Base values of quads and triple Axels raised, new 1/4-1/2 rule for under-rotations | Page 2 | Golden Skate

Base values of quads and triple Axels raised, new 1/4-1/2 rule for under-rotations

magicalwords

On the Ice
Joined
Nov 1, 2008
On the other hand, ther difference between the flip and the Lutz has been increased. (Who is going to be the first to point poit that this hurts Mao Asada and helps Yu-na Kim. :) ) Maybe this is a forerunner to stricter edge calls.

Hmm, the thing is, I don't think it necessarily helps Yu-Na. It's not like Yu-Na only does the Lutz jump and not Flip; she does the Flip jump as well, so her score is hurt from the lower BV for 3F as well. Of course, she doesn't have two Flip jumps in LP like Mao does, but the lower scale of GOE for triple jumps will hurt her score just as much since she usually gets higher GOE than everyone else.
 

Basics

On the Ice
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
On the other hand, ther difference between the flip and the Lutz has been increased. (Who is going to be the first to point poit that this hurts Mao Asada and helps Yu-na Kim. :) )

yeah, 0.2 will definitely change the outcome. :rolleye:
 

Basics

On the Ice
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
It's not like Yu-Na only does the Lutz jump and not Flip; she does the Flip jump as well, so her score is hurt from the lower BV for 3F as well. Of course, she doesn't have two Flip jumps in LP like Mao does, but the lower scale of GOE for triple jumps will hurt her score just as much since she usually gets higher GOE than everyone else.

well, Yuna might have to do two triple flips now, since the # of double axel attempts has been reduced to twice only.
 

wallylutz

Medalist
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Can we please stop talking about this based solely on Yu-Na or Mao? There are other skaters in this world you know. :rolleye: 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.
 

hurrah

Medalist
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
Thank skating gods!!

I lurrve all the changes. I'm really glad they made a new rule about skating on one foot for half of the step sequence.

I do realize that there are other skaters besides Yuna and Mao, but I do think that all the rules put together does hurt Yuna and boosts Mao. Or rather, these new rule changes will ensure that Yuna isn't unfairly given advantage over Mao and other skaters.
 

wallylutz

Medalist
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
I'm still a little confused about the whole Base< and GoE deal. For example, an underrotated 3A has a base value of 6.0, but since it's underrotated there's also a possible -1 to -2 GoE. It seems like an inefficient way of going about things, to compound penalties like that.

It shouldn't be confusing because nothing new re: the GOE grading of these jumps have changed per say. In the past, when a 3A was downgraded, whether the judge knew about the < sign or otherwise, there is an expectation that the judge will penalize the jump through negative GOE accordingly. The compounded penalties have two purpose:

1) It spreads the penalties of an UR or downgraded jump between the Technical Panel and the judges, thus mitigating the problem of any potential irregularity in judgment or error. In the 6.0 system, any determination of UR rested entirely on the individual judges, therefore, someone who is biased for whatever reasons could turn a blind eye on a mistake.

2) An UR jump that receives < can still have different degree of UR. On one end, the jump could have been superb and really didn't deserve any other penalties aside from the UR and maybe due to positive mitigating factor, the jump could still get positive if not neutral GOE so the two phase system allows this flexibility to exist. On the other hand, another < jump could be so obviously cheated and that the skater really isn't close in mastering the said jump, giving such jump a 70% value without further penalty would in effect encourage future behavior where the skater may hope to get lucky with 70% of the value of a difficult jump. Therefore, a penalty in the form of negative GOE will dampen such desire to cheat the system. The latter can't be more clear in the case of Mr. Morozov who openly told the press that he intended his skater to do 3/3 in Vancouver so that even an UR happens, she will not lose many points. As it turned out, his skater got destroyed using such stupid strategy.
 

wallylutz

Medalist
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
I do realize that there are other skaters besides Yuna and Mao, but I do think that all the rules put together does hurt Yuna and boosts Mao. Or rather, these new rule changes will ensure that Yuna isn't unfairly given advantage over Mao and other skaters.

I think it would be rather foolish to hold such belief because you are assuming Yu-Na and her coach are static or something and that they won't react to these changes and adapt. The 3A that Mao did on the Japan SOI where she UR, two feet, and stepped out will receive exactly 6.0 - 3.0 = 3.0 which is less than the value of a Double Axel. Better than before? Yes, but not by much. The < sign being shown will also likely reduce the GOE of skaters prone to UR, not to mention, the value of the Triple Flip has been reduced.
 

Wrlmy

Medalist
Joined
Jun 17, 2007
Funny thing is, I can make a case for most of the rules ISU comes up with every year. My main concern is that ISU is resorting to immediate remedy whenever there is a "controversy". With these rules in place, the possible downside is that we will see more of "Kostner in 2008" situations, and there will be controversy along the line of "quality is not taken into account enough". Will ISU revert to the old rules then?
 

sequinsgalore

Record Breaker
Joined
Dec 12, 2008
Thank Gods! I'm still in chock though (I really didn't believe ISU would have the balls to follow this through) Hopefully we will se more skaters taking higher risks from next season. Who thinks the next Mens World Champ will have a quad?

By the way have you seen the base value for the choreo step/spiral sequences in the long program? It's only 2.0 point, but +GOE is +1, +2, +3 (instead of +0.5, +1.0, +1.5). This will hopefully reward quality over obscure level features.
 

gkelly

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Overall, these changes look pretty good to me.

Yeah.
I'm still not sure what I think about the smaller GOE increments.

I'm still a little confused about the whole Base< and GoE deal. For example, an underrotated 3A has a base value of 6.0, but since it's underrotated there's also a possible -1 to -2 GoE. It seems like an inefficient way of going about things, to compound penalties like that.

I agree with wallylutz.

I don't think it's inefficient -- I think it gives more flexibility.

Suppose I'm a judge and Skater X does a triple axel that looks pretty iffy to me. It was kind of slow going in and coming out, and I think it was probably a bit underrotated but I can't tell for sure whether it was within the 90-degree allowance. I give it a -1. After the program, when the tech panel reviews the rotation, they add the < mark. I feel vindicated that I was correct in catching the underrotation and I leave in the -1.

Later Skater Y also does a triple axel that looks pretty good. More speed going in, higher and covers more ice in the air, acceptable speed coming out with good extension in the landing position, and the rotation looked fine from my angle. I debate between 0 and +1. After the program, I see that the tech panel has added the < mark, so I realize it must not have been as well rotated as I thought, but everything else was still more than acceptable. Well, that decides me that I'd better not give +1 as the final mark, but I'll consider that +1 for the good qualities and -1 for the underrotation balance out to 0 as the final GOE.

A judge who thinks that intermediate base mark is sufficient penalty for such an exciting attempt that looked clean in real time could choose to award the +1 anyway.

Skater Z crawls into a telegraphed triple axel that is clearly well over 90 degrees short of rotation in the air, so I know it will get at least the < call and possibly <<. The skater struggles to control the landing but does manage to stay on one foot on a back outside edge holding a small circle for about a second before skating into the next strokes. Definitely cheated, but it was landed on one foot on the correct edge, so -3 seems overly harsh. I know right away I'm going to give it -2, and I won't change my mind regardless of whether the tech panel awards the intermediate base mark or the downgrade.

All these cheated triple axels get the intermediate base mark, allowing the tech panel to distinguish between a successful jump, an attempted triple that was not quite there, and a double or a not-even-close attempted triple.

GOE allows the judges to make finer distinctions between a jump that looked clean in real time, a jump that looked suspicious, and one that was clearly short (but still closer to triple than double).

Now suppose that skater Y had done her clean-looking 95-degree short 3A out of a spread eagle entrance and into another spread eagle on the exit, perfectly timed with the music. I was going to give it +2 until I saw the < mark, so I'll give it +1 instead.

Or if skater X also lightly touches her free toe to the ice on the landing I can give her -2. If skater Z loses her fight to hold that landing on one foot and puts her free foot down behind her, I can give her -3.

And all those potential pluses or penalties could also apply to fully rotated jumps.

By the way have you seen the base value for the choreo step/spiral sequences in the long program? It's only 2.0 point, but +GOE is +1, +2, +3 (instead of +0.5, +1.0, +1.5). This will hopefully reward quality over obscure level features.

Thanks for pointing that out. Yes, I hope this will improve the choreography and encourage skaters to concentrate on the quality instead of just chasing levels.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
yeah, 0.2 will definitely change the outcome. :rolleye:

It would be fun to go through some of last year's competitions and score them under the new rules and see if anything interesting happens.

gkelly said:
I give it a -1. After the program, when the tech panel reviews the rotation, they add the < mark. I feel vindicated that I was correct in catching the underrotation and I leave in the -1.

Is that the sequence of events? Do the judges key in their GOEs, then afterward get a chance to change them if the tech specialist gives a call based on replay?
 

bekalc

Record Breaker
Joined
Nov 1, 2006
My only concern is that we will see more messy Kostner 2008 programs being rewarded. I'd like to see the rules talk about PCS and in a factor at least for P/E about clean well executed programs-versus programs wtih all kinds of errors.

But Wally Lutz thank your for mentioning that this is not all about Yu-na and Mao. I frankly think it was more than time for GOE to be lowered. It was especially unfair because someone with a +2 on a double axel, is getting over half the value. But a high quality triple axel with a +2 is not getting half the value. The new rules do allow triple axels and quads to get slightly higher GOE and I think thats a really good thing.

My only qualm is I think that 3/3s especially for women should be allowed to get things like +2. Those are very difficult elements, and if its high quality-that should be rewarded.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
wallylutz said:
In the 6.0 system, any determination of UR rested entirely on the individual judges, therefore, someone who is biased for whatever reasons could turn a blind eye on a mistake.

However, in the 6.0 system if one judge were biased or careless that would be only one score among nine. In the present system a mistaken call by the tech team takes away 30% off the top and in addition influences all of the judges scores at once.
 

just wondering

On the Ice
Joined
Oct 20, 2005
Not exactly sure where to post this because it doesn't deal directly with quad & triple values or underrotation calls, but I thought these two comments, particularly #2, found on the final page, were interesting.

Remarks:
1. In both Singles and Pairs “Starting from the wrong edge” and “Unclear edge at take-off” in Flip or
Lutz jumps will be identified by the Technical Panel to the Judges and in the Protocols with the sign
“e”. Each Judge will then decide himself/herself on the severity of the error (major or minor error)
and the corresponding GOE reduction. [my comment: No more ! calls????]

2. In Jump Combinations/Sequences Half-loop (or “Euler”) (landing backwards) will be a listed jump.
Consequently the units “half-loop + Salchow/Flip” and “any jump landed backwards outside + half-
loop + Salchow/Flip” will become jump combinations of 2 or 3 jumps correspondingly.
Half-loop
will have the Base Value and the GOE values of the single loop jump and will be identified by the
Technical Panel to the Judges and in the Protocols as “1Lo”. (Emphasis mine.)

Does the highlighted phrase mean that jump sequences will now receive the same treatment as jump combinations? i.e., deleting the .80 factor for a jump sequence and become eligible for the 1.1 bonus proposed for jump combinations?

How does this read to you all? JW
 

wallylutz

Medalist
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
They also took out i mark for jumps. That means the tech penal will be more lenient on edges?

No, what this means is the Tech Panel will indicate whether a jump receives a generic edge call, which will now include both unclear and wrong edges. It's up to the individual judge to decide the severity of the error. Essentially, instead of it being a Tech Panel driven process, it's now turned into a shared responsibility.
 

daisies

Rinkside
Joined
Dec 11, 2007
Does the highlighted phrase mean that jump sequences will now receive the same treatment as jump combinations? i.e., deleting the .80 factor for a jump sequence and become eligible for the 1.1 bonus proposed for jump combinations?
I think it means that this particular sequence -- linking two listed jumps with a half-loop -- is now no longer a sequence but a combination and would gain 1.1. But that does not change the value of other types of sequences, like stepping into an axel-type jump from the landing of another jump. That type of sequence would still be 0.8.
 

gmyers

Record Breaker
Joined
Mar 6, 2010
I don't think any of these changes will bring the quad back in a big way. Not the increase in its value or the changing of GOE or anything because jumps done after the halfway point in a free skate are still valued at 1.1 bonus and then you might have the 1.1 value for combos. So its very possible that the triple axel doube toe or some combination of triple jumps and double jump that some do at the haflway point will make much more sense to do than a quad ever would. Also no quad usually means better PCS because of real things and just some percieved things.
 

wallylutz

Medalist
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Not exactly sure where to post this because it doesn't deal directly with quad & triple values or underrotation calls, but I thought these two comments, particularly #2, found on the final page, were interesting.

Remarks:
1. In both Singles and Pairs “Starting from the wrong edge” and “Unclear edge at take-off” in Flip or
Lutz jumps will be identified by the Technical Panel to the Judges and in the Protocols with the sign
“e”. Each Judge will then decide himself/herself on the severity of the error (major or minor error)
and the corresponding GOE reduction. [my comment: No more ! calls????]

2. In Jump Combinations/Sequences Half-loop (or “Euler”) (landing backwards) will be a listed jump.
Consequently the units “half-loop + Salchow/Flip” and “any jump landed backwards outside + half-
loop + Salchow/Flip” will become jump combinations of 2 or 3 jumps correspondingly.
Half-loop
will have the Base Value and the GOE values of the single loop jump and will be identified by the
Technical Panel to the Judges and in the Protocols as “1Lo”. (Emphasis mine.)

Does the highlighted phrase mean that jump sequences will now receive the same treatment as jump combinations? i.e., deleting the .80 factor for a jump sequence and become eligible for the 1.1 bonus proposed for jump combinations?

How does this read to you all? JW

Correct, there is no more "!" call, see post #37.

They now clarify that half-loop will gain the full status of a listed jump when done in a jump combination/sequence. In other words, if a jump combo has three jumps which includes a half loop, that combo will take up the one and only 3 jumps combo slot available in the LP. If a two jump combo includes a half loop, it will count against one of the three allowances for jump combos in the LP. Half loop jump combo will not be allowed in the SP because SP jump combo has a requirement that it to have a Triple and Double as bare minimum and failure to meet the minimum required of rotation carries an automatic -3 GOE. Inclusion of half loop used to make a series of jumps an automatic jump sequence due to its status as a non-listed jump. Now, the rule simply says it "may" become a combo.

Jump sequence will continue to receive a 0.8 factor, its definition has not changed, only the specific use of half loop and its implication has been changed.
 
Last edited:
Top