- Joined
- Jan 12, 2014
What does this mean? If they flub the opening planned combo (only single jump), they can't make it up by turning the later single jump into a combo? Or that they could, but will still incur an automatic -3?
2015-16 SOV Tables for Singles and Pairs released
- Thread starter GF2445
- Start date
What does this mean? If they flub the opening planned combo (only single jump), they can't make it up by turning the later single jump into a combo? Or that they could, but will still incur an automatic -3?
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2013
- Country
-
They can make it up. I remember last year people were harping on Polina for not tacking on a 3t on her flip after she missed it on the lutz. Axel jump is required as a solo jump.
I guess after the performance, they review the scores and stick -3 on the planned combo if the skater didnt manage to combo some other jump.
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2014
Thanks for all the number crunching MAXSwagg!! One thing I would be curious to know (if you continue to crunch numbers further) is if falls have not increased overall in the men's field, what about falls among the top three medalists of events? There's definitely a perception that the number of falls have increased (which you've already disproved) but perhaps we have that perception because more of the medalists are falling than they used to?
ETA: I've attempted to start doing this, but there are many protocol sheets I can't find because the ISU page tells me "Bad Gateway."
Not sure! I'll "crunch" some more this week. Yes, going through ALL of those competitors in ALL of those protocols was insane. Lol
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2012
Much appreciated.
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2014
I spent a few hours today putting together an excel automated spreadsheet that we can use to input elements, judges scores, and spits out a protocol sheet that includes the changes from the 2015-2016 updates. (haven't seen anything else like it on the Web before, so I thought I might make it myself). I'm hoping to clean it up and share it with everyone soon.
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2014
I spent a few hours today putting together an excel automated spreadsheet that we can use to input elements, judges scores, and spits out a protocol sheet that includes the changes from the 2015-2016 updates. (haven't seen anything else like it on the Web before, so I thought I might make it myself). I'm hoping to clean it up and share it with everyone soon.
I've been trying to do some VBA programming for some figure skating stuff (including creating a kind of personalized scoring program)...haven't gotten very far.
But for that info I posted, I had to go through every major event protocol from 2004 SA through Worlds 2015, scrutinize every competitor in regards to how many quads they did, what the GOE was for those quads, and how many of those competitors fell. What is that, like 2800 competitors across 102 events, skimming through 53,000 technical elements??? I promise, I have a life. 
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2014
Oof. Yeah if you want I'll be releasing my automated excel sheet and you can feel free to hook it up to vba and make something out of it. Wish isu released protocols in a format that was more copyable/open source....I've been trying to do some VBA programming for some figure skating stuff (including creating a kind of personalized scoring program)...haven't gotten very far. [emoji23] But for that info I posted, I had to go through every major event protocol from 2004 SA through Worlds 2015, scrutinize every competitor in regards to how many quads they did, what the GOE was for those quads, and how many of those competitors fell. What is that, like 2800 competitors across 102 events, skimming through 53,000 technical elements??? I promise, I have a life.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
If neither of the jumps is in combination, I think the jump with the higher base value is treated as a +COMBO (not entirely sure though - it could be that the planned jump combo, usually the opening one, is treated as a combo). Judges should give -3, but of course you still have many judges who'll still give -2 or higher (it's not automatically -3's across the board).
Last edited:
According to the tech panel handbook, "If there is no second jump in a jump combination, the Technical Panel identifies
the intended combination during or after the program. If there is no clear way to identify the combination or the solo jump preceded by steps (steps or no steps in both cases), the Technical Panel will decide which one is the solo jump and which one is the combination in favour of the skater."
I understand "in favour of the the skater" to mean that if one of the two solo jump attempts does not require -3 GOE, they would call that as the solo jump and the other one would be called +COMBO and get -3 anyway, just for having no combo whether there's anything else wrong with it or not.
Of course, in a SP a solo jump with no preceding steps is supposed to have the GOE reduced by -3. But the final GOE doesn't have to be -3, if the jump itself was really good and started off positive.
A SP required jump combo with no second jump attempted is required to have a final GOE of -3. That's now the only automatic required GOE (although it's very rare for jumps with falls to get higher than that).
It should be automatic in the sense that it's required (SP jump combo with no second jump), but the software doesn't force them to give -3.
The -2 is a mistake on the part of the judge, but it's easy to see how that mistake could occur. The judge might see a step out of a jump with immediate preceding steps/moves, or a poorly landed jump with a gap between the takeoff and any preceding steps, and conclude that this is the solo jump and deserves -2, so that's what they input in the computer. Then the skater does another non-axel jump with no combo, successfully or not, and the judge marks it accordingly. At the end of the program the tech panel decides that the first solo jump should count as the combo, but the judge forgets to go back and change the GOE to -3.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
Should've increased the BV of 3Lutz instead of 3T and 3S. How many more edge calls does ISU need to see before they change the BV of the 3Lz..........
I disagree... they need to reduce the edge call deduction, not increase the value of a 3Z. If they increased the value of a 3Z, the discrepancy between strong lutzers and flutzers would have been increased (albeit marginally), and tech specialists would have even more power.
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2014
To be fair, ive never seen a negative edge call on a judging sheet (e rather than just "!") that wasn't warranted. I've seen some "!" jumpers get away without any call but that's very different than things like maos notorious flutz or yulias lip. And only the e causes a base value deduction.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
Kim at 2013 Worlds SP? http://www.isuresults.com/results/wc2013/wc2013_Ladies_SP_Scores.pdf
My issue is that the difference between a ! and an e can make a difference in final placements. Especially in the middle of the pack where skaters are closer together in final scores because they have average PCS/GOE that don't blow them ahead of the field like the favourites.
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2014
That makes sense, but is your solution just to make it penalized less? Or, as some people in this forum say, just to remove the lowered base value calculation entirely like back in 2013? I mean, to me the penalty for e should be as much as an underrotation, and it is. I think under today's judging rules that Yuna would've received an "!" call rather than an e call, but I don't think the "!" existed yet right? (I don't actually know when the exclamation mark appeared)
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
My solution is for less of a penalty on edge calls. To be honest, a one-point deduction and ensuing -GOE seems sufficient (I mean, a fall also gets one point deduction and -3 GOE). It's ridiculous that the base value of a 3Z(e) is that of a 3T, and then GOE is most likely -1 or -2. A clean triple flutz is much more difficult to execute (even if the takeoff is flawed) than a clean triple toe. And it's annoying that it's at the discretion of a tech specialist to decide such a potentially significant swing in points.
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2013
- Country
-
This!!
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2014
To me "Clean triple flutz" just doesn't make any sense. Like, I get that 'clean' to you may mean = didn't fall, rotated, but it is straight up wrong technique. A flutz should be worth lower Base Value than a flip, too (and it is -- 5.3 for flip versus 4.2 for flutz). "Difficulty to execute" doesn't automatically mean reward. Clean edges and clean technique should be rewarded. I personally would rather a skater jump a 3T clean and get more points than that than if they lurched a Flutz just to try to get more points. This is why I am embracing the new changes that penalize negative GOE on quads more, so people stop getting more than a clean lutz from a quad fall.
In terms of "at the discretion of the tech specialist," the TS only flags if it should go under review. The tech panel (TS, Assistant TS, Technical Controller, Data Operator) as a whole make the decision together on whether it is "e" or "!". They do this for underrotations too, as well as spins and footwork. It's how the whole IJS work, so, agree with it or not, I don't understand why this one edge deduction rule seems to be such a sore point.
Besides, I think it's only fair that the ISU at least attempts to create a system that in theory should work in the technical specialists try to be unbias. The entire judging panel are humans. You have to hope that at least most of the humans are trying to be fair and balanced judges, even if as humans they undeniably have favorites. There are going to be sketchy situations and messed up judges, but messing with the point values for individual things like edge call for those few people (rather than adjusting the ENTIRE system to prevent it) is being overly cynical.
... sorry, wrong edges seriously bother me! And as I've gotten into skating and worked on edges with my teacher (who specializes in teaching edge control), I've gotten more and more picky about it.
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2008
- Country
-
The penalty is too extreme right now. A flutz gets less than a double axel now, when the -GOE is added in, which is just wrong. It's still harder to do a flutz than a double axel.
Rika Hongo at Worlds was rather unwarranted.
Rika Hongo at Worlds was rather unwarranted.
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2013
- Country
-
You know, it never ceases to amaze me how few fans know how the system actually works. Sochi rather threw this into the spotlight, that so many were ignorant of how a technical panel actually worked, but every now and again I am reminded...
The Data Operator has no say. At all. They are not a technical specialist, they are usually not even a judge. Their sole function is to enter the elements into the system as called, flag reviews when called, and when the program is over, to show the replays as requested by the technical panel at the various speeds - some panels might even go frame-by-frame for a contentious call. They read back the elements to the panel to ensure they are correct and then press the authorisation button. That's it. It's true that you can learn a lot while sitting in the Data chair, and it is an official position that does require some training, but they do not have any influence whatsoever on the call.
That said, I did agree with the rest of your post. A wrong edge is an incorrect jump and should be harshly punished. I think the current method is about correct.
Similar threads
