2018-2019 Season - New rules

[MajaHled]

Actually, that was my proposal at begining of the season when i saw too many competition failed to be watchable. But the point in that proposal is not to minimize number of quads in programs (nobody wanted to say you can jump only 2quads or 3 quads per program). Cause skaters who can jump 2 type of quads they will jump those 2 instead of 3, skaters who can jump 5 type of quads will jump 5 instead of 6 etc So that is just one quad less per program per skater. Not a big deal really. The point is that skaters will have only one chance to perform that type of element in their program. So skater who fail to perform that element clean will be properly punished for failing it (when he has no chance to try it again). And actually thats how things work in many sports.

I think this would lead to people attempting types of quads they're not yet comfortable with in order to have a higher number of quads, so for example instead of two good 4Ts (one in combo), a skater might do one good 4T and one wobbly 4S because that would be the only way to have two quads. I don't really see how that pushes for more quality in quads, and that seems to be the direction the new rule change is taking. Also I think it's important to note here that the rules will apply to all skaters, not just the top guys, and the number of people capable of more difficult quads (consistently) is pretty small still. Which would just make the barrier between people with many types of quads and with only one or two types of quads even bigger.

 

[charlotte14]

Here this guy has some screenshots: https://www.facebook.com/massimiliano.ambesi/posts/957500874412691

Now my biggest questions are about the part "How to calculate GOE in Minus".
- Today, even with several mistakes, the maximum deduction is -3, in future will be -5. What does that mean?? Like UR = -3, but if you're UR+step out = -5??
- Except for falls where the deduction should be -4 instead of -3????????????? Then what is that -5 for???
- Probably there will be 5 or 6 bullets and each bullet could correspond to a step in plus????? What is a "step in plus"????
- Each step in plush or in minus correspond at the 10% of the base value of an element???? Again, what is a "step in plus" or "step in minus"??? They're the same as Bullets?
- SOV will related to the different grade of GOE and BV?????

 

[Baron Vladimir]

I think this would lead to people attempting types of quads they're not yet comfortable with in order to have a higher number of quads, so for example instead of two good 4Ts (one in combo), a skater might one good 4T and one wobbly 4S because that would be the only way to have two quads. I don't really see how that pushes for more quality in quads, and that seems to be the direction the new rule change is taking. Also I think it's important to note here that the rules will apply to all skaters, not just the top guys, and the number of people capable of more difficult quads (consistently) is pretty small still. Which would just make the barrier between people with many types of quads and with only one or two types of quads even bigger.

You got my point wrong. Im not saying that will necessarily lead to cleanest competition, just how that will award skaters who skate clean comparing to ones who do not. It was very common situation that skaters when failed first attempt of quad (they jumped lets say with 50% of success in training) trying that quad again in the program cause they know there is nothing to lose in terms of points, just to gain (but from viewers point that first attempt already ruined the program). With that proposal they will not have a chance to get more points after the failed attempt, which i think its fair. Everything is still in skaters hand, just with that they will know the risk of atempting quads would not always bring them so many points.

 

[Lester]

Here this guy has some screenshots: https://www.facebook.com/massimiliano.ambesi/posts/957500874412691

Now my biggest questions are about the part "How to calculate GOE in Minus".
- Today, even with several mistakes, the maximum deduction is -3, in future will be -5. What does that mean?? Like UR = -3, but if you're UR+step out = -5??
- Except for falls where the deduction should be -4 instead of -3????????????? Then what is that -5 for???
- Probably there will be 5 or 6 bullets and each bullet could correspond to a step in plus????? What is a "step in plus"????
- Each step in plush or in minus correspond at the 10% of the base value of an element???? Again, what is a "step in plus" or "step in minus"??? They're the same as Bullets?
- SOV will related to the different grade of GOE and BV?????

Judging from the first bullet, -5 will probably be given for fall and underrotation together, for instance.
A step in plus means going from 0 to 1, from 1 to 2 or maybe even from -1 to 0 (you know, one step in the plus direction), although they haven't addressed features and errors cancelling each other out in these slides. So as far as I understand if you have a 3Lz + 2GOE, you get 100% + 20% of its base value = 120%. If you get 3Lz - 4GOE, 100% - 40% = 60% of the BV.

Interesting propositions. Can't wait to hear more and find out about the features for +GOE.

Edit: You know I am not sure about the GOE percentages thing. The grammar is not very clear to me there.

 

[Yatagarasu]

- Probably there will be 5 or 6 bullets and each bullet could correspond to a step in plus????? What is a "step in plus"????
- Each step in plush or in minus correspond at the 10% of the base value of an element???? Again, what is a "step in plus" or "step in minus"??? They're the same as Bullets?

No.

A step in plus would be what we have now for GOE +1, then up to +2, then up to +3 (and the same for negatives only down).

So now they're tying GOE to BV.

Which means say there's a jump of BV 10.

Each step will get awarded 10% of the BV. So if you hit all bullets for all 5, then in that case we'd end up with a jump of 10+ 5GOE as 1 is 10% in this case.

Of course we don't have such nice round numbers sooooo.....

 

[charlotte14]

No.

A step in plus would be what we have now for GOE +1, then up to +2, then up to +3 (and the same for negatives only down).

So now they're tying GOE to BV.

Which means say there's a jump of BV 10.

Each step will get awarded 10% of the BV. So if you hit all bullets for all 5, then in that case we'd end up with a jump of 10+ 5GOE as 1 is 10% in this case.

Of course we don't have such nice round numbers sooooo.....

I can image BESPN commentators:
Chris: "This element right here get 3 step in plus, each step in plush is equal to 10% in the base value. So the current base value for 4T is 8.30, with 30% positive it will be... WAIT A MINUTE! SIMON, WHERE'S MY CALCULATOR??"
Simon: "No I think the element gets 2 step in plus only, so only 20% up in base value?"

 

[MajaHled]

You got my point wrong. Im not saying that will necessarily lead to cleanest competition, just how that will award skaters who skate clean comparing to ones who do not. It was very common situation that skaters when failed first attempt of quad (they jumped lets say with 50% of success in training) trying that quad again in the program cause they know there is nothing to lose in terms of points, just to gain (but from viewers point that first attempt already ruined the program). With that proposal they will not have a chance to get more points after the failed attempt, which i think its fair. Everything is still in skaters hand, just with that they will know the risk of atempting quads will not always bring them so many points.

Yeah, I guess I did miss your point, but I think my point about people trying quads they're not good at instead of two of the quad they are good at still stands. Not that guys don't attempt quads they can rarely land even now though (like Kolyada's 4Lz for instance).

 

[MajaHled]

No.

A step in plus would be what we have now for GOE +1, then up to +2, then up to +3 (and the same for negatives only down).

So now they're tying GOE to BV.

Which means say there's a jump of BV 10.

Each step will get awarded 10% of the BV. So if you hit all bullets for all 5, then in that case we'd end up with a jump of 10+ 5GOE as 1 is 10% in this case.

Of course we don't have such nice round numbers sooooo.....

One thing I don't get is: will it be like one bullet = one step in plus or will there be more bullets needed for one step?

 

[Yatagarasu]

One thing I don't get is: will it be like one bullet = one step in plus or will there be more bullets needed for one step?

Yes, I think it's one bullet = one step as one of the slides says there will probably be 5 or 6 bullets. Not sure how they'd divide if there are 6 though? Possibly 2 required for that final +5 step in order to make it really difficult to hit?

 

[Baron Vladimir]

Yeah, I guess I did miss your point, but I think my point about people trying quads they're not good at insteazd of two of the quad they are good at still stands. Not that guys don't attempt quads they can rarely land even now though (like Kolyada's 4Lz for instance).

Yes, i got that. But maybe they wouldnt try another type of quad they are not sure they can commonly land. I mean, last Worlds mens competition was really a mess, and many complained that Shoma and Mikael didnt deserve the medal more than Alexei or Misha did for example... I think ISU wants to send a message for skaters to play more safe and more clean. There are maybe better ways, but i found that proposal reasonable for that purpose.

 

[BillNeal]

Okay, so if I understand correctly, a fall on a fully rotated jump (-5 GOE, 50% BV) will be worth 1/3 of a perfectly executed jump (+5 GOE, 150% BV)? Would a UR jump be worth 35% BV (0.7*50% BV, assuming -5 GOE)? Will there still be -1 deduction applied to falls as well or does the -5 GOE replace that?

 

[MajaHled]

Okay, so if I understand correctly, a fall on a fully rotated jump (-5 GOE, 50% BV) will be worth 1/3 of a perfectly executed jump (+5 GOE, 150% BV)? Would a UR jump be worth 35% BV (0.7*50% BV, assuming -5 GOE)? Will there still be -1 deduction applied to falls as well or does the -5 GOE replace that?

I'm pretty sure we don't know that yet. Also the slides seem to say that just a fall will equate to -4, not -5 so idek.

 

[Yatagarasu]

Okay, so if I understand correctly, a fall on a fully rotated jump (-5 GOE, 50% BV) will be worth 1/3 of a perfectly executed jump (+5 GOE, 150% BV)? Would a UR jump be worth 35% BV (0.7*50% BV, assuming -5 GOE)? Will there still be -1 deduction applied to falls as well or does the -5 GOE replace that?

There seems to be some questions over that. The way I read it is that falls aren't BV related but the same as we have now except it can go to -5. It's just a scale depending on if there are multiple errors (UR plus fall for example).

Could be wrong though.

 

[Metis]

Okay, so if I understand correctly, a fall on a fully rotated jump (-5 GOE, 50% BV) will be worth 1/3 of a perfectly executed jump (+5 GOE, 150% BV)? Would a UR jump be worth 35% BV (0.7*50% BV, assuming -5 GOE)? Will there still be -1 deduction applied to falls as well or does the -5 GOE replace that?

According to screenshots, falls are apparently -4, not -5. So -40% BV.

We don’t know whether the scoring deductions for falls are still in.

ETA: wow, we could form a synchro team! [emoji23]

 

[Yatagarasu]

According to screenshots, falls are apparently -4, not -5. So -40% BV.
We don’t know whether the scoring deductions for falls are still in.
ETA: wow, we could form a synchro team! [emoji23]

See, this bit confuses me in the slide. For the + they specifically mention the BV but that comes after the -. And for the minus they say "the deduction for an error will be the same as today". Since the BV penalty wouldn't be small at all I wonder if they left it exactly as it is today. < reduces the BV and then you get the GOEs up to whatever. -4 or 5.

And yes

 

[BillNeal]

ETA: wow, we could form a synchro team! [emoji23]

Thanks for the replies everyone! It really shows how much interest skaters and fans have in this new scale .

 

[MajaHled]

See, this bit confuses me in the slide. For the + they specifically mention the BV but that comes after the -. And for the minus they say "the deduction for an error will be the same as today". Since the BV penalty wouldn't be small at all I wonder if they left it exactly as it is today. < reduces the BV and then you get the GOEs up to whatever. -4 or 5.

And yes

The more I try to understand what those slides are trying to say, the more confused I get So what I'm taking away from them is: the GOEs are still a work in progress and not yet decided.

Also going -40 or 50% of BV together with the BV reduction for UR would be brutal...

 

[Yatagarasu]

Also going -40 or 50% of BV together with the BV reduction for UR would be brutal...

That would be no jump basically

But I don't think they'll do that. They'll either keep just the -3 or rather, -5 now or -4, plus the usual deduction for the URs, or they'll deduct just the -%BV with no more < reduction. It's either or I think. As I read that slide currently, I think they're not doing the %BV deduction but keeping it as it is, just -5 instead of the current -3 but seriously, it is mega confusing

 

[Metis]

See, this bit confuses me in the slide. For the + they specifically mention the BV but that comes after the -. And for the minus they say "the deduction for an error will be the same as today". Since the BV penalty wouldn't be small at all I wonder if they left it exactly as it is today. < reduces the BV and then you get the GOEs up to whatever. -4 or 5.

And yes

I... am inclined to think it’s a case of careless wording, if only because the initial leak/first round of rumours pegged falls at -5 GOE and -50% BV, and step-outs at -30% BV. On the other hand, what you say makes sense with what the text reads. I don’t know any longer. ISU is giving me epistemological and ontological migraines I haven’t had since I dealt with post-modernists. The triple axel is just a social construction, maaaaaaaaan. A quad lutz is whatever I say it is!

I’m also wondering which is applied first: the 30% UR BV reduction or 40% BV cut for a fall, should both happen together. I mean, you’ll have almost no points left anyway, but technically it matters? And it’s yet another bit of senseless computation to factour in? Wow, suddenly “it’s better to rotate a quad and fall” seems... elegant. Simple. Catchy, even. Straightforward to communicate to the audience. [emoji849]

I said before TES had the potential to be extremely volatile. And it seems that’s really the direction we’re going, which baffles me — if you wanted to reward execution and stop the “fall on a quad” epidemic, there are lots of ways to do that without making TES this swingy. Add the one quad rule (which I think does have the potential to get two-thirds support) and it’s going to be one interesting season. (I am imagining an infinite number of that one Skate Canada where everyone got sub-40 TES in the SP. So on the bright side, my expectations will almost have to be exceeded?)

Meanwhile, at ISU HQ.

 

[charlotte14]

That would be no jump basically

But I don't think they'll do that. They'll either keep just the -3 or rather, -5 now or -4, plus the usual deduction for the URs, or they'll deduct just the -%BV with no more < reduction. It's either or I think. As I read that slide currently, I think they're not doing the %BV deduction but keeping it as it is, just -5 instead of the current -3 but seriously, it is mega confusing

Take this companion under your wings:https://www.online-calculator.com/google-calculator/