2018-2019 Season - New rules

[Miller]

And there I was, thinking they‘d put some restrictions on backloading. Apparently to get more „art“. Now they‘re doing what exaxtly? Cut down 30 seconds in the men and pairs FP so that there‘s even less time for choreography? Good god. Even a ban to backloading would have been a better idea than this.

I‘m not very positive all these bullet points will actually change anything. So, what, you‘re just going to have Satoko get no GOES at all because her jumps are tiny? Figure skating is and was always highly subjective. „Good height“ is like no indicator at all for a good jump. Because, you know, there are fast rotators who have small jumps (Satoko, Evgenia to an extent) but also ones who jump high but don‘t rotate that fast (Kaetlyn, Daleman). So, do we really want to say that one style is superior to the other? I‘m also a bit afraid that this is going to lead to even more controversy. As one judge might find a jump „effortless throughout“ whereas the other doesn‘t, for what reason it may be. So, how are these changes going to affect anything? Or even make figure skating more artistic like they said what these new rules would be about? If anyone could explain the logic behind this, I‘d appreciate it, because right now, frankly, I‘m not getting it. At all.

I don't think there's any logic at all. They've had a bee in their bonnet about having all routines 4 minutes for a long time, and have just been unable to stop themselves, despite all the worries about the quad revolution and loss of artistry and so on.

Re Satoko she should still be able to get +3 GOE for her jumps no problem, there's always the 3 secondary ones she can get. The problem for her and perhaps others is getting the very good height and distance bullet, it's possible there may be a whole category of skaters who are limited to +3, and then a further set i.e. Kaetlyn Osmond etc. who can go on to +5.

 

[gkelly]

And what about non-jump elements? I realize that the +GOE values for these elements are smaller than for triples and quads. But can a skater with smaller jumps who thus can't earn top GOE for jumps get +4s and +5s for spins and steps, if that's where they excel, and thus make up at least some of the difference overall?

 

[Miller]

And what about non-jump elements? I realize that the +GOE values for these elements are smaller than for triples and quads. But can a skater with smaller jumps who thus can't earn top GOE for jumps get +4s and +5s for spins and steps, if that's where they excel, and thus make up at least some of the difference overall?

I don't think this has been mentioned at all (I may be wrong). I think the general idea about +/-5 on jumps has always been more a focus on the negative side so that you get more penalties for things like planned falls, but there's also been an additional thing on the positive side of rewarding excellent/exceptional jumps even more, but only at +5. Hence I wouldn't have thought the number of GOEs for spins and steps would change.

 

[Osmond4gold]

satoko isn't the only one who doesn't jump very high... let's stop blaming her for all of the small jumps... plenty of the ones you love have smaller jumps too

Totally agree with this statement, and until some posters go and see it live, they are unable to truly talk about GOE. There is a difference from seeing it rinkside versus say a TV or computer screen in someone's basement.

 

[Fluture]

I don't think there's any logic at all. They've had a bee in their bonnet about having all routines 4 minutes for a long time, and have just been unable to stop themselves, despite all the worries about the quad revolution and loss of artistry and so on.

Re Satoko she should still be able to get +3 GOE for her jumps no problem, there's always the 3 secondary ones she can get. The problem for her and perhaps others is getting the very good height and distance bullet, it's possible there may be a whole category of skaters who are limited to +3, and then a further set i.e. Kaetlyn Osmond etc. who can go on to +5.

Well, I‘m glad I‘m not the only one who thinks this is completely illogical. I mean, after all this Medvedeva/Zagitova controversy during the Olympics there was this loud cry to „focus on artistry, we need focus on artistry!“ and then they‘re pulling something off that‘s exactly the opposite direction??

And I honestly don‘t see a problem with pairs and men programs being longer than ladies. So, why focus on changes that nobody really wanted instead of the ones actually asked by coaches, skaters and spectators?! Because, I just can‘t imagine Yuzu or Kolyada or Orser or ANYONE asked for this. I. Just. Can‘t.

And this is the problem. While I like Kaetlyn and have absolutely no problem with the other skaters who jump very high, I also don‘t think to specially treat them (e.g. in making + 5 GOEs only possible for them) just for the way their bodies are and the technique they use to jump ??

 

[Danny T]

I completely agree that a lot of the 'new' GOE bullets are just as vague as the old ones. Unless they specify later, 'very good' distance and height doesn't really mean anything. How high/far is considered good? Is 'good' the same for every single skater, ie. Satoko has to reach Kaetlyn's height on her jumps to be considered good, or because Satoko has a smaller stature as long as her jumps improve from the current standards it's ok? 'Very good' take-off and landing, effortless throughout, etc also must be defined more clearly. And can somebody please remove the 'matched to musical structure' bullet? It's even worse to define than all the other ones - and I think should belong to the components (ie. IN/CO) and not in the elements.

So far, this tells me nothing has changed from the old system at all. Except judges can manipulate GOE even more

 

[Baron Vladimir]

And there I 6was, thinking they‘d put some restrictions on backloading. Apparently to get more „art“

From what i heard, there is a possibility that only 4 or 5 jumps/combos in second half will get bonus. That definitely wouldnt bring more art like some of people here think, but apparently ISU thinks that is not that hard to put jumps in second half if you didnt have some jumps before those second half jumps. To get 'more balanced/artistic' programmes never was an idea i consider to be beind it, like some did though. I think that narrative was wrong all along.

 

[Li'Kitsu]

Okay, I am waiting for Nathan and Vincent's GOEs Watch Nathan get +4/5s for his scratchy jumps.

[To be completely clear: I actually like Nathan and I think he has a lot of potential to become a great skater. He needs fix his jumps+PCS before I can consider him one though, and I absolutely disagree with the scores he got in Milan and PC for his FS]

Same for Shoma for example - outside his 3A, his jumps are all small (not just average, but small - pretty much the smallest you can find in the senior ranks). But I doubt it'll really keep him from high GOEs.

___________________


I'm a bit surprised what some people disagree so harshly with is the rewarding of big jumps. To bring out the overused old truth: FS is a sport, jumping higher and getting more ice coverage is harder then jumping smaller, so yes it obviously should be rewarded It's perfectly fine that fast rotation can make up for lacking height when it comes to completing the jump rotation-wise, but that's how you get the BV, not the quality points. Makes perfect sense to me.

 

[Fluture]

Same for Shoma for example - outside his 3A, his jumps are all small (not just average, but small - pretty much the smallest you can find in the senior ranks). But I doubt it'll really keep him from high GOEs.

___________________


I'm a bit surprised what some people disagree so harshly with is the rewarding of big jumps. To bring out the overused old truth: FS is a sport, jumping higher and getting more ice coverage is harder then jumping smaller, so yes it obviously should be rewarded It's perfectly fine that fast rotation can make up for lacking height when it comes to completing the jump rotation-wise, but that's how you get the BV, not the quality points. Makes perfect sense to me.

Well, I think that‘s not entirely true. For example, in other sports you have different height or weight classes and it‘s not entirely fair if you compare a rather small skater to a very tall one because obviously the latter will be able to jump higher. There‘s also so many different things to take into account and the body type plays a major role in this, too. So, I think it‘s not that easy.

 

[Li'Kitsu]

Well, I think that‘s not entirely true. For example, in other sports you have different height or weight classes and it‘s not entirely fair if you compare a rather small skater to a very tall one because obviously the latter will be able to jump higher. There‘s also so many different things to take into account and the body type plays a major role in this, too. So, I think it‘s not that easy.

No, being smaller doesn't automatically mean you can't jump as high. Just look at Midori Ito. Or Nobunari Oda, Wakaba Higuchi, Alena Kostornaia... of course there are physical factors, but that height = big jumps thing isn't true. And then there is the point were being taller makes it harder to rotate & keep your air position - why do think most skater are pretty tiny to begin with?

And again, yes of course there are physical factors. Like there are with the whole question of being able to become an elite figure skater. That's pretty much the norm for every sport? Flexibility for example is also something that is in big part "inherent" - should we now not reward better and more difficult spin or spiral positions anymore, because "that's just because they good biologically lucky, not fair to reward that?". Of course not.
(And before you say: but you can work for your flexibility. Sure, as you can for jump height/ice coverage)

 

[Sam-Skwantch]

..... 'very good' distance and height doesn't really mean anything. How high/far is considered good? Is 'good' the same for every single skater, ie. Satoko has to reach Kaetlyn's height on her jumps to be considered good, or because Satoko has a smaller stature as long as her jumps improve from the current standards it's ok?

This is what concerns me too. Like do we just know it when we see it? If you see it and I don’t am I an idiot or are you just more easily impressed but even more concerning is if you hit 5 bullet points and miss the very good height do you now lose GOE just because it isn’t “very high”

And can somebody please remove the 'matched to musical structure' bullet? It's even worse to define than all the other ones - and I think should belong to the components (ie. IN/CO) and not in the elements.

Been thinking this for years but never came right out and said it. Yes it should be rewarded in PCS in my opinion since that is what it’s reflecting. I guess there is something to be said for timing your jumps up but if you build a long set up jump into the program then is it really worth much even if it’s “very high” Maybe we can ask the ISU to consider only “unlocking” that bullet after someone satisfies the difficult entrance requirements too. Why not get even more confusing and selective with the points.

So far, this tells me nothing has changed from the old system at all. Except judges can manipulate GOE even more

Sadly...this is what we could see. We’ve already seen judges who favor their own and then give the lowest marks to the direct compiletitors of their own skaters. This can potentially become an even bigger problem. :curse:

Im still willing to be convinced by someone this GOE buisiness is a wise decision but I’m reaching the “talk me off of the ledge” phase.

 

[4everchan]

i don't know why the fuss about the distance and height... i haven't been to a billion competitions.. but in recent years, I have seen 3 or 4 and that's enough to me to tell you that some skaters have huge jumps and cover a lot of ice and others don't.... for instance, the ice coverage of Gabby's 3t-3t is amazing and what is most amazing is the height of the second jump, which is higher than the first.... so here she gets both distance and height... very easy to spot live...

 

[Sam-Skwantch]

You’re missing my point here I think.....lots of people would agree about Gabby....although I must confess I think her 3t-3t has lost a bit of steam this year but no doubt about it....it’s still a shining example. Gabby isn’t the issue here though because she does have one of the better 3t-3t’s out there. Where is the cutoff though and clear definition to distinguish very good height from just acceptable height? I say this as someone who has been right there on the ice with elite skaters and lower level skaters and seen or even filmed them jumping. I don’t know what good height and distance is compared to very good height or even what average height really is.

This is the concern...it’s not about individual skaters...it’s about not really feeling confident that the judges will be able to properly handle this wider scale. Especially just visiting a few of the examples of blatant bias we saw this year. Now the judge who is generous with one skater can be even stingier with a direct rival. Perhaps fairly and perhaps unfairly!

This 3z-3t has everything I look for in a jump.

https://youtu.be/TaPTCOtEC7o?t=4m47s

To me this has very good height and yet I’ve heard people...even reasonably knowledgeable people who disagree. It’s not the gabby’s we need to worry about.....it’s the ones who are right on a yet undefined line that I’m concerned about.

Gotta admit too that I’ve never really thought the bullet for big jumps should weigh any more than any other bullet. That’s kind of the turn off for me.

 

[4everchan]

i am not missing your point... i just used gabby as a clear example... the judges are watching skaters all the time... and it's up to them to make that judgment and to me, it's a non issue. If we ought to believe that the judges are incompetent, then, no matter the changes in rules, the judging will be flawed...

if you marry someone one day sam, you will need to trust them.. if not, your life will be a just a long paranoia ... your partner may or may not betray you... but in the end, if you trust them, you have better chances to be happy... at one point, you have to do the leap of faith...

re tarakanova : there is good height but not a lot of distance on that angle... also, the leg position is not stellar... the lutz is telegraphed... nice rippon and she doesn't lose flow into the second jump which is great .

So there, I see things you may or may not agree with

Regarding more weight on height? why do you disagree? it's been something people have talked about for years... i remember when i was watching in the 90s... people were praising girls like chouinard and sebastyen for the height of their gigantic lutzes but then, these girls would often make mistakes because the jumps were too big... and on the other side of things, skaters with smaller jumps were getting big rewards... it's been what? almost 30 years that people hope that the more athletic jumps get rewarded...

think of it this way : if we agree that jumps is probably one of the features of figure skating closer to other sports, why not reward jumps that are bigger and higher and cover more distance... it's the one thing that can be quantified... of course... now it will be by the eyes of the judges... but it could be done with technology at one point... just like in big air they tell us the amplitude of tricks, highest, and average... To me, this is not getting closer to subjective judgment but closer to objective judgment.

If they are able to map out the distance traveled by tennis players on each point, and overall, they could also map out ice coverage...There are tons of ways where the ISU could look to make things more easily quantified.... it would still leave lots of room for the "artistic" side of the sport to shine and be marked for what it is...

I am not suggesting this will happen any time soon. I am saying that making bullets that favour items that could be objectively quantified is a good step in that direction.

Finally : re Gabby... she's had such a year filled with injury that perhaps it explains her jumps being a bit smaller... however, since she's started out, she has reduced their size to control them... I am thinking that perhaps, she wants to reduce the 3-3's amplitude if she is trying to make a quad happen... perhaps to differentiate the feeling between both jumps???? I have no idea... but when I think about Gabby, i am just amazed at how she dealt with the season she's had, managing to do her best for the Olympic team event. During the fall she was coming back from abdominal surgery and couldn't do edge jumps as easily... then Nationals, she won it despite having pneumonia... at worlds after a solid SP she sprained her ankle...it was the first time i had seen her getting UR calls on jumps (at least that i recall of).. so I guess she was just really hurt. Kudos for this year fighting like a warrior! Hopefully she gets a couple healthy seasons in a row now!

 

[Sam-Skwantch]

i am not missing your point... i just used gabby as a clear example...

My point and focus of concern is how we address the less clear examples.

re tarakanova : there is good height but not a lot of distance on that angle... also, the leg position is not stellar... the lutz is telegraphed... nice rippon and she doesn't lose flow into the second jump which is great .

She takes off before the face off dot and nearly hits the boards. This jump combo probably covers 15-20ft of distance. Watch her in warm ups from the side. It’s pretty high and far by even fairly modest standards.

https://youtu.be/2IKNh67LJKA?t=23s

You can see my concern coming to fruition with weighting bullets from this completely random example that popped into my head. A little bit of bias in a positive or negative direction can have two somewhat reasonable opinions at odds. Now imagine one of those judges who were clearly and obviously bias. A poor judge can really shake things up more than before. This is what concerns me.

As an aside I’ve recently tried to do simple waltz jumps that covered that exact spot and recreate that distance. It’s fricking pretty big IMO!!

Telegraphed??? It’s one of the shorter set ups into a deep outside edge I’ve seen an example of :scratch:

Regarding more weight on height? why do you disagree? it's been something people have talked about for years... i remember when i was watching in the 90s... people were praising girls like chouinard and sebastyen for the height of their gigantic lutzes but then, these girls would often make mistakes because the jumps were too big... and on the other side of things, skaters with smaller jumps were getting big rewards... it's been what? almost 30 years that people hope that the more athletic jumps get rewarded...

Height is only one aspect of “athletic” jumps. To me difficult and creative entrances are just as equal even if the jump isn’t as big. A smooth landing is also more important on my scale. With this new weighted system were kind of forcing everyone into one style instead of letting the skaters and judges have freedom tonattemptvandcrrward several styles. YMMV....big jumps just don’t always do much for me. This system is in fact saying they are. :handw:

 

[Shayuki]

To me, the height of a jump really doesn't matter a whole lot. As long as it's high enough for the skater to comfortably rotate it... I really don't care. A pretty takeoff, a beautiful aerial position, good flow on landing are far more important than jump height. And I'll take a smaller jump with pretty rotation over a higher jump with awkward rotation any day.

 

[Li'Kitsu]

This 3z-3t has everything I look for in a jump.

https://youtu.be/TaPTCOtEC7o?t=4m47s

To me this has very good height and yet I’ve heard people...even reasonably knowledgeable people who disagree.

For me it would count too. But I'm still surprised this GOE bullet point is such an issue for you - especially since we had it before, even if it got upgraded now. Theoretically speaking: 1.) judges should get some more explanations to this in their seminars, with more examples that are defined and all. 2.) There will be cases were opinions differ, and that is fine - that's why we have 9 judges, the only breaking point is what gkelly said - judges need to apply their "own standard" evenly to all skaters/jumps. And then for a jump everyone agrees on very good height/ice coverage we have someone get full GOE, and in more unclear cases we'd get "middling" PCS with some judges saying yes and some no on that bullet point. Theoretically, I don't see an issue.
Again, I'd defend the importance of that bullet point too - and it's IMO actually the clearest one out of the 3 mentioned. What is good take off? Will that take messy teachnique into account? PR, full blade take off on toe jumps? What's a very good landing? Only needs to be on one foot, or the right edge, or even with good flow out, or does that relate to TR out? And the worst is effortless throughout. And without "effortless throughout" you can't get max GOE either. That's what I'd expect to be much more difficult when it comes to the subjectivity aspect (though again, judges need to be constant in their own judgement, and then that's what we have 9 judges for).

So, the new Bullet points IMO are fine. The old ones weren't bad either. The problem is, as you said, the judging. These new GOE bullet points might very well just change nothing - not that judges were really using them before. The larger scale of GOE coupled with reduced BV is what bothers me to no end though, as it just makes the judges have even more impact on the overall score, and favoritism IMO will weight even harder again. I'm especially annoyed for "lower ranked federation" skaters for example - getting big BV was one of the few ways they could force points. That'll be a lot harder now.

 

[4everchan]

whole post

why do you leave all the important points i am making?

creative and difficult entrances are subjective as well.. what is truly creative???? 3 turns into a loop??? is that supposed to be so much harder because actually for many skaters, it sets them up perfectly well into the jump...

height and distance is a great goal for all... it requires a great vaulting technique... and when skaters with big jumps land them correctly, you get your beautiful flowing edge... because there is still speed out of the jump... small hops that are fast in rotation do not provide that...

and finally, i disagree: not every skater will suddenly jump like kaetlyn... it's not because there is extra weight on height that satoko will suddenly jump a foot higher.

satoko will play the system to her own advantage... and so will other skaters... for instance, not every girl can get high goe like satoko on her layback.... and you won't see these skaters going crazy, trying to get a more flexible body they don't have naturally for that.. .they will focus on other ways to get levels and goes.....

i am not worried.. there is always a way to play the point game... and if you are worried for Eteri's girls, i am sure Eteri is smart enough to play the game the way she needs to play it with her skaters.

i think this rule is pretty harmless and will actually be good. don't be afraid of change :handw:

 

[Sam-Skwantch]

why do you leave all the important points i am making?

Sorry

creative and difficult entrances are subjective as well.. what is truly creative???? 3 turns into a loop??? is that supposed to be so much harder because actually for many skaters, it sets them up perfectly well into the jump...

I don’t mind subjective judging...I’m in favor of it. This system encourages selective judging. I’m not in favor of that. It would be like when Yulia was at her peak if I were to push for spins to require ridiculous contortions to score the highest points. Skaters should have the freedom to get high marks in the best way they can even if not into doing flexible positions. Creativity should be rewarded in many forms...not just one. I mean..should we lock certain GOE for skaters who don’t hit the most difficult spin positions at the fastest rotationsl speeds? Of course not. There are other ways to make a spin look beautiful.

height and distance is a great goal for all... it requires a great vaulting technique... and when skaters with big jumps land them correctly, you get your beautiful flowing edge... because there is still speed out of the jump... small hops that are fast in rotation do not provide that...

For me jumps with fast entry that aren’t huge have the best flow and aesthetic look. High jumps often come down and sort of slow down the direction the skater is traveling. YMMV.

and finally, i disagree: not every skater will suddenly jump like kaetlyn... it's not because there is extra weight on height that satoko will suddenly jump a foot higher.

I’ve never really thought Kaetlyns jumps were her best attribute. They are high and all but seem unstable or better yet tend to look wobbly. She reminds me of Ashley. I prefer Gabby, Liza, or even old school Gracie as examples of big jumpers that make them look good. When Mariah is on she’s a great example of a skater I think who should hit max GOE on some of her jumps.

Courtney ....big wild jumps but by some people’s thinking she will have an opportunity to get top GOE while Mariah could not even if she hits 5 of 6 bullets.

satoko will play the system to her own advantage... and so will other skaters... for instance, not every girl can get high goe like satoko on her layback.... and you won't see these skaters going crazy, trying to get a more flexible body they don't have naturally for that.. .they will focus on other ways to get levels and goes.....

Exactly...but they won’t be selectively shut out of competing with Satoko for top GOE on their own creative ways. Serafima has great spins and uses little flexibility but instead focus on increasing her spin rotation.

i am not worried.. there is always a way to play the point game... and if you are worried for Eteri's girls, i am sure Eteri is smart enough to play the game the way she needs to play it with her skaters.

I really have no loyalty to Eteri. Tarakanova came out of nowhere for me this year and even as she whooped on my favorite skater I fought the urge to get salty about it and her and just let myself enjoy her skating. I support Eteri’s girls though and enjoy watching them change the landscape of the sport but my favorite skaters are not in her camp for the most part although a couple are

i think this rule is pretty harmless and will actually be good. don't be afraid of change :handw:

I saw some awful trends in judging this season and I’m avoiding bringing that into this thread...maybe you disagree. I think this rule will certainly give power to those judges who lowball some and highball others. On this we may have to agree to disagree.

 

[Miller]

Just been having a think about this very good height and distance thing and the impact it will have on skaters who are effectively limited to +3 e.g. a 3S + 30% GOE for a +3 jump will only score 5.59 points, which is less than what you can score now for a +2 GOE 3S (5.80 points).

Why not have 'Very good height and distance' the only one that is mandatory for a +5? That way intricate jumpers who have everything but the very good height and distance can still get a +4 (effectively the same as a +3 now), and the big, beautiful jumpers like Kaetlyn Osmond can still go on and try for a +5.

Also, re element matched to the music structure, I too would agree with moving it to the PCS categories with perhaps some sort of special emphasis. However it may have to remain in a 6 bullet point world. If it was removed to get a +5 you would need some sort of arms in the air jump to get the +5 (the very good position bullet is vague to say the least, but it looks as if this is what you may have to do to achieve it, only it be has to really aesthetic as well). Hence it may have to remain, plus I guess it gives a reasonably easy bullet point to get back to your starting position - BVs have been reduced after all (but not by much for triples).

Finally, I'm a little bit confused about the 'very good take-off' part of that particular bullet. Is that addressing 'floops' for example, or would/should they still be covered by GOE reductions? I can't imagine you getting very far (I guess in both senses of the word) if you don't have a good take off. Mind you I guess it isn't causing any harm having it in there, you're not likely to get a very good landing without a very good take-off, or get the other bullet points either.