2018-2019 Season - New rules

[BillNeal]

Also +Rep with fall will be treated more harshly now:



So 3Lz + Rep with fall would get 0.7*5.9 - 0.5*5.9 = 1.18.

ETA: Not all jumps actually, if 3T + Rep for example, before would be 0.8*4.3 - 2.1 - 1 = 0.34, now it's 0.2*4.2 = 0.84

Ok, so I noticed that I applied the wrong factor of 0.8 for +Rep for the old score because I assumed it was the same as +Seq, when in fact it was 0.7 for +Rep all along. However, I have seen +Seq in place of +Rep like on page 8 of these protocols for Tomas Verner, hence my confusion.

I recalculated for all triples and quads and found out that for all triples except 3A, the new score for a fall (-5 GOE) on a fully rotated jump with +REP is more than it was before. However, for 3A and quads, the new score in some cases has decreased by a lot. Whether they still allow quads to be repeated is to be voted upon. Here are the tables:

[table="width: 625, class: grid, align: left"]
[tr]
[td] [/td]
[td]Old BV[/td]
[td]New BV[/td]
[td]Old Score with Fall and +Rep[/td]
[td]New Score with Fall and +Rep[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]3T[/td]
[td]4.30[/td]
[td]4.20[/td]
[td]-0.09[/td]
[td]0.84[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]3S[/td]
[td]4.40[/td]
[td]4.30[/td]
[td]-0.02[/td]
[td]0.86[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]3Lo[/td]
[td]5.10[/td]
[td]4.90[/td]
[td]0.47[/td]
[td]0.98[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]3F[/td]
[td]5.30[/td]
[td]5.30[/td]
[td]0.61[/td]
[td]1.06[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]3Lz[/td]
[td]6.00[/td]
[td]5.90[/td]
[td]1.10[/td]
[td]1.18[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td]Calc:[/td]
[td]0.7*Old BV -2.1 GOE - 1 Deduction[/td]
[td]0.7*New BV - 0.5*New BV[/td]
[/tr]
[/table]

[table="width: 625, class: grid, align: left"]
[tr]
[td] [/td]
[td]Old BV[/td]
[td]New BV[/td]
[td]Old Score with Fall and +Rep[/td]
[td]New Score with Fall and +Rep[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]3A[/td]
[td]8.50[/td]
[td]8.00[/td]
[td]1.95[/td]
[td]1.60[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]4T[/td]
[td]10.30[/td]
[td]9.50[/td]
[td]2.21[/td]
[td]1.90[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]4S[/td]
[td]10.50[/td]
[td]9.70[/td]
[td]2.35[/td]
[td]1.94[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]4Lo[/td]
[td]12.00[/td]
[td]10.50[/td]
[td]3.40[/td]
[td]2.10[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]4F[/td]
[td]12.30[/td]
[td]11.00[/td]
[td]3.61[/td]
[td]2.20[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]4Lz[/td]
[td]13.60[/td]
[td]11.50[/td]
[td]4.52[/td]
[td]2.30[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]4A[/td]
[td]15.00[/td]
[td]12.50[/td]
[td]5.50[/td]
[td]2.50[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td]Calc:[/td]
[td]0.7*Old BV - 4 GOE - 1 Deduction[/td]
[td]0.7*New BV - 0.5*New BV[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td] (-3 GOE for 3A)[/td]
[td][/td]
[/tr]

[/table]

 

[gkelly]

Ok, so I noticed that I applied the wrong factor of 0.8 for +Rep for the old score because I assumed it was the same as +Seq, when in fact it was 0.7 for +Rep all along. However, I have seen +Seq in place of +Rep like on page 8 of these protocols for Tomas Verner, hence my confusion.

That must have been before the +Rep rule came in. Originally the call for repeated triples and quads with no combination was +Seq with the 0.8 factor, but that led to a problem when skaters also did three combinations or real sequences and the last one got thrown out, losing the skater the whole value of two possibly clean jumps in addition to what they lost on the repeated jump.

Hence the introduction of a distinction between the codes for a repeated jumps with no attempt at a combo/sequence vs. a clear attempt to add a second jump to the element but with extra steps/stumbles in between so that second jump doesn't count.

Yeah, it does get confusing when rules evolve over the years and the same symbols sometimes get used in slightly different ways.

 

[Baron Vladimir]

Ok, so I noticed that I applied the wrong factor of 0.8 for +Rep for the old score because I assumed it was the same as +Seq, when in fact it was 0.7 for +Rep all along. However, I have seen +Seq in place of +Rep like on page 8 of these protocols for Tomas Verner, hence my confusion.

I recalculated for all triples and quads and found out that for all triples except 3A, the new score for a fall (-5 GOE) on a fully rotated jump with +REP is more than it was before. However, for 3A and quads, the new score in some cases has decreased by a lot.

Like it should be. The problem with the old GOE system was that skaters was enough rewarded just for trying to jump quads. But why should someone be awarded just for trying something. I mean, non executed element is not executed element, no matter if it is 2Lz, 4lz or 10lz.

 

[cohen-esque]

The system has never had negative point values on any elements. A 3T< fall is 3.0-2.10=.90 points.

For a 3Lze<+REP, the GOE will be whatever it would be without the +REP, in this case for a 3Lze<. The total points come out to (3.54*0.70)=2.48-1.77=0.71.

In both cases the element is worth more than zero points. The GOE will not and has never pushed the value of any element into the negatives. Functionally, however, it’s true that a fall deduction on top of these essentially makes the jump a net loss of points, but the deduction is taken from the total score.

Edit: also, if we assume the proposal to remove fall deductions is passed, as per BillNeal’s calculations have for the new system, then no element will ever be worth a negative in the total score. But that would be the case for the old values without the fall deduction, as well.

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

What I'm not too certain about is what happens in the case of a 3Lz(e)<+Rep with fall (granted a very rare case).

Would it be equal to 0.7*0.6*5.9 - 0.5*5.9 = -0.47?

Point 5 of page 8 only addresses the factor of +REP and that GOE is based on original BV, not whether e and/or < should also be factored in nor if negative values are allowed. Negative net points were possible in the old system like a fall on 3T< = 0.7*4.3-2.1-1 = -0.09 as an example.

Correct my math if it's wrong but I think that a 3Z(e)<+REP with fall would be:

0.7 (for the REP) * 0.6 (for the UR and the e) * 5.9 (3Z base value) = 2.48... and THEN 2.48 * 0.5 (for GOE 50% deduction) = 1.24 ... and THEN 1.24 minus the one point fall deduction = 0.24 points overall. Pretty systematic process: determine BV of the jump that was performed, then take that resulting value and deduct GOE on the 10-50% scale, and then at the end of the program it counts as a fall deduction.

The system has never had negative point values on any elements. A 3T< fall is 3.0-2.10=.90 points.

Edit: also, if we assume the proposal to remove fall deductions is passed, as per BillNeal’s calculations have for the new system, then no element will ever be worth a negative in the total score. But that would be the case for the old values without the fall deduction, as well.

Yes, but with the fall deduction, in the old system, the 3T< fall would be worth negative points (0.90 as you did above, minus 1 point deduction for the fall = -0.10 points

In the new system a 3T< fall would be worth 4.2*0.75 = 3.15 (revised based valued), and then 3.15*0.5 (50% off GOE) = 1.57, and then minus 1 point deduction for the fall = 0.57 points.

I'm glad that the new system ensures that by adjusting the base value first, and THEN deducting GOE, triple and quad jumps can't get negative points. Looks like if a skater falls on any jump that's a 2Z or better, they will score positive points, but if they fall on anything that's worth less than 1 point when you subtract 50% GOE (i.e. a 2Z(e)< = 0.63, a 2F = 0.90) then the overall points - with the -1 fall deduction - will be a net negative. However, falling on a non-2A double is relatively rare at elite levels (unless someone pops a jump and loses control or something).

 

[cohen-esque]

^As I noted in my post.

You’re not calculating the GOE properly— it doesn’t work as a flat out 10% increments no matter what, sadly. +REP jumps get the GOE scaling of the full jump (including the negative scaling) so for 3Lze< it’s 3.54*.7=2.48-1.77=.71

Which, if you include a 1.00 fall deduction into your totals, is still negative points.

https://www.isu.org/docman-document...munications/17142-isu-communication-2168/file

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

Regarding reducing BV and THEN applying GOE deduction, that process is more fair. The order in which the math is done matters.

Not the greatest analogy, but it's kinda like going to a restaurant that says mandatory 20% gratuity on a group. They should calculate the gratuity based on your bill before tax and not charge you gratuity on you bill PLUS tax. That's what the previous GOE scaling was doing - it was saying we're going to penalize you for the jump you did (by reducing BV by 30% from the jump you intended), and THEN instead of penalizing your GOE based on this reduced BV, we're going to penalize you furthermore using the GOE scaling of the jump you had intended to do.

As I said before, they had this sorted out properly when it came to << (as in you don't deduct GOE using the scaling of the intended jump; i.e. a 4T<< doesn't get -GOE deduction using the GOE scaling of a 4T), and they must have realized that the same method of GOE deduction should be applied to < jumps too (i.e. a 4T< shouldn't get -GOE deduction using the GOE scaling of a 4T either).

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

^As I noted in my post.

You’re not calculating the GOE properly— it doesn’t work as a flat out 10% increments no matter what, sadly. +REP jumps get the GOE scaling of the full jump (including the negative scaling) so for 3Lze< it’s 3.54*.7=2.48-1.77=.71

Which, if you include a 1.00 fall deduction into your totals, is still negative points.

https://www.isu.org/docman-document...munications/17142-isu-communication-2168/file

Ah, thanks for clarifying. That's sad, indeed!

So, if x = BV of the original jump: then the calculation is as such?

If REP on a < and e jump, with a fall:
(x*0.6*0.7) - (x*0.6*0.5) - 1

If REP on a < or jump, with a fall:
(x*0.7*0.7) - (x*0.7*0.5) - 1

So a 3Z(e) REP fall or 3Z< REP fall = -0.292
And a 3Z(e)< REP fall = -0.174

But obviously without the fall deductions, as you said, it would be impossible to have a negative value on an element. Where's the part on the fall deductions potentially being removed? I can't seem to find it in the new SOV document. Thanks in advance.

 

[BillNeal]

^As I noted in my post.

You’re not calculating the GOE properly— it doesn’t work as a flat out 10% increments no matter what, sadly. +REP jumps get the GOE scaling of the full jump (including the negative scaling) so for 3Lze< it’s 3.54*.7=2.48-1.77=.71

Which, if you include a 1.00 fall deduction into your totals, is still negative points.

https://www.isu.org/docman-document...munications/17142-isu-communication-2168/file

Thanks, that makes sense. I misinterpreted "...the GOE is established as a percentage of the original Base Value..." (point 5, page 8 of the document) as a percentage of the BV of 3Lz, the word 'original' leading to the confusion. But in this case the 'original Base Value' is the jump that is called before the+REP is added which is actually 3Lze<, so therefore the GOE percentage deduction is taken from 3Lze<.

But obviously without the fall deductions, as you said, it would be impossible to have a negative value on an element. Where's the part on the fall deductions potentially being removed? I can't seem to find it in the new SOV document. Thanks in advance.

It's found under this Congress agenda document, on page 85, under 203. Netherlands:

https://www.isu.org/communications/17037-isu-communication-2156/file

 

[gkelly]

The system has never had negative point values on any elements.

It's true that no element has had or will have a negative value by itself.

But all single jumps and most double jumps (and therefore most downgraded triples) with the largest GOE reduction (-3 or -5) end up with less than 1.0 final value, under both the previous and the proposed scales of values.

So if there is a fall on the element leading to -3 GOE and a fall deduction, the net value of the attempt ends up taking away tenths of points from the total score, not adding any.

This was a big problem at lower levels where most of the jumps being performed were doubles. Finally a couple of years ago US Figure Skating lowered the value of the fall deduction at intermediate and lower levels.

Where's the part on the fall deductions potentially being removed? I can't seem to find it in the new SOV document.

That's a completely separate proposal that will be voted on separately from the Scale of Values.
It's part of the Netherlands package of changes in several proposals. It remains to be seen whether those proposals or any subset of them will be passed by the ISU Congress in 2 weeks.

The Scale of Values is more likely to pass, with or without further tinkering, as proposals by the ISU technical committees usually do, but it still needs to be voted on at the Congress before it's official.

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

Thanks, that makes sense. I misinterpreted "...the GOE is established as a percentage of the original Base Value..." (point 5, page 8 of the document) as a percentage of the BV of 3Lz, the word 'original' leading to the confusion. But in this case the 'original Base Value' is the jump that is called before the+REP is added which is actually 3Lze<, so therefore the GOE percentage deduction is taken from 3Lze<.



It's found under this Congress agenda document, on page 85, under 203. Netherlands:

https://www.isu.org/communications/17037-isu-communication-2156/file

Thanks for the link and the clarification as to why they are considering removing it.

 

[chopinskate]

You’re not calculating the GOE properly— it doesn’t work as a flat out 10% increments no matter what, sadly. +REP jumps get the GOE scaling of the full jump (including the negative scaling) so for 3Lze< it’s 3.54*.7=2.48-1.77=.71

Alright, I'm glad this system doesn't do negative values. I do also kind of still wish it were 10% increments no matter what, but I think it will lead to negative values? I don't know how to remove the quirk that makes it seem like URs are receiving "more" credit (maybe 5% increments), but it's still not as big an issue as BVs to me.

In the end, what do you think of the % increments as a whole?

My main issue now is 4A BV, and why 4F/Lo/S/T fall > 3F/Lo/S/T with 0 GOE, but 4Lz fall < 3Lz with 0 GOE. The BVs of all quads are weird (they should be a point higher than before, IMO), but something that leads to this especially doesn't seem fair.

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

Alright, I'm glad this system doesn't do negative values. I do also kind of still wish it were 10% increments no matter what, but I too realized it would definitely lead to negative values. I don't know how to remove the quirk that makes it seem like URs are receiving "more" credit (maybe 5% increments), but it's still not as big an issue as BVs to me.

In the end, what do you think of the % increments as a whole?

My main issue now is 4A BV, and why 4F/Lo/S/T fall > 3F/Lo/S/T with 0 GOE, but 4Lz fall < 3Lz with 0 GOE. The BVs of all quads are weird (they should be a point higher than before, IMO), but something that leads to this especially doesn't seem fair.

I don't know why you keep suggesting that UR jumps get "more credit"? This is completely misleading, and unsubstantiated. Point out any UR jump in this system that gets more credit than it's fully rotated counterpart. The system is simply reducing the base value of a UR jump and then removing or adding points based on +/- 10% increments, instead of further penalizing the skater by cutting even more points by using the GOE scaling of the intended jump.

Its nice to see others agreeing that the quad lutz should be higher BV though (which is what I assume you meant when you said there's an issue with the 4Z fall being lower than a 3Z with 0 GOE). :agree:

I also don't think that quads should be a point higher than before given New GOE scaling will actually make some maxed out elements worth more than in the old system. Making a solo 4Z/4A 14.6/16 points BV means it could get 21.9/24 points with max GOE. Which is too high for any element IMO.

 

[BillNeal]

And let's not forget that they are cutting down one jumping pass in the free program. Therefore, each jump is proportionally worth more in the total score of a program now and is likely one of the considerations on how the BVs were tweaked, to maintain some sort of balance.

 

[chopinskate]

I don't know why you keep suggesting that UR jumps get "more credit"? This is completely misleading, and unsubstantiated. Point out any UR jump in this system that gets more credit than it's fully rotated counterpart. The system is simply reducing the base value of a UR jump and then removing or adding points based on +/- 10% increments, instead of further penalizing the skater by cutting even more points by using the GOE scaling of the intended jump.

Its nice to see others agreeing that the quad lutz should be higher BV though (which is what I assume you meant when you said there's an issue with the 4Z fall being lower than a 3Z with 0 GOE). :agree:

I also don't think that quads should be a point higher than before given New GOE scaling will actually make some maxed out elements worth more than in the old system. Making a solo 4Z/4A 14.6/16 points BV means it could get 21.9/24 points with max GOE. Which is too high for any element IMO.

It's a quirk of the system that makes it seem like that, CSG. It's just that with the GOE now being calculated on the BV for a UR jump, it seemingly gets less GOE deduction on a fall, but the end result is still fine. So I don't care about it anymore, because I'd rather have this quirk than a negative quality element, which might happen with a 10% flat GOE deduction off the BV of an element as intended. I never disagreed that a UR fall gets less than a fall on a fully-rotated jump (at least I hope I didn't). That's how it should be, and that's how the system works. Maybe I'm not able to say it correctly, so I'm letting it go.

Another quirk (which I neither agree nor disagree with): 4F is less difficult than the 4Lz with 0 GOE, and the gap is rated as 0.5 in terms of BV, but with a fall, this gap reduces to 0.25. Can one argue that it's more difficult to land a 4Lz, and therefore the 0.5 gap should at least remain when we're dealing with -GOE?

I never disagreed with the 4Lz BV being higher. I'm not sure why I was bunched into that. I don't think the % GOEs are the best solutions TBH, but it needs testing anyway. My main issues are still the BVs (even for triples), but also why combos like -3Lo continue being undervalued by the system.

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

It's a quirk of the system that makes it seem like that, CSG. It's just that with the GOE now being calculated on the BV for a UR jump, it seemingly gets less GOE deduction on a fall, but the end result is still fine. So I don't care about it anymore, because I'd rather have this quirk than a negative quality element, which would happen with a 10% flat GOE deduction off the BV of an element as intended. I never disagreed that a UR fall gets less than a fall on a fully-rotated jump (at least I hope I didn't). That's how it should be, and that's how the system works. Maybe I'm not able to say it correctly, so I'm letting it go.

Another quirk (which I neither agree nor disagree with): 4F is less difficult than the 4Lz with 0 GOE, and the gap is rated as 0.5 in terms of BV, but with a fall, this gap reduces to 0.25. Can one argue that it's more difficult to land a 4Lz, and therefore the 0.5 gap should at least remain when we're dealing with -GOE?

I never disagreed with the 4Lz BV being higher. I'm not sure why I was bunched into that. I don't think the % GOEs are the best solutions TBH, but it needs testing anyway. My main issues are still the BVs (even for triples), but also why combos like -3Lo continue being undervalued by the system.

A UR jump with a fall gets the same percentage of GOE deduction as what's removed from full value jump. A 3A< that gets -2 from every judge across the board will be deducted 20% its value. A 3A that gets -2's across the board will be deducted 20% its value as well. The ISU is merely recognizing that 3A< and 3A are different jumps, and deducting GOE once BV has been ascertained; just like how they previously recognized that a 4T<< and a 4T are different jumps and it wouldn't make sense or be fair to penalize a 4T<< using the GOE scaling of a 4T.

I'm wasn't trying to bunch you into the 4Z BV being higher, and thank you for clarifying your position on that - I was just saying that certain people who were quite vociferous about the 4A being undervalued had not much to say about the 4Z, so it felt like a double standard (or quad standard if you will ).

The phrasing of what you say matters too (and of course we've all had our own share of ambiguous or inaccurate statements, myself included). Saying things like"this gives more credit for UR" or "rewards skaters who UR" implies that it is beneficial for skaters to UR their jumps, when I'm pretty sure we all can agree that isn't the case. I get the implication being UR skaters will get more points than in the past, but I've explained why this SOV is rectifying something that was wrong in the first place. It's like when the rule was introduced that a UR jump will no longer drop down to the lower level jump, but instead be a 30% deduction instead -- like Mao's 3A< being given a 2A's BV... it was a welcome change for some but others must have complained that "Such a move benefits skaters who UR", but the point is, it's rectifying something that was unfair to skaters to begin with, and now scoring is assessed more based on what the skater did do, instead of what the skater intended to do.

I also agree that combos like the -3L are undervalued and things like combo values still need sorting out and independent GOEs. IMO, the < jumps getting treated independently from the fully rotated jumps is progress, as they are different, and thus should be assessed independently. Wishful thinking, but perhaps this can lead to things like the ISU acknowledging that certain combos should be assessed differently from other combos. As we've seen with the "Should not give 10.00's for a fall" vs. now "Shall not give 10.00s for a fall", the ISU moves at a snail's pace sometimes.

It's also crazy that things like a "poor takeoff" can be -2 to -3, because stuff like that is so subjective ... a "poor takeoff" can reduce a quad flip by -3 GOE which would equate to 3.3 points, which is the value of a 2A. And yet a hand down - something very tangible - is only -1 to -2 reduction? Not hitting the half loop in a combo is especially dangerous because the GOE is immediately -1 or -2 less, which, say in a 3F+L+3S or 3A+L+3S or 4T+L+3S would actually compromise significantly more points than what the half loop is actually worth.

 

[chopinskate]

A lot of those points are why I kept saying it was a poorly-thought system... It's just too vague, because it skids over actually defining a lot of things properly. And why would anyone attempt a -3Lo in the SP anymore?

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

I also disagree with this SOV that a jump should be able to get 50% bonus on its value as this will most likely only be used as a means of benefiting popular/top skaters. Yes, skaters should be rewarded for quality but I can only envision judges being jerks about it and holding back lesser skaters while being overly lenient/generous to top skaters. At least it will also put the onus on skaters to have cleaner jumps to maximize their points. But that comes at the expense of spins/footwork... like, with points like this, who cares about levels anymore - a StSq3 vs a StSq4 is only 0.6 BV difference, whereas the difference between a 3A with +1's across the board and with +2's across the board is an additonal 0.8. Why bother getting a FCoSp4 spin from +2 quality to +5 quality when a +2 to a +5 when that gets you 1.05 points extra?! You might as well focus on getting a better quad, because GOE increments with those matter. I know it was like that in the past, but it's especially magnified with this GOE scale.

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

A lot of those points are why I kept saying it was a poorly-thought system... It's just too vague, because it skids over actually defining a lot of things properly. And why would anyone attempt a -3Lo in the SP anymore?

Agreed. The ISU does need to define what a "poor take off" or a "serious error" is. They need to be getting WAY more granular with these things. Obviously some things will forever be subjective, like good height/distance and nice landing.... and you just know that all the top skaters will get the freebie "element matches the music" bullet, even if the element is completely mistimed to the music -- that's one of them they HAVE to take out... it's so uselessly subjective - and it's not like the judge is indicating in their GOE assessment whether or not they gave the matches-music bullet.

 

[chopinskate]

I like the matching music bullet. The judging of it is another issue. I am more concerned about why delayed rotation was taken out.

The judging itself is the first issue that will hopefully be addressed.