^ I meant "automatic"in the sense that if you get a <, by that alone you start -2 to -3 points behind the eight ball that has to be made up by positive features just to get even.
To me, there is a little bit of a logic issue. If you look at the Scale of Values, it is clear that a triple Lutz is an entirely different jump from a 3Lz<. They are listed separately (in separate sections, even), they have different base values (and hence GOE points translate differently).
It seems weird to say that if you do a 3Lz< then under-rotaion is a negative feature for GOE. You did not do an under-rotated 3Lz<, you did a perfect textbook 3Lz<.
Same with a 3Lz-e.
Jumps that get a < call have never been scored correctly in this system. They shouldn't be automatically getting -GOE, they should just be treated like any other jump and scored on quality. The values for underrotated jumps should also be on more of a sliding scale (like 60% base value for doubles, 70% for triples, 80% for quads).
It's especially annoying when considering how close the margins can be. A 3.74 rotation quad and a 3.75 rotation quad are virtually impossible to tell apart when viewing in real-time, and the decision to give the < call or not ends up being a 5+ point differential, with the way things go now. That's way, way too much -- 0.01 degree of rotation in a program being worth the value of a whole other technical element or a sizable PCS difference.
Logically the way to solve this would be to have a lower BV for the 3Lz< than you have now, but not as big a reduction for the further GOE deduction.
However you need some sort of deduction possible because at the moment you can knock off -2 or -3 for the under-rotation and presumably this is so the judge can punish an under-rotation that is not quite a downgrade with a further -1 on top of the -2 that comes as standard for the under-rotation.
However there’s no need for the -2 really, you could just adjust the BV to take account of it, and then add the further -1 on top.
For example a 3Lz< has BV 4.43, but with -2 or -3 it takes it down to 3.54 or 3.10 respectively at which point you add in further deductions or positive features.
But if you had it as 3.54 in the first place you would only need an extra -1 where it applied.
At this point you could argue what’s the point because you’ve reached entirely the same result, but just by a different means.
However I would thought the difference of 0.44 between a jump that is bang on the quarter and one that barely avoids being a downgrade is way too small e.g. you get 5.90 for a fully rotated 3Lz, 3.54 effectively for one that is bang on the quarter, and 3.10 for one that barely avoids a downgrade.
I would have said something that gives more marks for the one that is bang on the quarter, but is exactly the same for the one that barely avoids the downgrade is more appropriate, plus it also addresses the argument that barely under-rotated jumps shouldn’t be punished as much.
Also I would say that any further GOE deduction should be based on the original Base Value of the element attempted, because being realistic that’s what the skater attempted, they didn’t really attempt a 3Lz< for example.
Hence if you did this you could ‘reward’ the barely under-rotated jump a bit more, plus positive features would also be rewarded more – negative ones would be punished more, but this probably wouldn’t be a bad thing, plus it wouldn’t make a huge amount of difference to the final figure e.g. each GOE deduction would now be worth 0.59 marks rather than 0.44.
To give some figures -
Currently 3Lz = 5.90, 3Lz< = 3.54 effectively with the -2, 3Lz< barely avoiding the downgrade = 3.10.
However if you had something like 3Lz< = 4.28 and then up to -2 at the original GOE of 0.59 per GOE you could have something like 4.28 = 3Lz< bang on the quarter, no further deductions, 3.69 = 3Lz< with a further -1 for an under-rotation somewhere in the middle between being bang on the quarter and just avoiding a downgrade, and the same 3.10 for a jump that barely avoids a downgrade.
Overall the skater would lose 1.62 marks for the UR bang on the quarter rather than the current 2.36, 2.21 for the one somewhere in the middle, and the same 2.80 for the one barely avoiding the downgrade. This would be a much more fairer ‘linear progression’ for various amounts of under-rotation, rather than the current deduction of 2.36 for the standard 3Lz<, and the 2.80 for the one that just avoids the downgrade.
I am going to send this suggestion to Mr. Lakernik. :yes:
)
