- Joined
- Feb 17, 2007
ISU Communication 1494
- Thread starter Bennett
- Start date
The only positive about the downgrade rule right now is that when a skater makes several errors so that a -3 grade is not enough, the downgrade rule works by chance rather than by design. Some would like it if the judges could give out a -4, -5, etc.
Maybe a little more sense. I'd be nice to say if a jump had more than 2.5 turns in the air (and less than 3.5 turns), it's a triple. But there are six types of (scored) takeoffs which have different pre-rotation and half of which are supposed to be two-footed. For example, the 3T, which rightly has the lowest base value (for a triple), is supposed to be a two-footed takeoff and rarely (at least among the women) has over 2.5 turns in the air. The 3S, which has the 2nd lowest base value, also rarely has over 2.5 turns in the air.
Do you have some indication that they'll change the rules for the technical specialist? The "Under rotated up to ¼ rev.(not downgraded)" "–1 to –2" guideline seems to indicate that they'll keep 1/4 turn short on the landing as the defining point, not 1/2 turn. Unless they change the rule to "clear/obvious at regular speed", then we'll continue to see several events where the scores don't make sense. Driven to pessimism, the only rule change I see them doing is making the pre-rotation rule complicated and tougher.
Yes, that does sometimes seems appropriate, and when underrotation is among the multiple errors the downgrade in addition to negative GOE works well for those cases. (It's cases where the underrotation is the only error and the rest of the element is better than adequate that the double penalty is most unfair.)
No, I wouldn't define it that way . . . because those numbers would have different meanings when applied to axels, because of the natural "prerotation" tendencies of some takeoffs that you mention, because the natural curve of the entry and exit edges slightly reduce exact number of degrees that would occur if the jumps were performed on straight lines (which they shouldn't be) and the smaller the circle the more pronounced that effect.
I can think of three possible ways to address the underrotation issue more logically and more fairly, but this probably isn't the thread to do it in.
I wouldn't say that toe jumps have two-footed takeoffs by nature. When performed correctly the takeoff is from an edge with a toe assist. There are several different ways they can be performed incorrectly. Only some of those involve reducing the amount of rotation in the air. Only some involve incorrect distribution of weight between both feet. "Toe axel" is one such error that does both. But the reason for downgrading triples to doubles (and so forth) is the reduced rotation, not the weight distribution.
"Two-footed" when describing a jump error usually refers to the landing, which again may or may not be related to underrotation or if not directly related may or may not sometimes occur in conjunction with underrotation. And in fact there are at least three or four different kinds of errors that can result in both feet touching the ice and subsumed under the phrase "two-footed," but some are more serious than others so it's worth distinguishing between those errors and their respective penalties and worth keeping the underrotation penalty (downgrading) separate from the two-foot landing penalty.
I have no knowledge of what changes in the rules or technical panel guidelines might be in the works.
Directly showing positive scores for each element is one of the advantages of the CoP system, IMO. The skaters can see that they were rewarded for elements done well.
You could make some accounting changes so that positive GOEs are a part of the presentation, but I don't think you'd want to. Is jump height and distance purely presentation? Is how fast a skater spins purely presentation?
By increasing the value of both, the degree of difficulty of the quad relative to the 3A is insignificant and IMO makes it an exercise in futility for all concerned. What a crock!
It would seem all they've accomplished is to muddy the waters further for the skaters and those who have to try to develop programs that maximize points.
It also occurs to me it muddies the waters for the judges who already have enough trouble with the way it was. Now THEY have to learn it all over again, too.
What a mess! I don't see it getting much better any time soon. Maybe they should start all over again. :scratch::banging:
So far the discussion has focused mainly on the men and pairs, but it's significant for the ladies too. Having the 3A worth more helps Mao & Yukari, and complements the bonus for 5 triples not including the 3A. It favors someone who has all six jumps, and who doesn't telegraph. ISU is clearly looking for diversity as well as quality in jumps.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
Can you explain this a little more? What "bonus" are you referring to?
I can see how raising the value of a triple Axel is a good thing for the two skaters in the world that have a triple Axel, but I don't see any new advantage to having all 6 triples (as opposed, say, to 3A, 2Lz twice, 3F twice, 2A, 2A).
About telegraphing, the new rules are the same as the old, as far as i can see -- -1 GOE. I don't see anything in the new rules that particularly encourages diversity. To me, the intent seems to be quite straightforward: the two hardest tricks are triple Axels (especially for ladies) and quads (for men). Since they are the hardest, they should get more points.
Has anyone read the communication 1495? What's this? Is this like conference agendas and minutes from the previous conference?
http://isu.sportcentric.net/db//files/serve.php?id=936
http://isu.sportcentric.net/db//files/serve.php?id=936
It's the agenda and proposals to be voted on for the ISU Congress that will take place in June. (Happens every even year.)
Most of those proposals won't pass, and if you read them closely you'll see that some are mutually exclusive. But it let's you know what issues are up for consideration.
Most of those proposals won't pass, and if you read them closely you'll see that some are mutually exclusive. But it let's you know what issues are up for consideration.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
Yes, any member (i.e., national federation) can submit a proposal to the Congress. So can the ISU Council. I notice that for a few propsals the ISU Council is already on record as being opposed.
There is a discussion going on here
http://www.goldenskate.com/forum/showthread.php?t=21576&page=7
about Proposal # 175, sponsored by Finland, to allow a country to send an extra skater to worlds if that skater is in the top six at Europeans or Four Continents. This almost surely will not pass.
In fact, I doubt if any of the substantive propasals put forward by individual member without ISU council support will pass. I wouldn't be surprised if many of them are withdrawn, tabled or referred to a committee and never come up for a vote at all (most legislative bodies are like that.)
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
We discussed this before. It seems the perfect jump man will also get additional points for his jump which is then remembered in the PCS's Skating Skills where it also boosts up that score too.
That seems to me to be a double plus to counteract the double penalty on an underrotaated jummp.
The comparison of two such skaters becomes wider.
Joe
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
Does it affect the down grades the same as before? Just wondering if downgrades are on a percentage basis or a set point deduction.
Joe
I think feraina might be relating to the rumour that ISU plans to establish a bonus for skaters who have a full set of triples (excluding axel). There was a Japanese fluff piece that suggested that such a rule will be established. It is not, however, mentioned in the communication, so the rumour was probably false.
Similar threads
