2018-2019 Season - New rules

[Yatagarasu]

I already wrote a lot. If you dont get it, you dont get it...The truth is - in more than 60% of cases, skaters who repeated the quad failed to do one of them and they still got a lot of points because of just 50% success of that one element. I guess that was the reason behind that. So, if you dont think this is a good solution, what would be?

The solution is exactly what we're getting - GOE scale that's related to BV.

Good triples will at their best rival quads.

Very good and good quads will will rack up points too and skaters will want to keep them at a high level as those triples, especially very good 3As, may go above a poor quad.

Failed quads will now get slaughtered, especially if it is not just a fall, but a fall with further issues (like a UR) in which case, I am not sure we're seeing even the value of a good double there.

That'll take care of too many falls.
At the same time, those who have a good quality 4Lz will maybe use the 4Lz once and the 4T once for security anyway but those who have just the 4T will do two 4T and still score less than the person with more variety. BV takes care of that part, and especially GOE tied into BV. And by now forcing a repeat, you reduce the falls.

 

[Baron Vladimir]

The solution is exactly what we're getting - GOE scale that's related to BV.

Good triples will at their best rival quads.

Very good and good quads will will rack up points too and skaters will want to keep them at a high level as those triples, especially very good 3As, may go above a poor quad.

Failed quads will now get slaughtered, especially if it is not just a fall, but a fall with further issues (like a UR) in which case, I am not sure we're seeing even the value of a good double there.

That'll take care of too many falls.
At the same time, those who have a good quality 4Lz will maybe use the 4Lz once and the 4T once for security anyway but those who have just the 4T will do two 4T and still score less than the person with more variety. BV takes care of that part, and especially GOE tied into BV. And by now forcing a repeat, you reduce the falls.

Yes, and i agree with that. The quad restriction proposal had in mind to deal with the same problem like goe change. I was trying to explain that, why that proposal exist in first place. I dont claim it is good or bad, cause i still dont know how any of those changes will play out in the end.

 

[Neenah16]

I already wrote a lot. If you dont get it, you dont get it...The truth is - in more than 60% of cases, skaters who repeated the quad failed to do one of them and they still got a lot of points in their program because of just 50% success in performance of that one element. I guess that was the reason behind that. So, if you dont think this is a solution, what would be?

What I don't understand is why do you assume that this would fix the problem of having low success rate on a quad? If a skater fails the second attempt as you said, how would that success rate be better if they introduce another quad (to make up for the loss in BV due to this rule) that also have a low success rate. All you will accomplish is to have skaters fail on two types of quads rather than one. On the other hand, if a skater can repeat a quad, they would definitely do it with the their best jump so the chances of success will be higher.

 

[Metis]

I already wrote a lot. If you dont get it, you dont get it...The truth is - in more than 60% of cases, skaters who repeated the quad failed to do one of them and they still got a lot of points in their program because of just 50% success in performance of that one element. I guess that was the reason behind that. So, if you dont think this is a solution, what would be?

You’ve written very little of relevance or that’s factual. That 60% number is a flat out lie. Argue for your position all you want, but please don’t contaminate the boards with actual falsehoods and misinformation.

ETA: Fact-checking can be done here or, frankly, by pulling up old protocols, checking your memory, etc.

 

[Baron Vladimir]

What I don't understand is why do you assume that this would fix the problem of having low success rate on a quad? If a skater fails the second attempt as you said, how would that success rate be better if they introduce another quad (to make up for the loss in BV due to this rule) that also have a low success rate. All you will accomplish is to have skaters fail on two types of quads rather than one. On the other hand, if a skater can repeat a quad, they would definitely do it with the their best jump so the chances of success will be higher.

Im not saying that. Im saying the proposal will not award skater with only 50% sucess rate of one same element of his program. Cause in current system it awards him (based on fact you get a lot of points for landed quad, even you demonstrated only 50% sucess of landing that type of quad).

 

[MajaHled]

Im not saying that. Im saying the proposal will not award skater with only 50% sucess rate of one same element of his program. Cause in current system it awards him (based on fact you get a lot of points for landed quad, even you demonstrated only 50% sucess of landing that type of quad).

The problem is that that rule would only pressure skater into including quads with low success rate though. If a skater has, say, 80% success on 4T and, say, 40% on 4S, they would be pressured into including the 4S even though they'd much rather include two 4Ts, since the chances of landing that are way higher. But in order to close the BV gap between them and skaters with two stable quads, they'd have to, under that rule.

 

[Neenah16]

Im not saying that. Im saying the proposal will not award skater with only 50% sucess rate of one same element of his program. Cause in current system it awards him (based on fact you get a lot of points for landed quad, even you demonstrated only 50% sucess of landing that type of quad).

Ok, but that should be addressed in the fall (or error) deduction not by not allowing repetition.

 

[Metis]

The problem is that that rule would only pressure skater into including quads with low success rate though. If a skater has, say, 80% success on 4T and, say, 40% on 4S, they would be pressured into including the 4S even though they's much rather include two 4Ts, since the chances of landing that are way higher. But in order to close the BV gap between them and skaters with two stable quads, they'd have to, under that rule.

I suspect he won’t engage me. Which is unfortunate. Every time he’s replied to me in other threads, I have given him a complete, well-articulated response to the best of my ability and argued my point. I even conceded that I was too hasty in ascribing attribution to Lakernik. But I’ve been arguing this exact thing since my first response and he’s refused to answer me.

When the facts change, I change my mind, or at least I try to (cognitive biases). And I already admitted he had a point. It’s not about winning or losing on the internetz. But I’m not going to pull my punches or not call a lie a lie when I see one. If that’s too threatening... [emoji849]

You can disagree with someone without disliking them. If my friends and I didn’t disagree, we’d be a very boring bunch.

ETA: Restrictions on repeating triples is why Kolyada ended up including that cursed 4Lz in his free skate, for the record. He already had a 2A in the backhalf. So that’s already a demonstrable case of how further restricting quad repetition of would make a skater less competitive for an entirely senseless reason, as under current rules, he could do two 4Ts. If the quad proposal passes, he’ll immediately be at a TES disadvantage.

 

[shine]

I simply can't handle the idiocy and lack of logic in their proposal of reducing programs by 30 seconds for one fewer jumping pass. A jump takes less than 1 second and 4 seconds at most to set up. Shaving off a 30 whole seconds despite one fewer jumping pass is only going to make the programs even MORE crowded with jumps. How is this even logical?!

And if their concern was events are taking too long (actually I don't even know if this is legit at all), WHY on earth does this only apply to Mens?!

 

[MajaHled]

I suspect he won’t engage me. Which is unfortunate. Every time he’s replied to me in other threads, I have given him a complete, well-articulated response to the best of my ability and argued my point. I even conceded that I was too hasty in ascribing attribution to Lakernik. But I’ve been arguing this exact thing since my first response and he’s refused to answer me.

When the facts change, I change my mind, or at least I try to (cognitive biases). And I already admitted he had a point. It’s not about winning or losing on the internetz. But I’m not going to pull my punches or not call a lie a lie when I see one. If that’s too threatening... [emoji849]

You can disagree with someone without disliking them. If my friends and I didn’t disagree, we’d be a very boring bunch.

I try to add (and if necessary repeat) my arguments (which I think are based on logic) not so much for the sake of the one making these illogical statements (I assume since he hasn't tried to use much logic until now, he won't suddenly start), but for the sake of any less experienced fan who might be confused by all of this. I remember very well when I was starting to get into FS and needless to say I was very confused about all the conflicting info I found. But this is going off topic, so I'll stop here.

 

[echeveria]

I simply can't handle the idiocy and lack of logic in their proposal of reducing programs by 30 seconds for one fewer jumping pass. A jump takes less than 1 second and 4 seconds at most to set up. Shaving off 30 whole seconds despite one fewer jumping pass is only going to make the programs even MORE crowded with jumps. How is this even logical?!

I'm worried that it's going to push figure skating even farther away from artistry, by limiting time for added choreography and transitions. I know that skating is a sport, but that doesn't mean artistic expression shouldn't be rewarded.

 

[MajaHled]

I simply can't handle the idiocy and lack of logic in their proposal of reducing programs by 30 seconds for one fewer jumping pass. A jump takes less than 1 second and 4 seconds at most to set up. Shaving off 30 whole seconds despite one fewer jumping pass is only going to make the programs even MORE crowded with jumps. How is this even logical?!

And especially since everyone is going to take away the easies jumping pass (so a solo triple jump/double axel depending on level) which also takes the least time to set up. I think Shoma has already said something along those lines when asked (I suck at remembering the sources of these things, so I'm sorry if that's inaccurate).

 

[echeveria]

And especially since everyone is going to take away the easies jumping pass (so a solo triple jump/double axel depending on level) which also takes the least time to set up. I think Shoma has already said something along those lines when asked (I suck at remembering the sources of these things, so I'm sorry if that's inaccurate).

He did say that he was going to take out his 3Sal, which is his easiest jump.

 

[MajaHled]

I'm worried that it's going to push figure skating even farther away from artistry, by limiting time for added choreography and transitions. I know that skating is a sport, but that doesn't mean artistic expression shouldn't be rewarded.

Yes, I imagine it's going to be hard for skaters with long jump setups/lack of connecting steps into jumps to include much choreography outside of StSq/ChSq. And I also fear the length of ChSq will suffer because that element is so loosely defined.

 

[shine]

Also, WHO are these people making these decidions?! Do opinions of skaters, coaches and ticket buying fans, who make up the majority of the figure skating community, have absolutely no say in any of this ridiculousness?!

 

[BillNeal]

Has it been stated what happens to the technical minimums for ISU championships? Is ISU lowering them or are they adjusting element base values so the technical minimums can stay the same?

 

[MajaHled]

Has it been stated what happens to the technical minimums for ISU championships? Is ISU lowering them or are they adjusting element base values so the technical minimums can stay the same?

That's a good question. I don't think they're far enough in deciding the rules to even discuss that at this point though.

 

[Yatagarasu]

I simply can't handle the idiocy and lack of logic in their proposal of reducing programs by 30 seconds for one fewer jumping pass. A jump takes less than 1 second and 4 seconds at most to set up. Shaving off a 30 whole seconds despite one fewer jumping pass is only going to make the programs even MORE crowded with jumps. How is this even logical?!

I think they're going down the road of - a very good triple will now equal a quad, which may get people to go for triples more, especially if they instruct judges to keep in mind the telegraphing/long set ups as an issue to jumps. And more triples, less set up time.

Mind you, I don't agree with the time reduction; I just think possibly someone there thought it could work out that way.

 

[Baron Vladimir]

The problem is that that rule would only pressure skater into including quads with low success rate though. If a skater has, say, 80% success on 4T and, say, 40% on 4S, they would be pressured into including the 4S even though they's much rather include two 4Ts, since the chances of landing that are way higher. But in order to close the BV gap between them and skaters with two stable quads, they'd have to, under that rule.

But why to perform something he wasnt sure of? Where is the logic to doing something you can only succeed in 40% of cases like men with some of the quads? He can jump 3A instead. He will get the same amount of points with beatiful 3A and hand down 4S. Why the premise that program must contains multiple quads no matter what?
Anyway, im really sorry if i hijacked this conversation. I was just trying to explain reason behind something, cause i really dont see a logic (like some did) in premise that ISU will propose something totally unlogical. And thats it. I agree how maybe those proposals will not be necesseraly the right one, but how we can know that right now?

 

[Szayel008]

-5...+5?
Sports News From 2038
"Carolina Kostner, 51 wins Olympic figure skating gold medal."