- Joined
- Nov 29, 2015
It was info from earlier, definitely does fit in there.
2018-2019 Season - New rules
- Thread starter enzofv
- Start date
It was info from earlier, definitely does fit in there.
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2018
ISU is too vague. But I agree since it doesn't state anything about arms or variation of anything.
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2017
Oh ok thanks
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
I'm saying that % GOE deduction should be applied to the jump that was executed, not what is intended. A 3A< fall with -5 GOE would receive a 50% deduction and with the 25% deduction applied for the UR, this works out to 37.5% of the jump's value (0.75 x 0.50 = 0.375). A 3A with -5 GOE would receive a 50% deduction.
More simply:
UR jump with fall = 62.5% deduction
Same jump with fall = 50% deduction
I don't understand why people are insisting that a UR jump will be "rewarded", or say that it will get more points than a fully rotated jump.
Do the math - pick any jump in that chart. Look at the GOE. Now look at the GOE of it's UR counterpart. Subtract the GOE from the base value. The UR jump will always be less points than the fully rotated jump.
4T with -1 GOE = 8.55
4T< with -1 GOE = 6.42
3Z(e) with -2 GOE = 3.54
3Z(e)< with -2 GOE = 2.83
3L with -3 GOE = 3.43
3L< with -3 GOE = 2.58
3A with -4 GOE = 4.80
3A< with -4 GOE = 3.60
4Z with -5 GOE = 5.75
4Z< with -5 GOE = 4.32
Nobody with a UR jump is getting more points than the fully rotated one. The 25% reduction you get for underrotating ensures that, coupled with UR jumps getting lower GOE in general than fully rotated ones.
Get it now?
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
Weird runner straw man parallel aside, the system is counting the 4A - it's giving higher value to it than the other quads, and 1 point instead of 0.5 increments. And the skater who lands it (if ever) will be acknowledged as landing it. Brandon Mroz landed the first quad lutz, but it got negative GOE... who cares about how many points it got though -- it was the first quad lutz. Do you remember how many points Shoma got on the first quad flip or Yuzu got for the first quad loop, without looking it up? Does it even matter? Yes, a 4A should be worth more but do you think the skater really cares how many points they'll get for it more so than the actual achievement of doing it?
Certain people: "Oh I hope a skater doesn't kill themselves trying to get the first 4A! I'm so nervous for them!"
Also certain people: "Oh I wish a 4A would be worth more so that skaters would be more inclined to go for it."
Not to mention, if a skater lands a 4A, they are likely technically proficient enough in doing other quads and will win that competition, regardless of how much the 4A is worth.
So let me ask you: how many points should a 4A be worth? 15? 20? 40? I mean, 4A could be worth 40 points BV and certain people would still complain it's not worth 41.
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2017
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
Hah, but if they fall, then it's infinity x 50% which still equals infinity.
Are you suggesting a 4A should get the same points as a 4A with a fall?
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
A UR flutz does have multiple deductions with the 3Z as base, a reduction in BV and lower GOE from the judges.
The reduction in BV is acknowledging that 3Z is the base jump. The jump was under rotated it, so the jump is now 75% BV. They also flutzed so there is a further deduction and now the jump is 60% BV.
There. The failure to get the intended jump fully rotated has been deducted, and the failure to do the correct edge has also been deducted. Not to mention, the ensuing -GOE will also result in fewer points.
Multiple deductions with a 3z(e) fall:
- BV reduced for UR
- BV reduced for flutz
- GOE is -50% due to poor execution
- deduction for a fall
Multiple deductions with a 3A< fall :
- BV reduced for UR
- GOE is -50% due to poor execution
- deduction for a fall
Everything is accounted for. Both have multiple deductions - of course, the 3Z(e) fall has extra BV reduction for the edge call, which you obviously wouldn't see on a 3A.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
Not really.
If they think they have a shot at the 4A they will go for the 4A precisely because of the difficulty, and the status, of it all.
They will just not get properly rewarded for their amazing achievement in case they manage to land it.
And a 4Lz is also not an easy jump either, and we've seen plenty of issues last season. Odd how they aren't trying to deter skaters from jumping that by lowering its BV. I wonder why
False. They have lowered the BV of a 4Z from 13.6 to 11.5 (a 15.4% reduction). The most BV reduction of any quad that has been executed.
4F: 12.3 to 11.0 (10.8% reduction).
4L: 12.0 to 10.5 (12.5% reduction).
4S: 10.5 to 9.7 (7.6% reduction).
4T: 10.3 to 9.5 (7.8% reduction).
Given that Nathan and Jin (and Zhou to some extent) are currently the only skaters who can reliably land a 4Z in competition, and the 4Z has seen the most drastic reduction of all the quads, do you still think these are "Nathan's rules"?
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2017
And a 4Lz is also not an easy jump either, and we've seen plenty of issues last season. Odd how they aren't trying to deter skaters from jumping that by lowering its BV. I wonder why
Technically, they did lower its BV.
4Lz actually had the second highest BV drop percentually (first was 4A). 4F not as much, though, surprisingly.
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2014
For spins, looking at the SOV tables reminds me of other novelty moves that I don't remember seeing much, if at all, like flying layback spins and flying upright spins. Granted there's not much incentive to do those versus flying camels and fly sit spins, but can anyone link to examples of them performed in past programs?
Searching on Youtube, I find this video. Granted in the protocols, it's called as an FUSp rather than a FLSp.
Does anyone else want to see more of these spins done?
Searching on Youtube, I find this video. Granted in the protocols, it's called as an FUSp rather than a FLSp.
Does anyone else want to see more of these spins done?
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2014
I think its silly to argue which skater will benefit the most from the new rules. I can maybe argue how current Russian top ladies could be in deficit the most, but that is also a question because we didnt see them compete on them yet. From what i can see all BV of quads are reduced and even some triples. The simple logic behind it not to reward (with so many points) skaters who are trying multiple quads and fail to produce them clean. So, all skaters who were trying multiple quads per programme with less than 75% succes lets say will suffer. But you can get a lot of points with quality quads!!! New GOE scale will do that. If you can jump good quad (with +3 or +4 GOE) you will stay ahead. Cause +3 goe 4z worth 15 points. Good 4A with +3 will worth a lot too. The point is not just to have quad (like before) but to have quad with good GOE. Thats why goe become percentage of BV. And clean jumps with higher BV can still get you a lot more points. I mean, its totally logical decision knowing what mens competitions became last couple of years.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
Technically, they did lower its BV.
I noticed the 4F was not as much, but IMO, the value of a 4F in the last system was just sliiightly too low. In the previous scale of values:
3F = 5.3
3L = 5.1
So, a 3L was 96.2% the base value of a 3F.
4F = 12.3
4L = 12.0
So, a 4L was 97.56% the value of a 4F.
If the 4F had a been given a BV 12.5 (instead of 12.3), the 4L would have been 96.0% its value, which is way closer to the base value ratio of the 3L vs 3F. Then, take the 12.5 BV of 4F and reduce it to 11.0, that would have been a 13.6% reduction -- which would have put it somewhere in between the reduction of a 4Z and the reduction of a 4L in the new SOV.
As far as the 4A having the highest percentage drop, that's not as much of an issue as the 4Z percentage drop, because there are no men are actually doing a 4A, and none have attempted it to date. So as it stands, the rule does not benefit or hurt anyone. I get some skaters are hoping to try a 4A, but are people honestly going to care how many points they got for it more than the actual achievement?! On the other hand, there are men who actually reliably execute the 4Z and rely on its base value over the other quads. Some skaters can win with easier quads because of their high PCS, but other skaters with less PCS rely on the base value of the 4Z and 4F to compete with them, and now that's been reduced.
Notice how there's no longer such a huge discrepancy between a 4T and 4Z. Before it was 3.3 points difference, now it's only 2.0 points difference between them! And that's considering that a 4Z was already rather low in value to begin with relative to a 4T:
Old SOV:
3T was 68.3% the value of a 3Z
4T was 75.7% the value of a 4Z
New SOV:
3T is 69.4% the value of a 3Z
4T is 82.6% the value of a 4Z
For people griping about the low value of a 4A which hasn't even been attempted, IMO, there's more to gripe about the 4Z which guys actually do. Funny enough, if the 4T were proportional to the 4Z the way a 3T is to a 3Z (69.4% of its value), then the 4Z's base value should be 13.7 (which happened to be slightly above its old base value). Clearly the ISU is bunching elements more, even making the triples closer together, and they've done the same with quads - essentially mitigating the advantage of higher level quads. But until someone actually does a 4A, the guys reliably doing a 4Z are the ones getting hurt the most by this.
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2015
The issue in this thread is that people are looking at who attempts/lands what.... these rules are not about specific skaters it is about the direction of the ISU... They are clearly saying that they no longer want splatfests...
By bunching together base values of jumps and throws, they are saying : we don't care WHAT you put in your program, we care HOW you succeed it.
I have very little issues with this in singles ... because the guys have already gone cuckoo with all the quads they attempt... but I do have a concern that the pairs discipline will stagnate now. No need to even bother with the 3Athrow and higher. The bunching up is way too close.
By bunching together base values of jumps and throws, they are saying : we don't care WHAT you put in your program, we care HOW you succeed it.
I have very little issues with this in singles ... because the guys have already gone cuckoo with all the quads they attempt... but I do have a concern that the pairs discipline will stagnate now. No need to even bother with the 3Athrow and higher. The bunching up is way too close.
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2014
^^^
Maybe its better to calculate how 4Lz with the possible highest GOE till now (+3) compares with the same one after the change of rules (+5). Cause basic BV is not the main point of the new system, but how can you upgrade that BV with GOE's percentage.
Regarding quads in pairs i think +5 GOE quad would also bring you the same amount of points (or even more) as what quads with +3 GOE was bringing you before.
Maybe its better to calculate how 4Lz with the possible highest GOE till now (+3) compares with the same one after the change of rules (+5). Cause basic BV is not the main point of the new system, but how can you upgrade that BV with GOE's percentage.
Regarding quads in pairs i think +5 GOE quad would also bring you the same amount of points (or even more) as what quads with +3 GOE was bringing you before.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
Regarding the discussion of GOE scaling in the new SOV, some are arguing that a UR jump should get the GOE scaling of the intended jump (so a 3A< should get the GOE scaling of a 3A), which is how it was in the past. How do people feel about downgrades though?
e.g. 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puA6eNhjNIc#t=3m30s
Fernandez intends a 3F but bails to a 3F<<; however, he is marked with the GOE scaling of a 2F costing him 0.9 points (and not the 3F he intended, which would have cost him 2.1 points) http://www.isuresults.com/results/season1718/ec2018/ec2018_Men_FS_Scores.pdf
e.g. 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYx2WzIXvZ8#t=4m2s
Hanyu intends a 4T but downgrades to a 4T<<; however, he is marked with the GOE scaling of a 3T costing him 1.82 points (and not the 4T he intended, which would have cost him 3.46 points) https://skatecanada.ca/results/2017-ACI/CSCAN2017_SeniorMen_FS_Scores.pdf
For the record I agree with them being scaled based on the 2F and 3T scaling and not losing even more GOE points based on their intended 3F and 4T. And this is precisely why I agree with the ISU's decision in the new SOV to deduct for an underrotation first and THEN apply +/- 10-20-30-40-50% scaling, across all jumps, instead of penalizing skaters further by deducting GOE based on the scaling of the intended jump.
It's not rewarding under-rotators, it's doing what should have been done in the first place: treating < jumps as they do << jumps: determine the new base value of the jump (drops down to the next lower jump's BV for a <<, or drops 25% for a <).... and THEN deducting GOE using the 10-50% scale.
Like, disregard which skaters you think this new SOV "helps" for a moment.... this process is actually more logical and fair, especially if you think about how it's done similarly in the event of downgrades (which don't penalize GOE based on intention).
e.g. 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puA6eNhjNIc#t=3m30s
Fernandez intends a 3F but bails to a 3F<<; however, he is marked with the GOE scaling of a 2F costing him 0.9 points (and not the 3F he intended, which would have cost him 2.1 points) http://www.isuresults.com/results/season1718/ec2018/ec2018_Men_FS_Scores.pdf
e.g. 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYx2WzIXvZ8#t=4m2s
Hanyu intends a 4T but downgrades to a 4T<<; however, he is marked with the GOE scaling of a 3T costing him 1.82 points (and not the 4T he intended, which would have cost him 3.46 points) https://skatecanada.ca/results/2017-ACI/CSCAN2017_SeniorMen_FS_Scores.pdf
For the record I agree with them being scaled based on the 2F and 3T scaling and not losing even more GOE points based on their intended 3F and 4T. And this is precisely why I agree with the ISU's decision in the new SOV to deduct for an underrotation first and THEN apply +/- 10-20-30-40-50% scaling, across all jumps, instead of penalizing skaters further by deducting GOE based on the scaling of the intended jump.
It's not rewarding under-rotators, it's doing what should have been done in the first place: treating < jumps as they do << jumps: determine the new base value of the jump (drops down to the next lower jump's BV for a <<, or drops 25% for a <).... and THEN deducting GOE using the 10-50% scale.
Like, disregard which skaters you think this new SOV "helps" for a moment.... this process is actually more logical and fair, especially if you think about how it's done similarly in the event of downgrades (which don't penalize GOE based on intention).
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2015
throw 3s before 4.5 maximum goe 2.1 = 6.6
throw 3s now 4.4 maximum GOE 2.2 = 6.6
throw 4S before BV 8.2.... maxiumum GOE +3 = 11.2
throw 4S now BV 6.5 maximum GOE 3.5 = 10.
For triples, it's about the same... but for quad throws, it's an impressive gap IMHO... furthermore, despite landing a clean one footed 4Sth in PC, D/R barely got any positive GOE. if you applied their 0s and 1s to this new system, they would have scored just about the same as a 3Sth....
I am not making this about a specific pair, and they are retired now so it's not my point... my point is that who will want to risk it, especially when we all know that it takes many tries before getting good landings...a two footed quad throw here would hurt...
throw 3s now 4.4 maximum GOE 2.2 = 6.6
throw 4S before BV 8.2.... maxiumum GOE +3 = 11.2
throw 4S now BV 6.5 maximum GOE 3.5 = 10.
For triples, it's about the same... but for quad throws, it's an impressive gap IMHO... furthermore, despite landing a clean one footed 4Sth in PC, D/R barely got any positive GOE. if you applied their 0s and 1s to this new system, they would have scored just about the same as a 3Sth....
I am not making this about a specific pair, and they are retired now so it's not my point... my point is that who will want to risk it, especially when we all know that it takes many tries before getting good landings...a two footed quad throw here would hurt...
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2014
No set of rule changes is going to please everyone. The ISU chose to pick this direction and go with it.
Skaters should not be putting a planned quad fall in their programs, which is pretty much what a quad is when it has a very low success rate in competition. I don't want to pick on a certain skater, but using Mikhail as an example, where he attempts the 4Lz and lands only two times with positive GOE out of 15 in international competition this season, with 12 of 15 being falls. This quad had 20% success rate of being landed and 13.3% success rate of being landed cleanly. However, he was always rewarded for it in TES over a perfect 3Lz, as long as he rotated it. In his case also, he put this quad as the opening element in both (in most cases) segments of competition, which often times sets the tone on how the rest of the program goes. The harsher GOE deductions for the new SOV are to encourage skaters to put jumps out there that they can consistently perform.
