More deductions needed for falls

Proxy · Feb 17, 2018

During the Olympic commentary tonight, Johnny Weir said something most of us would agree with: falls needed to be penalized more severely so that skaters are not receiving more points for falling on harder jumps than they get for successfully landing easier jumps.

If you take more risk
AND
you land the jump...you get the big reward.

If you take more risk
AND
you don't can't land the jump. You didn't earn the points. Do something you are capable of landing successfully.

What kind of scoring adjustments do you think are needed by ISU moving forward?

I would suggest automatic downgrade plus all -3 GOE plus 1 point deduction.

breadstal · Feb 17, 2018

ISU is thinking about -5 to 5 GOE system which sounds interesting for me.

Jaana · Feb 17, 2018

I think ISU should also consider the change that only fully rotated jumps will get the base value of any jump. No leeway more for the cheaters, please!

Blades of Passion · Feb 17, 2018

The -GOE deductions need to be increased. It's not just about falls, but mistakes in general. A jump that gets -2 GOE should not be scoring well.

dailytg20 · Feb 17, 2018

Falls should be penalized harshly because you can discern them with the naked eye in real time and you don't even need skating expertise to know it.

chopinskate · Feb 17, 2018

Blades of Passion said:
The -GOE deductions need to be increased. It's not just about falls, but mistakes in general. A jump that gets -2 GOE should not be scoring well.

I agree with fall deductions being increased. But, tell me this because you're well-versed with technique -- wouldn't a good quality Lutz with little pre-rotation be harder to land than a poor quality, highly pre-rotated lutz?

I think the system needs to account for things like technique more before moving on to this. Would you give Hanyu or Jin a -3 for a fall on their jumps, if you were also to give the same -3 GOE on a fall for Shoma or Vincent? There's a clear difference in quality there, right?

NanaPat · Feb 17, 2018

I have a feeling, which may not be correct, that judges are more lenient with GOE on quads than with triples. If a triple has a bobble or stepout, the score suffers, but badly done quads still seem to get big scores.

It seems to me that a triple with 0 GOE is pretty good (covers all the basics, though it might not be extraordinary) while a quad with GOE 0 can have quite visible errors: as long as they don't stagger around like a zombie, everything is cool.

The base value reflects the fact that the jump is harder, you don't have to drop the standards for execution. If it would be considered a bad triple, it should be considered a bad quad. Otherwise you're getting double credit for doing a quad instead of a triple: extra BV, and extra GOE because standards are lower.

Maybe my perception is wrong and they really do penalize bad quads, but it doesn't seem like that to me.

Warwick360 · Feb 17, 2018

breadstal said:
ISU is thinking about -5 to 5 GOE system which sounds interesting for me.

God No. If that happens, we're back to square one where we were when the Quad controversy started with Plushenko and Lysacek.

I think -4 GOE is big enough as it is. Once skaters start to get the Quads stable, I would reckon, at least at the top level, the splat fest will substantially decrease. But surely, these guys need the time and chance to make the errors to get grips with the Quads requirement of now.

Blades of Passion · Feb 17, 2018

chopinskate said:
I agree with fall deductions being increased. But, tell me this because you're well-versed with technique -- wouldn't a good quality Lutz with little pre-rotation be harder to land than a poor quality, highly pre-rotated lutz?

I think the system needs to account for things like technique more before moving on to this. Would you give Hanyu or Jin a -3 for a fall on their jumps, if you were also to give the same -3 GOE on a fall for Shoma or Vincent? There's a clear difference in quality there, right?

"Fall deductions" don't need to be increased because if the -GOE penalties are increased, and if a jump is so bad that it deserves -3 GOE (or close to it), then that is already a huge penalty. Whether to call something as a fall or not is questionable at times, so it's best to let the GOE penalties do most of the work.

My personal proposal to the ISU was to modify the GOE scoring range to include half-point increments (.5, 1.5, 2.5 / and the same for the negative scale), a fall on a jump could be given -2.5 or -3 to differentiate the further aspect of quality you talk about. The ISU instead came back with an idea of -5 to +5 GOE, which is not quite as flexible. My scale is essentially -6 to +6 but I think the smaller increments make it more understandable and would work better so as to not confuse people more from the GOE scale we've always had. We'll see what happens with what the ISU actually does though, they still might go with the half-increment scale.

Ballade88 · Feb 17, 2018

Jaana said:
I think ISU should also consider the change that only fully rotated jumps will get the base value of any jump. No leeway more for the cheaters, please!

Then probably only very few skaters will get that. I remember reading analysis of jump rotations for men a while ago and even skaters who are known to have great jumps did not have full rotation on the difficult jumps; they might be at the 1/8 or less short. I think the judges know that and they don’t wish or have time to analyze every jump in replay, which is only fair if you’re being that strict. The current rules are okay; it’s the inconsistent calls that are the problem.

sc8 · Feb 17, 2018

dailytg20 said:
Falls should be penalized harshly because you can discern them with the naked eye in real time and you don't even need skating expertise to know it.

I agree. In a system where top skaters now score upwards of 300 points across sp/lp, a 1.00 deduction for a fall is not sufficient. Yes, the GOE is impacted too with -3 GOE in the element, but a fall penalized as an automatic 3.00 deduction might be more of a deterrent for skaters who are attempting quads they’re not able to land yet - not even in practice.

I’ve read about the possible -5/+5 GOE, so that might be good too. The -5/+5 GOE , coupled with an automatic deduction (and then maybe 1.00 for fall might be sufficient, but I still propose minus 2.00 or minus 3.00). I don’t think this will stifle skaters going after quads, it’ll just have them attempt ones they are more consistent with.

ks777 · Feb 17, 2018

I don't think it's good idea. We don't want someone like Evan Lysacek winning gold again just because he landed easier jumps..

moriel · Feb 17, 2018

Jaana said:
I think ISU should also consider the change that only fully rotated jumps will get the base value of any jump. No leeway more for the cheaters, please!

And accurate calls for URs and prerotation.
Only then higher penalty for falls will work.

LiamForeman · Feb 17, 2018

I totally oppose the -5 to +5 idea. What that will mean is a Medvedeva will just get +5 on all her successful smallish, muscled jumps. And with her getting 10s on her PCS she will be unbeatable and that would be so boring. Med is already almost unbeatable due to her unwarranted PCS, but gifting her with even more unwarranted GOE for tech would be overkill.

In my opinion, a failed jump gets ZERO points. If you can't handle a jump and fall then you didn't 'have' the jump at that moment. Why should someone get credit for something they had no control of? That's the easiest solution, and just adding a bigger GOE spread won't help for the reason I stated above.

Step Sequence4 · Feb 17, 2018

I feel like the punishment now is high enough. People need to get points for going for things, and I think the rumoured quad BV reductions if implemented well should be a good mix of everything. Take for example Boyang’s skate last night. It was overall very strong but there was one fall, on a quad in the second half of his program. Falling in skating is something that’s unavoidable ESPECIALLY at levels where skaters are pushing themselves to develop new tech content and at lower levels especially this really would just be too harsh. Skaters wouldn’t go for hard elements and the men would at the top level MAYBE go for 2-3 quads, because the risk wouldn’t be worth it and then we’d lose so much of the unpredictability, and see people without quads suddenly winning everything because they aren’t going for hard technical content. One thing that I think also could work would be expanding the deductions for MULTIPLE falls (ex 2-4) in a program, but the system would also have to penalize messy/flawed landings more.

Ziotic · Feb 17, 2018

I think they need to make it so the base value of a jump that you fall on is equal to the same jump with one less rotation. I’m not sure this would really work but I agree you should only be rewarded when successful.

With that in mind, I think ISU needs to look at technology for the answer to technical scores. I know snowborders have monitors on their ankles to notate actual rotations.

There must be someway to put sensor on skates to notate take off and landing positions. Then there would be penalties for for pre rotation and under rotation.

musicfan80 · Feb 17, 2018

LiamForeman said:
In my opinion, a failed jump gets ZERO points. If you can't handle a jump and fall then you didn't 'have' the jump at that moment. Why should someone get credit for something they had no control of? That's the easiest solution, and just adding a bigger GOE spread won't help for the reason I stated above.

I agree with this. To me, a fall means you didn't execute the jump. Period.

Proxy · Feb 17, 2018

Blades of Passion said:
"Fall deductions" don't need to be increased because if the -GOE penalties are increased, and if a jump is so bad that it deserves -3 GOE (or close to it), then that is already a huge penalty. Whether to call something as a fall or not is questionable at times, so it's best to let the GOE penalties do most of the work.

My personal proposal to the ISU was to modify the GOE scoring range to include half-point increments (.5, 1.5, 2.5 / and the same for the negative scale), a fall on a jump could be given -2.5 or -3 to differentiate the further aspect of quality you talk about. The ISU instead came back with an idea of -5 to +5 GOE, which is not quite as flexible. My scale is essentially -6 to +6 but I think the smaller increments make it more understandable and would work better so as to not confuse people more from the GOE scale we've always had. We'll see what happens with what the ISU actually does though, they still might go with the half-increment scale.

BoP, as some other people have noted, the GOEs are just used as placement holders. It's ordinal skating with bigger numbers. I'm not sure either of these would solve the problem. Judges would just give favored skaters +5 on everything else.

drivingmissdaisy · Feb 17, 2018

After watching the men's event, I'd say I'm ok with the current system. The quad guys who are less artistic, Nathan and Boyang, had opportunities to beat the more artistic quad guys but made mistakes. Everyone being roughly equal on tech, the artists rose to the top. Had Nathan or Boyang medaled or won, they would have done so with far superior technical execution. Over the entire event, Yuzuru and Boyang's PCS margin was roughly one well-executed 4Lz. Everything looked ok, to me.

draqq · Feb 17, 2018

Blades of Passion said:
The -GOE deductions need to be increased. It's not just about falls, but mistakes in general. A jump that gets -2 GOE should not be scoring well.

Agreed. It should be more like this:

-3 = -75% off base value
-2 = -50% off base value
-1 = -25% off base value
0 = 0%
+1 = +10% base value
+2 = +20% base value
+3 = +30% base value

Falls = -3 point deduction, doesn't matter where it comes from.

Prioritize the negative effect of mistakes, especially falls. But give suitable reward for landing high risk elements well.

More deductions needed for falls

Proxy

breadstal

Jaana

Blades of Passion

Skating is Art, if you let it be

dailytg20

chopinskate

NanaPat

Warwick360

Blades of Passion

Skating is Art, if you let it be

Ballade88

sc8

ks777

moriel

LiamForeman

William/Uilyam

Step Sequence4

JULLLIEEEEETTTT!

Ziotic

musicfan80

Proxy

drivingmissdaisy

draqq

FigureSkatingPhenom

Similar threads

Connect with us