# Thread: Rule changes you would like to see

1. 0

## Rule changes you would like to see

Since it's the off season, might as well have a nerdy CoP discussion What rule changes would people like to see?

I think quads are undervalued still. If a triple jump is around 3 times the value of a double, then shouldn't quads be around three times the value of a triple? So if a triple toe is worth 4.1 then a quad toe should be worth around 12.

Another thing I would like to see is GOE that is based directly on the base value of the element. For example, each point of GOE could instead be a percentage of base value, like 12%. So +3 GOE could = 36% of base value, +2 = 24%, etc. This is simple and would get rid of needing that irritating Scale of Values table.

This would also have the benefit of increasing GOE for combo jumps. It makes zero sense for a difficult 3-3 combo to get the same GOE as a 3 toe. In 2010, there was an ISU proposal for a 10% bonus for combination jumps, but apparently they couldn't decide how to prevent people from taking advantage of it by doing 3-1 or 2-2 combos. With GOE based on BV, it would reward difficult combos while not doing so for easy combos.

2. 0

This will also be useful for negative GOEs.

I'd also like to see fall deductions changed to a percentage of the Total Segment Score rather than a flat 1.0 for all skaters at all levels and disciplines and competition phases.
As others have suggested this past season, I've come to think it might also be a good idea to start with a relatively small deduction for the first fall and increase the size of the deduction for subsequent falls. E.g., the first one could cost 1% of the TSS, the second fall 2%, and so forth.

Also, as I've been saying for years, I'd like to see skaters have more flexibility about how many of each kind of element they perform in the so-called free program, with minimums and maximums for each kind and a maximum number of total elements.
E.g., a senior freeskate for either men or women could have a maximum of 13 elements, of which 5-8 could be jump elements (with 1-3 combos allowed), 2-5 spin elements, 1-2 step sequences, and some other options available for points as well.

3. 0
Originally Posted by cheerio2

Another thing I would like to see is GOE that is based directly on the base value of the element. For example, each point of GOE could instead be a percentage of base value, like 12%. So +3 GOE could = 36% of base value, +2 = 24%, etc. This is simple and would get rid of needing that irritating Scale of Values table.

This would also have the benefit of increasing GOE for combo jumps. It makes zero sense for a difficult 3-3 combo to get the same GOE as a 3 toe. In 2010, there was an ISU proposal for a 10% bonus for combination jumps, but apparently they couldn't decide how to prevent people from taking advantage of it by doing 3-1 or 2-2 combos. With GOE based on BV, it would reward difficult combos while not doing so for easy combos.
This is exactly what I had in mind! I was more thinking of having GOE 3= 30% of base value, GOE 2= 20% of base value etc.

But one thing bothers me with this strategy : if you try to do more difficult contents like 3-3, you would take much bigger risk than the others trying easier contents like 3-2. i.e., if you fall, you would get something like -3 with 3-3, -2 with 3-2. So this may cause everyone chooses easier path if they have consistency issue, rather than encourage them to choose more difficult layout.

4. 0
Not necessarily a change to the Rule Book (although there are many that could make sense):

I'd like ISU/IOC expand the number of nations who compete at the Olympics.

If the Olympics are about "taking part" then there's no reason that developing countries couldn't/shouldn't have some sort of Olympic representation.

There are performance exemptions granted to developing countries in other sports all the time, in the interest of expanding interest in the sport on a more global level.

We've celebrated skaters from emerging countries on GS before... Icelandic singles skaters, Turkish ice dancers... I wish the Olympics could have room for them.

5. 0
I'd want to see:
1) Bigger deductions for falls.
2) Removing age eligibility restrictions. It's silly that junior women attempt harder content than most seniors but can't compete because of their age.
3) Fewer jumping passes in the LP for women and men. This could help increase the overall quality of the programs IMO because there would be fewer opportunities for falls. And possibly fewer injuries.

6. 0
Abolition of halfway point bonuses.

7. 0
A BV bonus for combination jumps
Free elements in the free skating segment, let them be jump sequences, another unleveled spin or step sequence to give free skating more freedom
50% BV deduction for URed jumps without GOE deduction
Slightly bigger difference in BV between loop and flip jumps

8. 0
Most of all, I wished there was more variety regarding the jumps we see in overall programs, so...

1.) A combination bonus: could be done with bonus points depending on how difficult the combination was, or by increasing the BV of jumps in combination (both jumps, or just the latter depending on the first jump)
2.) No sequence penalty: instead of giving a sequence just 80% of the solo jumps BV, they could add the BV's together like it's done now with the combinations.
Skaters are barely using sequences these days...
3.) The possibility to repeat more than two jumps (or to do a jump more than two times). I don't mean skaters should be allowed to go out and do 3Lo, 3Lo, 3Lo, 3Lo... but as long as the complete jumping pass is different, I think it's fine. Like a skater with a great Lutz could go out and do 3Lz, 3Lz3T and maybe a 3Lz-2A sequence all in one program (and maybe with no sequence penalty more skater would actually do that).
Maybe these 3 changes together would give skaters more possibilities again (or maybe it would just backfire horribly ). I'd love to see things like Hanyus 3A-3A in competition

Additionally, maybe some bonus points for doing all the triples (well 5 triples + 2A for the ladies) in the free skate. It rewards skaters with correct take off edges on Lutz and Flip and works quite well with my easing of the Zayak rule.

I'd like mistakes to be more severly penelized too, but that comes after the make-more-diverse-programs part

9. 0
I like most of these, Li'Kitsu, but I'm confused about one.

Originally Posted by Li'Kitsu
3.) The possibility to repeat more than two jumps (or to do a jump more than two times). I don't mean skaters should be allowed to go out and do 3Lo, 3Lo, 3Lo, 3Lo... but as long as the complete jumping pass is different, I think it's fine. Like a skater with a great Lutz could go out and do 3Lz, 3Lz3T and maybe a 3Lz-2A sequence all in one program (and maybe with no sequence penalty more skater would actually do that).
So what happens if a skater plans 3Lz, 3Lz3T, and 3Lz-2A, let's say in that order, but falls on the second 3Lz so the 3T never happens, and stumbles out of the last 3Lz so it's just called as a solo jump, with the 2A either called as a separate jumping pass or ignored completely?

Under the current rules both would be called as "3Lz+SEQ" and receive the sequence penalty. Would that rule still apply to jumps that need to be in combo or sequence but aren't because of mistakes? Even if successful sequences receive no penalty?

Also, I'm not sure why being allowed to do three 3Lz would give skaters more possibilities. I assume the reason this skater wants to do a solo 3Lz in addition to the combo and the sequence is because she can do an enhanced 3Lz with difficult or creative entry, exit, and/or air position, but can't combine those enhancements with the combination or sequence.

But in most cases, if a skater can do 3Lz+2A, she could also do a 2A in sequence after a different triple jump instead. Otherwise, to show off more ways to combine or enhance her favorite (or highest scoring) jump would usually require her to leave out some possibilities. So we'd get even more skaters avoiding the full variety of jump takeoffs.

Maybe these 3 changes together would give skaters more possibilities again (or maybe it would just backfire horribly ). I'd love to see things like Hanyus 3A-3A in competition
Just getting rid of the sequence penalty should encourage things like 3A-3A.

10. 0
For your #3, Li', I suggest you go back and watch Elaine Zayak's program to see how much have more than 2 of the same jump can be BO-ring!

For #2, it's really difficult to even DO a sequence anymore unless a skater is using an Axel at the back end of it. A sequence used to consist of small jumps in rhythm between two listed jumps, but then the ISU went and changed the definition to eliminate turns/steps between (so, for example in 1998, Michelle Kwan did a 3Lo-falling leaf (3 turn)-2T which would count as a jump sequence then but today would be considered 2 separate jumping passes). I would like the original definition of jump sequence to be restored so that a skater COULD do a jump pass like Kwan's or something like 2A or triple jump-falling leaf (3 turn)-3T and not actually use up two jumping passes. This would require jump combinations to get a 10% bonus and sequence equal to BV of the two biggest scoring jumps to make it worth a skater's while....

11. 0
So it happened what I thought it would, I didn't think it trough well enough

Originally Posted by gkelly
So what happens if a skater plans 3Lz, 3Lz3T, and 3Lz-2A, let's say in that order, but falls on the second 3Lz so the 3T never happens, and stumbles out of the last 3Lz so it's just called as a solo jump, with the 2A either called as a separate jumping pass or ignored completely?

Under the current rules both would be called as "3Lz+SEQ" and receive the sequence penalty. Would that rule still apply to jumps that need to be in combo or sequence but aren't because of mistakes? Even if successful sequences receive no penalty?
Actually, you're answer is better than anything I could have thought of by now. The name sequence penalty wouldn't apply anymore, but reducing the BV and/or negative GOE would be fine. Not counting the element at all would be too much (the skaters would lose the second jump too, after all). OTOH, the case of the 2A is a little bit more difficult, but I probably woulnd't have the 2A counted anymore (although as it is now, if I'm not mistaken, skaters can add a 1T or something like that after a jump with step-out or fall and avoid the penalty - but I'm not really liking that rule, to be honest).

Also, I'm not sure why being allowed to do three 3Lz would give skaters more possibilities. I assume the reason this skater wants to do a solo 3Lz in addition to the combo and the sequence is because she can do an enhanced 3Lz with difficult or creative entry, exit, and/or air position, but can't combine those enhancements with the combination or sequence.

But in most cases, if a skater can do 3Lz+2A, she could also do a 2A in sequence after a different triple jump instead. Otherwise, to show off more ways to combine or enhance her favorite (or highest scoring) jump would usually require her to leave out some possibilities. So we'd get even more skaters avoiding the full variety of jump takeoffs.
But with 8 or 7 jumping passes, a skater can kind of 'run out of jumps', that's why I'd like skaters to be able to repeat more jumps. Like Yuna not being able to do a 2A-3T anymore - yes it's because she doesn't have the loop, but I don't really like this logic. Another thing is Yuna is even capable of a 3F-3T. Now this is unrealistic, but what if Yuna wanted to go for 3Lz-3T, 3F-3T and 2A-3T in one program - I think she should be allowed to (it would be extremly exhausting and difficult, so I'm not sure anyone would want to try it, but maybe it's a btter example than the 3Lz-2A). Or Hanyu and his 3A-3A - it's a lot more difficult than a 3A and 3A-2T, and the main advantage would be that it gives you an additional jumping pass. But if you can't fill that with another jump anymore, the main advantage is gone, while you lose one opportunity for good GOE.

It's true that there's the possibility of even less skaters doing the whole set of triples, that's why I thought a bonus for the whole set might help. When I said I want more variety, I don't necessarily mean in one program, but among a whole competition. By now, all the layouts look quite similar.

@mskater93
Yes, I know... I don't mean that there shouldn't be any restriction to how often you can repeat a jump, but I'd like the rule as it is now to be loosened up at least a little. I guess a lot of people woulnd't like that, that's ine, it's just my opinion
And agreed on the old definition of jump sequences!

12. 0
Originally Posted by Li'Kitsu
Yes, I know... I don't mean that there shouldn't be any restriction to how often you can repeat a jump, but I'd like the rule as it is now to be loosened up at least a little. I guess a lot of people woulnd't like that, that's ine, it's just my opinion
And agreed on the old definition of jump sequences!
For me, I think you should be allowed to repeat one jump at most, to accommodate doing a combo finishing with a 3R or 3T and also doing the jump solo. Doing a jump once shows you can do the jump, so I don't see the point of doing a jump twice. We've seen so many injuries through the years from the triple jumps, and now that the programs are much harder due to the footwork requirements and PCS I'd like to see the jump requirements scaled back.

13. 0
Originally Posted by Li'Kitsu
But with 8 or 7 jumping passes, a skater can kind of 'run out of jumps', that's why I'd like skaters to be able to repeat more jumps.
That's only likely to happen if the skater can do multiple combos/sequences using difficult jumps, not just triple-double combos, and/or does not have a full range of jumps in his/her repertoire.

With the current 7-jump pass limit for ladies, and the required axel, ladies who do five different triples but can't do any triple-triples and can't combine a triple with a double (or single) axel are already only able to repeat one triple -- or repeat two if they leave one out.
Having at least one 3-3, or a 2A-3 combo or sequence, makes it possible to skate a 7-triple program in 7 jump passes and also include a 2A.

So the best jumpers (the ones who can do difficult combos/sequences) and the weaker jumpers (those who can only have two or three different triples in their repertoire) are the ones most likely to run out of jump passes under the current rules. The average international-level senior lady will need all the available jump passes to do two triples twice each.

Men who can do triple axels solo and in combo are also more likely to do triple-triples, so with 8 jump passes available to them they're not likely to run out of jump passes and more likely to run out of triples to fill the available slots. But the best jumpers who can also do quads -- especially if they can do two different quads and/or repeat one in combination -- then they will generally have more jumps than slots to fit them in.

So if rules allow more repeats of the same jump, some of the other jumps are not going to be included at all, even more than is already the case.

I like the idea of a modest bonus for using all jump takeoffs.

I'd also like to see more rules that allow for different kinds of options that would encourage more variety across the whole field, allowing each skater to showcase his or her own strengths -- but not by encouraging them to repeat the same jump or the same two jumps more often and leave out several of the standard takeoffs.

My suggestions would be:

2.0 bonus for including six different takeoffs as double jumps or higher: to count, no edge call or downgrade but underrotation call OK; GOE of -1 or better (I do see one problem with this that I won't get into now)

4.0 bonus for including six different takeoffs all as triple (or higher), same restrictions

4.0 bonus for including eight different takeoffs as double or higher -- this only works if double walley and double inside axel are added to the scale of values -- heck, add the triples too although I don't ever expect to see those triples in competition -- singles from those takeoffs could still count as transitions only

Bonus multiplier to the last jump in a combination, to encourage double-triple combinations, or maybe double-quad, and also 1A+3S (or 1A+4S, which has been attempted) as a true combination with one-foot axel

Bonus for jump combinations performed with jumps in both directions, or even for solo jumps performed opposite to the skater's natural direction -- not sure how to score this, since if it's the first or second element the tech panel won't necessarily know which jump was in the "opposite" direction, but I think something like 1.0 per revolution in addition to the base value of the jump might make sense

As mskater93 suggests, redefining jump sequences to what they were at the beginning of IJS (but keeping half-loop between harder jumps as 1Lo in a three-jump combo, not incurring the sequence penalty) would allow more possibilities

14. 0
More than anything, I'd like the ISU to announce all major changes at least 1.5~2 yrs before the effective date so that they can have 2 or more summers to train; that is, difficult elements such as jumps, or jumps, or jumps... or maybe spins too? I guess spins can be 1 yr (1~2 summers), and 1.5~1.8 yrs for jumps (2 summers+a few months).

More choreographic elements like Spirals should be okay with 1 yr prior to the first summer event to take effect. Other more minor/easier changes are due to its importance, but anything should be announced at least 6 months prior to the beginning of a season. Also, things that may influence choreography greatly should be announced 8~9 months prior.

Any other suggestions for the minimal term before effective dates?

15. 0
They usually finalize the changes in June. So one year (effective the following July) would make sense if it's something that's going to affect choreography and training.

Or if it's a major major change to how the tech panel and/or judging panel perform their duties that will require new training. We haven't really had anything that major other than the initial switch from 6.0 to IJS. But someday there probably will be.

Something like a change to the way falls are penalized wouldn't really affect skaters' or even officials' preparations all that much, so I wouldn't think it would need a year's lead time. But it would be better to have the discussion more publicly and elicit feedback from skaters and coaches and rank-and-file officials rather than just having the technical committees impose something without warning.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 Last

#### Posting Permissions

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