2018-2019 Season - New rules

[chopinskate]

Can we just go back to 6.0?

At least there we could have a laugh about bloc judging, unlike here, where they're pretending to be fair, and insulting the audiences' collective intelligence in the process.

 

[Mamamiia]

topic: well, given the fact that the majority of skaters were injured this season, including top skaters, so, Nathan won, but this wasn't a normal season.


So, the +4/+5GOE is going to be a bonus?

Talking about injuries, Nathan has won the previous season too, after surgery and being off the ice for almost 6 months.

There is no such thing as Nathan's rule, he is super talented, smart and works extremely hard. Please respect athletes by stop saying xxx's rule to discount their past or future achievements.

 

[gkelly]

What do you mean by this? The GOE proposals say that "very good height and distance", "effortless throughout", and "good take off and landing" must be checked to go beyond +3 GOE.

Yes, but you can get +3 without checking any of the above. There are still 3 other bullet points available.

Kara said she was a fan of "having to hit the requirement of a jump being high and pretty to look at before getting GOE points on other things like tanos or hitting the music," which implies that if a jump is not high and pretty look at it can't get any positive GOE at all. That is not the case.

Also, could you elaborate on what "good body position" means? Does it include arm variations, or does it just mean good air position (posture, alignment, tightness)?

I haven't seen any official definitions, so I can only guess.
To me, "good" means good. The bullet point says "very good body position from take-off to landing," so that means the body position must be good on the takeoff and on the landing, not only in the air.

It doesn't say anything about "varied" air position like the old bullet point did. I understand that to mean that a variation on the standard position is not automatically considered as fulfilling that bullet -- but if it's done well, then it can be. If any skater finds it easier to stay straight in the air by raising one or both arms, then they will probably do that. If changing the arm position comes at a sacrifice of the rest of the air position, or the landing, then it's not worth their while.

 

[chopinskate]

What does "good body position on take-off" mean?

 

[gkelly]

What does "good body position on take-off" mean?

Not hunched over/breaking at waist/curling shoulders forward? Not leaning too far one way or the other? No mule kicks?

 

[yume]

What does "good body position on take-off" mean?

imagination.

 

[chopinskate]

imagination.

 

[Yatagarasu]

imagination.

You win

 

[chopinskate]

...Is flow out accounted for in "good landing", or...?

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

Ah don't worry, Boyang will probably continue to get a good amount of Vincents calls anyway (like at Finlandia & WC!), so Vincent will only benefit half as much from that rule as he would with sane scoring

And sorry if some American fans feel offended, but honestly, the point that the bigger federations are pulling the strings is as old as FS itself, and you basically need to look no further then the scoring of American ladies these last years to know how much pull the US fed has

(PS: that said, I'd personally be perfectly happy with someone like Jason winning big medals, even the OGM if he skates his absolute best. He's missing the quads, but IMO minus Yuzu, he's the best at everything else in the world right now. So )

Right... because the American ladies have been doing SO well, compared to countries like Russia, Canada, and Japan. :sarcasm:

 

[lavoix]

Are they raising the age requirement??? Are the FS times for pairs and men going down?

Are these decisions actually final? They're a bit dumb.

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

Talking about injuries, Nathan has won the previous season too, after surgery and being off the ice for almost 6 months.

There is no such thing as Nathan's rule, he is super talented, smart and works extremely hard. Please respect athletes by stop saying xxx's rule to discount their past or future achievements.

100%.

Perhaps they meant "Nathan rules!"

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

Well it sure does benefit you the most.

You can add in Vincent there who is a serial underrotator and now has perfection of new rules that are going to reward him for it. Yay.

It is absolutely false to say he gets "rewarded" for it. Rewarded implies that he gets some benefit. The rules are changing so that GOE deduction is applied to the jump that was executed. So if a skater falls on a 3A, they get deducted 50% the value of a 3A... if they fall on a 3A<, they should get deducted 50% the value of a 3A<.

A 3A< fall is still worth less than a 3A fall. There is no "reward" for under-rotating a jump.

Skaters who UR and fall should be punished for two mistakes and not one. Not jumping the intended jump is a mistake.
A deduction on 4T< base rather than 4T base is like saying that the skater who URed and fell did just one error like the skater who fell on a fully rotated quad. While in reality he did two mistakes, so he shoud lose more points than the one who did one mistake.

A skater who URs and falls IS punished for two mistakes - they get a BV reduction on the element for the underrotation, and a GOE deduction of -5. The BV reduction is reflecting that the skater did not jump the intended jump - by virtue of underrotating it. The GOE deduction reflects the poor execution of the jump.

Hypothetically, if a skater intends to do a triple axel, and they do a double axel and fall, should they lose -4.00 points (worth 50% of a 3A's 8.00 BV) of GOE because they "intended" a 3A ?

 

[chopinskate]

If a skater intends to do a triple axel, and they do a double axel and fall, should they lose -4.00 points (worth 50% of a 3A's 8.00 BV) of GOE because they "intended" a 3A ?

You're misconstruing what yume is saying. A 3A< (fall) was intended to be a 3A, and we can see it was intended to be a 3A, as well. If a skater does a 2A< (fall), instead of an intended 3A, we would be able to see they did a 2A< (fall), guess that they were able to do a 2A there instead of a 3A for whatever reason, and therefore mark them as such. Please don't strawman yume's argument.

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

You're misconstruing what yume is saying. A 3A< (fall) was intended to be a 3A, and we can see it was intended to be a 3A, as well. If a skater does a 2A< (fall), instead of an intended 3A, we would be able to see they did a 2A< (fall), guess that they were able to do a 2A there instead of a 3A for whatever reason, and therefore mark them as such. Please don't strawman yume's argument.

Okay, here's an example. Javier clearly intends a 3F here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puA6eNhjNIc#t=3m30s . He ends up doing a 3F<<.

He got a GOE deduction of -0.9 points on the jump (http://www.isuresults.com/results/season1718/ec2018/ec2018_Men_FS_Scores.pdf) ... which means he got the -3 GOE deduction from the value of a DOUBLE flip, even though very clearly the intended jump was a TRIPLE flip. So, using the "logic" that a skater should get deducted GOE of their intended jump instead of their executed jump, shouldn't he have gotten -2.1 points (the value of -3 GOE on a 3F, formerly) deducted because the intention was obviously a 3F?

Point being: reducing GOE based on the intended jump instead of the executed jump is ludicrous. A 4T and a 4T< are two differently executed jumps, and should be treated as such. They are worth different values, so the deduction (50% off for a fall, whatever the jump maybe), should be different for each jump. I get some people are super salty that this will benefit skaters who tend to UR, but this is how their UR jumps should have been scored all along, IMO.


ISU way:
3A fall = 4.00 points (50% deducted from the value of a 3A)
3A< fall = 3.00 points (50% deducted from the value of a 3A<)

Your way:
3A fall = 4.00 points (50% deducted from the value of a 3A)
3A< fall = 2.00 points (66% deducted from the value of a 3A<, with the -4.00 deduction)

 

[chopinskate]

He got a GOE deduction of -0.9 points on the jump (http://www.isuresults.com/results/season1718/ec2018/ec2018_Men_FS_Scores.pdf) ... which means he got the -3 GOE deduction from the value of a DOUBLE flip, even though very clearly the intended jump was a TRIPLE flip. So, using the "logic" that a skater should get deducted GOE of their intended jump instead of their executed jump, shouldn't he have gotten -2.1 points (the value of -3 GOE on a 3F, formerly) deducted because the intention was a 3F?

How it's being done all along has nothing to do with what improvements people wanted to see with these new proposals, or if what has been done all along made sense in the first place, but let me focus on this.

Suppose a skater does a 3Lz, but is a flutzer. Their technique in one competition is such that by the time they pick in, there is no counter-rotation at all, and the skater is on a moderate inside-edge. This jump now looks like a 3F. They under rotate and fall.

Should this skater be marked as 3Lze< (fall), or a 3F< (fall)?

 

[cohen-esque]

3Lze< cuz I want them to lose more points in that scenario.

Rarely have I seen a flutz totally indistinguishable from a flip.

 

[chopinskate]

I agree. It's what I'm trying to say there. People with 3A< (fall) should have multiple deductions being applied, with 3A as the base. Not 3A< as the base for the fall. Just like a UR flutz fall should be all on 3Lz as the base.

 

[karakaka]

You're misconstruing what yume is saying. A 3A< (fall) was intended to be a 3A, and we can see it was intended to be a 3A, as well. If a skater does a 2A< (fall), instead of an intended 3A, we would be able to see they did a 2A< (fall), guess that they were able to do a 2A there instead of a 3A for whatever reason, and therefore mark them as such. Please don't strawman yume's argument.

If we were to judge the GOE scaling for a 4Lz< fall as we would a 4Lz fall, the jump would get -5.75 in GOE by the new system. The BV for a 4Lz< is 8.63. Once you factor in a -1 for a fall (unless that proposed rule regarding falls passes), the skater would be getting 1.88 points.

A 3Lz fall under the new system would receive 5.90 - 2.95 - 1 = 1.95 points, which is more than the 1.88 points a hypothetical 4Lz< fall would get if judged under 4Lz GOE scaling. 24 hours ago in this thread, we were all saying how stupid it was that a 4A< fall would result in fewer points than a 3A fall. I can see why one might want to take a position of being more or less harsh on URs, but we have to be consistent.

 

[chopinskate]

And people agree that the BVs and SoVs are pretty foolish, too. No one is being inconsistent. One of the major complaints is how 4A is only 12.50 on BV, as well.

It's a badly thought out system.