# Thread: Nebelhorn and Corwin's over'under totation

1. 0

## Nebelhorn and Corwin's over/under rotation

From the GS Newsletter, there was some discussion on how Amber was judged for her 'attempted' triple flip. She had been marked down for underrotating it to the point it was called a double flip when she was further marked down for overrotating it.
In other words, two knockdowns for one jump.

There will be many skaters who will be faced with this dilemna in future competitions. It doesn't matter who does that exactly. The point is, it was and it was marked down twice for two different jumps when her intention was just one jump. Should that be? I could give an opinion like it was all wrong to mark down twice, but if there is a good rationale here, I would like to know what it is.

And then, what happens when a skater does a 'flutz' instead of a lutx. Should the skater be marked down for the missed lutz and credited for a true flip if and only if there is no other flip in the routine? Just inequiring.

Joe

2. 0
From the GS Newsletter, there was some discussion on how Amber was judged for her 'attempted' triple flip. She had been marked down for underrotating it to the point it was called a double flip when she was further marked down for overrotating it.
In other words, two knockdowns for one jump.
Tough. But technically there is only one mark down. Since the flip was so under rotated, it is considered as a double flip, so it is judged as a double flip with less base marks. This is not a mark down, but as a double flip this jump is over rotated, therefore deductions. OUCH!!!

what happens when a skater does a 'flutz' instead of a lutx. Should the skater be marked down for the missed lutz and credited for a true flip if and only if there is no other flip in the routine? Just inequiring.
You mean no other flutz? If a skater does a flutz and a flip with no other flutz, s/he better make sure one of the jumps is in combination to avoid the Zayak violation. JMHO But if s/he put in an additional flutz or flip, then I believe there will be major dinged

3. 0
How is she being marked in comparison to the other skaters that are under rotating their jumps?

I don't understand how she can be marked down for a triple jump by calling it a double jump when it isn't. Shouldn't the mark down only be for under-rotation? Maybe the judges are sticking it to her twice because they don't like her skating.

I think if you flutz when you should have done a lutz you should get a mark down. A good judge should know when a skater is attempting a lutz and mark it as such.

4. 0
Being marked down twice for under rotating, and over rotating of one (the same) jump? What a mess! Poor Amber.

5. 0
Originally posted by rtureck
Tough. But technically there is only one mark down. Since the flip was so under rotated, it is considered as a double flip, so it is judged as a double flip with less base marks. This is not a mark down, but as a double flip this jump is over rotated, therefore deductions. OUCH!!!
yeah, that's exactly right rtureck. One deduction on her double flip. Not a deduction on her triple flip because she never actually did one. Because of the under-rotation she did a bad (over-rotated) double.

There will be many skaters who will be faced with this dilemna in future competitions.
Nebelhorn was a very low level competition and many skaters received this type of deduction. Most (as opposed to many ) skaters who skate GP have fully rotated jumps.

Most at this more elite level who flutz still fully rotate their jumps, and will in that case be only hit with a GOE deduction as per criteria for incorrect edge take off or landing.

6. 0
I expect to see a lot of problems with the quads.
If a skater attempts a quad toe/triple toe, and then a standalone quad, and then a triple axel triple toe, if both quads are underrotated, the skater could be judged as having 4 triple toes. The program takes the first occurrence, so nothing after the combination counts.The skater could have 2 Zayak deductions as well as the double hit on the quad being a badly executed triple.

I think this is excessive.

dpp

7. 0
I expect to see a lot of problems with the quads.
If a skater attempts a quad toe/triple toe, and then a standalone quad, and then a triple axel triple toe, if both quads are underrotated, the skater could be judged as having 4 triple toes. The program takes the first occurrence, so nothing after the combination counts.The skater could have 2 Zayak deductions as well as the double hit on the quad being a badly executed triple.

I think this is excessive.

dpp
I don't expect to see that happen to often. Most skater's with unsuccessful quads either 2 foot their landing or fall. Neither one a problem of rotation. Both only a GOE deduction.

8. 0
Before I like the idea of CoP is it provide a more object way to judge. Leaves less room for manuplating. But now from what I heard so far I'm all for CoP, even there might need a little tweekling, but so far from what I heard is rewarding the quality/control skating.

There is a saying 'ice is slipy'. Why 'slipy is bad? Because it is difficult to control when you are on ice. Thus I think it is only right to reward the skaters who has the most CONTROL ability on ice.

CONTROL means.
When you plan a triple, then only 3 rotation no more, no less. Anything else deduction.
When a jump suppose to entry on a back out side edge, then only BOE entry. Anythnig else deduction.
When a jump suppose to land on a back out side edge, then only BOE. Anything else deduction.
.....

In competetion do what you CAN, not what you try.
In practice try whatever you want.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•