Triples have been too high. For example, a 3T has a BV of 4.0 but +2 GOE means, the jump essentially equals a Triple Lutz at 6.0 Or, Double Axel + 3 GOE = 3.5 + 3 > Triple Lutz. Clearly, the is a point about reducing the value of GOE slightly and I agree with these changes as well. This will give a little more emphasis on the BV, which is more objective than the GOE. With the reduced importance of GOE, the overall score will be lower than years past but it should encourage skaters to have more difficult technical content and the overall score should reflect those higher degree of technical difficulty as well.
I totally agree with you. Well said
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2009
Really great points and explanations from wallylutz and gkelly, thank you. I can now see that there are good reasons for the added complexity in the compounded penalties! 
And yes, I do like the adjusted GoE's because now it is less likely that they they can compensate for actual missed elements, and they are more balanced between different jumps now.
And yes, I do like the adjusted GoE's because now it is less likely that they they can compensate for actual missed elements, and they are more balanced between different jumps now.
Except now the "e" call no longer requires the GOE to be negative -- it's up to the judge to decide for himself/herself how much to reduce the GOE, and also of course to decide what else to give pluses for.
So might something like this, which would have received an "e" call even last year, inspire a judge to give +2 for everything else about the combo and -2 for the edge change for a final GOE of 0?
No? How about if it also had steps or a spiral preceding and an arm overhead on the double toe?
According to ISU Communication 1611 Page 12, the new rule simply removes "!" as a notation, however in the case of a major edge error, the rule still says the GOE must be negative and should be penalized by between -2 to -3. This determination is now made by individual judges after being notified of the "e" sign. If the error is as obvious as the one Nicole Bobek made in her SP at the 1995 Worlds, it would be very difficult to justify that an edge error like that should be considered minor therefore, anyone who doesn't give a negative GOE to that particular jump could be subject to some pretty serious questioning I think. The upside of this rule change is the flexibility since instead of relying on the judgment of the technical panel, which isn't always 100% reliable despite all the tools at their disposal, now the judges can weight in with greater control than before. The downside of course is the possibility of this being abused.
To answer your question re: the youtube link from Bobek's 1995 Worlds SP, the correct answer should be: "It has to be negative GOE." Justification: The new rule still demands that a major edge error must receive a mandatory negative GOE. In the case of Bobek's 3Lz, it clearly was a major error as the starting edge was clearly inside as opposed to outside. Therefore, regardless of the features in that combination, the only acceptable answer in this case, even if we apply the 2010-2011 rule is that it has to be negative GOE. Personally, I think the error is so severe that the high end of the penalty, which is -3, should be used. Looking at the mitigating factors, there are now 8 positive aspect bullets for jumps as opposed to 6, another new addition this year. This element looks as follows:
1) unexpected / creative / difficult entry
2) clear recognizable steps/free skating movements immediately preceding element
3) varied position in the air / delay in rotation
4) good height and distance
5) good extension on landing / creative exit
6) good flow from entry to exit including jump combinations / sequences
7) effortless throughout
8) element matched to the musical structure
4 bullets is considered +2 while +3 requires 6+ bullets. Therefore, the mitigating factors should add to +2. -3 +2 = -1, which also fits the mandatory negative GOE requirement. It would seem -1 is the most appropriate answer in this particular case.
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2009
If you are a soccer player, hit the goal post and get 0.5 score. If you hit the post twice, it's the same as scoring a goal!! yay~~
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
I'm very much aware of the penalty for falling since 2005. You should know I have been complaining about it for many years.
My point was it was a simple -1 for losing the entire landing of a jump and disrupting the flow of the program. The penalty of -1 compared to the penalties listed by MM of the UR are a huge difference and the UR does not disrupt the program in most cases.
Do you actually agree that losing the entire landing of a jump is less serious than an underrotation?
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
I'm with you on that! But we have to understand that the CoP was rushed into finalization to prevent fraudulent ordinals. I believe what these present revisions are all about is an attempt to correct some of the CoP's rushed regulations. Let's give it a chance and see if it works better.
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
Well let's hope with the new leeway of 1/2UR is ok that we will not be seeing too many URs. I'm actually happy with that. I am of the opinion that a Fall is much more serious than an UR.
Was there anything (I haven't read it all yet) about Falling in a program which to me is a complete loss of the Landing of a Jump?
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
I think the idea is that figure skating is not soccer. Figure skating is more like horseshoes. If you get close, that's worth 1/3 of a ringer.
No I don't, if we're talking about a minor rotation with no other errors. And if there are other errors there are means to penalize the underrotated even further.
But whether the penalties for falling only or underrotating only depends which jump you're looking at. In many cases, the penalty for falling was already much greater than the penalty for underrotating. For singles, doubles, and downgraded triples, after the fall deduction the failed jump attempt resulted in net negative points -- the skater would have scored better not attempting the jump at all.
Now let's look at the new scale of values. The underrotation penalty is now less severe because the base< score is closer to that of the fully rotated jump than the downgraded<< jump. That will help the skaters who can stand up on moderately underrotated jumps without disruption. You should be happy about that.
The negative GOE penalties are also less severe, both for falls and for underrotations, and the falls will still receive the fall deduction.
Judges will now be shown the < signs, so it's more likely than it was in the last two years that they will give -GOE for borderline jumps that looked OK in real time but receive the base<, although they're not required to do so.
Let's compare fall on a fully rotated jump, with -3 GOE and fall deduction, vs. intermediate base< with -1 deduction.
Under the new scale of values,
Falling on single jumps or doubles up to 2F still results in a negative net value (worse than not trying the element at all).
Fall on 2Lz or any triple, including 3A, does result in some positive points, but in all those cases the skater would earn more points for a < jump with -1 GOE.
Fall on rotated 4T or 4S earns exactly 0.1 more than 4T< or 4S<, respectively, with -1 GOE.
So this is a big improvement in terms of rewarding almost-rotated landed jumps better than falls on fully rotated jumps.
And of course, many -- maybe most -- falls will happen on underrotated jumps, which will receive the lower < or even << base mark and then also -3 GOE and the fall deduction.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
Besides the -1 deduction there is also the -3 GOE (formerly mandatory). So, for instance, if you fell on a triple toe you would get 0 for your element (4.0 - 3.0 GOE -1 penalty).
Under the new rules, for a typical 3T jump, I think it will go something like this.
Fall on landing (but fully rotated in the air). 4.1 base - 2.1 GOE - 1.0 deduction = 1.0 total.
Moderate under-rotation (<) 2.9 base - 0.7 GOE = 2.2 total.
Severe under-rotation (<<) 1.4 base - 0.4 GOE = 1.0 total.
If you both under-rotate and fall, you end up with negative 0.2.
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2008
Sorry to interrupt but I ve missed medusa 's comments sooooo much!!!First time I did read the communication all by myself, usually i was bored and was reading the resumes here instead , I m so proud of me.
Last edited:
Here you are again.
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2009
Vent your anger or whatever somewhere else. You said you are a Japanese learning Korean in Korea. What's up with that hatred? Perhaps you should go back to Japan and have some better time at home. You are wasting other users' bandwidth.
Last edited:
Some double jumps like 2l has inc BV too right? So if male skater can't land 3a/3t, can he choose 3a/2t/2l/2l (BTW how many double jumps can he put in a combo)
Remmeber Plushy used to do 4t/3/3, can they add another 2l and make it a 4t/3/3/2 ?
I know this thread is just about jumps, but there are some changes to spins also?
Similar threads
