Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
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.