A sliding scale for underrotations?

[bekalc]

How so? It sounds utterly arbitrary to me.

Well there has to be some cut off point. I think a quarter turn is a good one (and I'm for prerotation being taken into account too) If you can't get the revolution 3/4 completed you don't deserve credit

 

[fiercemao]

Put Speedy & technical specialists into concentration camp. Everything solved.

 

[enlight78]

Would int better to lower the stadard to one that can be seen clearly with the naked eye(20/20) in real time. If a jump is about a half turn cheat is enough for me to notice.
Maybe IJS should do test and have the naked eye real time vs. slow mo. And at what ever level the naked eye is able to spot UR correctly at least 90% of the time, let that be the cut off for technical controller Official underotation; let the judges deal with slight UR

 

[fiercemao]

When the expert British commentators gushed over Kimmie's 'beautiful 3loop' which was downgraded by so called specialist, and they still couldn't figure out what went wrong after rewatching the slo-mo, Houston, we got a problem.

 

[Mathman]

Would int better to lower the stadard to one that can be seen clearly with the naked eye(20/20) in real time. If a jump is about a half turn cheat is enough for me to notice.
Maybe IJS should do test and have the naked eye real time vs. slow mo. And at what ever level the naked eye is able to spot UR correctly at least 90% of the time, let that be the cut off for technical controller Official underotation; let the judges deal with slight UR

It is hard to see where the ISU is headed with this. For pre-rotatios, for instance, that is exactly the rule. It must be a "clear forward take-off" as seen by the naked eye, with no video reply allowed. I believe the "e" call is the same, with respect to video review.

What is not clear to me is why the ISU thinks that the judgement of three people (the technicl panel) is more valid than the combined judgement of the nine judges.

 

[Kinga]

First of all, I think that the issue discussed in this thread became extremely important for skating fans, and the whole 'UR story' should be discussed not only on this skating board. Asap! I can barely recall any skating fan not to have a problem with current judging on that matter.
Does any of you know what the top skaters/current competitive skaters and coaches think about UR issue? It would be so interesting to know their point of view as well.

I'd also add more severe penalties for a fall, but that's just me.

I totally agree. What is more, I would penalize harder two-foot landing as well. Man, if UR is cheating, so is two-foot landing!

What I find most objectionable with the present system is that two jumps can be absolutely identicle, both to the naked eye and as shown in slo-motion video replays, yet one gets downgraded and loses about four points, while the other doesn't and the skater gets a free pass to the podium.

In this case i think it would be much better if the judges had the option of saying, the first skater's jump was somewhat underrotated, I'll give it a -1 GOE. The second skater's jump, in my opinion, was maybe a little worse, so I'll give it a -2.

Another judge might think they were both about the same and give them both a -1.

I think this gives a more defensible measure of the difference between the two skaters' efforts.

So agree with you, MM! I rarely don't

Yes, I do want a 7UR triple program to beat a stumblefest of completely rotated jumps. A hand down or step out is not "actually" a triple jump.

A skater who lands a slightly UR jump with nice flow out and speed is showing much better skating skills than the one who fully rotates a jump before falling on their *** or stepping out or wobbling around like a drunken bear.

JMO.

Count me in. However, some rules penalizing UR that many people propose here, should be taken into account. We cannot let UR-skaters to rule each competition.

I think a fall should get NO points.

An underrotated triple should get counted as a double (but no other minus GOE or Plus GOE unless the jump had other issues.

So I guess in my scenario

A fall on a triple lutz gets 0 point's plus 1 point deduction

An underrotated quad toe gets 3.5 points that's it. I think that's fair. I don't think an underrotated jump should just get -1 GOE that's it. And I'm all for penalizing heavy prerotation.

All you say is fair enough too. So - I really think that there is a reasonable solution for this situation, which would more less satisfy everyone... I just wish ISU thought the same..

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

Well there has to be some cut off point. I think a quarter turn is a good one (and I'm for prerotation being taken into account too) If you can't get the revolution 3/4 completed you don't deserve credit

By all means, let's keep Figure Skating as easy as possible. We don't want to make it into major sport and be like those other sports. Do we?

 

[Mafke]

I totally agree. What is more, I would penalize harder two-foot landing as well. Man, if UR is cheating, so is two-foot landing!
However, some rules penalizing UR that many people propose here, should be taken into account. We cannot let UR-skaters to rule each competition.

I absolutely think that UR should be punished, I also think it's being punished far too severely at present. Underrotation should be punished at about the same level as slight two-footing (with slight UR being less punished than very obvious UR). Step outs should be punished more (About the same as a hand down on the ice) and falls should be punished most heavily.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

The UR call is defined by the Tech Panel soley on eyesight. There is nothing in the briefing that Callers have to learn to make an accurate UR call except the 25% permitted as a complete jump. So if they see 26% short of landing it is a UR. Do you really think the Panel has that good an eyesight?

Now a Fall is also an UR but it is not judged that way. Falls get a -1 in total score for the body landing on the ice, and the underrotation is ignored.

Under rotations are severely penalized to the point where the jump is downgraded, but they will not downgrade the Flutz to a Flip, will they?

Eyesight is not enough to call an UR. A mechanical means must be found and subjected to all skaters.

Falls for me are just a Failed Attempt.

 

[bekalc]

I absolutely think that UR should be punished, I also think it's being punished far too severely at present. Underrotation should be punished at about the same level as slight two-footing (with slight UR being less punished than very obvious UR). Step outs should be punished more (About the same as a hand down on the ice) and falls should be punished most heavily.

I disagree, I think underrotation is worse than a two footed jump. I'm sorry but I don't want to see people with bad technique getting rewarded. I think the current system encourages good technique and encourages people not to go for jumps they can't land....

Personally I think things like lots of two footed jumps, etc should be reflected in PCS, and underrotations shouldn't.

But I am all for underrotated jumps being penalized severely (maybe not as severely as fall) but at least a complete downgrade. It just seems to me that the underrotations are from the same people, and I don't like the idea of people getting away with cheated jumps. It's not fair or right to the people who have put in the work of doing correct jumps.

 

[Mafke]

I'm sorry but I don't want to see people with bad technique getting rewarded.

I'm sorry, but two-footing jumps is also bad technique.

UR and two-footing should be dealt with in GOE.

While I'm here, the basic, sad fact is that a lot more can go wrong with a jump than can go right with it. I think the current -3 to +3 GOE scale is just wildly unsuited to the reality of jumps. It should be from about -5 to +1, with +1's being very rare and a jump with no deductions being pretty special. Again, JMO.

 

[Kinga]

I'm sorry, but two-footing jumps is also bad technique.

I totally agree. Especially that two-foot landings are mostly done by the same skaters (Baiul in the past, Kostner nowdays, for example).

 

[antmanb]

An underrotated quad toe gets 3.5 points that's it. I think that's fair. I don't think an underrotated jump should just get -1 GOE that's it. And I'm all for penalizing heavy prerotation.

Okay but then do you think it's fair for the skater who has never landed a quad toe, but always puts the attempt in the program because he knows he can land it forwards and three turn out to a strong back outside edge, to get the same number of points and the skater who lands his adequate triple toe in each program?

Surely the person trying the quad should be given less points than the person executing an adequate triple?

Ant

 

[antmanb]

When the expert British commentators gushed over Kimmie's 'beautiful 3loop' which was downgraded by so called specialist, and they still couldn't figure out what went wrong after rewatching the slo-mo, Houston, we got a problem.

Except, as i pointed out in another thread - Chris Howarth (the one who always makes the right calls!) is both a free skater and free skating coach. He wasn't commentating on COR. It was Nicky Slater (ice dancer who often calls the jumps the wrong name and sometimes doesn't spot popped jumps, let alone URs and edge changes) and Simon Reed - i don't know what his skating background is, but it is definitely Chris who does the best real time calling.

Ant

 

[bekalc]

I'm sorry, but two-footing jumps is also bad technique.

UR and two-footing should be dealt with in GOE.

While I'm here, the basic, sad fact is that a lot more can go wrong with a jump than can go right with it. I think the current -3 to +3 GOE scale is just wildly unsuited to the reality of jumps. It should be from about -5 to +1, with +1's being very rare and a jump with no deductions being pretty special. Again, JMO.

But underrotating is worse. I'm sorry, at least the two footed jump was fully rotated...

I'm sorry but I'm going to use this example

Rachael Flatt fully rotates her jumps. They aren't spectacular, they normally don't get plus GOE. But they are fully rotated.

If people want to just give underrotaters a slap on the wrist (-1GOE) than that means that Rachael with her fully rotated jumps is getting only one point more.

I'm sorry but if you didn't get your triple lutz 3/4 away around, you did an overrotated DOUBLE lutz, and it should be given the points value of a DOUBLE.

If you two footed your fully rotated triple lutz, you did a triple lutz, but you should get minus GOE for doing a bad triple lutz.

I can't support people getting almost full credit for underrotated jumps, I'm sorry it's wrong and I especially disagree because it's the same people underrotating their jumps regularly.

In a case like Kostner, I think that constant two foots, should be reflected in her PCS.

 

[Mafke]

I'm sorry but if you didn't get your triple lutz 3/4 away around, you did an overrotated DOUBLE lutz, and it should be given the points value of a DOUBLE.

I think the skater's intention plays a role here, a real over-rotated jump has a very different awkward feel (uncontrolled and usually ending in a fall) from an underrotated jump with one more revolution.
Underrotated jumps may or may not have smooth gliding landings and too much faith is currently put in the hands of tech specialists in real time to determine the difference between .25 and .26 underrotation. To be fair, the only way underrotation can really be objectively settled is for the judges to get out on the ice and examine the tracings. I don't think anyone wants that.

My biggest problem with the current jihad against underrotation is that spinning in the air IS NOT A SKATING SKILL! Skating skills are setting up the jump right and controlling the edge on the landing (single back outside edge for a meter or so with no falling or stumbling or hands down). Spinning in the air is a general athletic or acrobatic skill but it's not skating, which by definition takes place with the blade on the ice.

 

[antmanb]

But underrotating is worse. I'm sorry, at least the two footed jump was fully rotated...

I'm sorry but I'm going to use this example

Rachael Flatt fully rotates her jumps. They aren't spectacular, they normally don't get plus GOE. But they are fully rotated.

If people want to just give underrotaters a slap on the wrist (-1GOE) than that means that Rachael with her fully rotated jumps is getting only one point more.

bekalc - i don't understand the point you are making - some of your posts sound like you think under-rotations are punished too much (like your earlier one i replied to before), and now you are saying you don't think they're punished enough?

I'm sorry but if you didn't get your triple lutz 3/4 away around, you did an overrotated DOUBLE lutz, and it should be given the points value of a DOUBLE.

No you did not! Everyone in the world knows very clearly whether a jump was an under-rotated triple or an over rotated double. 3/4 is completely arbitrary for those purposes and difficult to tell. If you make an absolute rule it should be capable of absolute measurement in real time in order to have the rule effected correctly. Neither you, nor Inor any human being can tell the difference between jump that is 272 degrees rotated and 268 rotated. If we're going to have this kind of rule I would say half a turn. It's much easier to spot in real time if a jump is landed forwarded or not. It can be spotted in real time, and mathematically it makes more sense to say - if you get it only half way round or less - let's downgrade it, if it is over halfway round then call it a triple but reduce the value using GOEs.

In a case like Kostner, I think that constant two foots, should be reflected in her PCS.

I don't understand why you think that technical fault like two footing a jump landing should be marked in the PCS? Two footing is clearly to do witht eh technical - so mark it on the jump, using the GOEs. Two footed jumps rarely disrupt the presentation of a program - like URs people tend to not spot them, and they certainly don't tend to affect the general impression of the program like, e.g. a fall which i think should affect bot the technical score and the presentation score.

Ant

 

[gkelly]

I think a fall should get NO points.

An underrotated triple should get counted as a double (but no other minus GOE or Plus GOE unless the jump had other issues.

So I guess in my scenario

A fall on a triple lutz gets 0 point's plus 1 point deduction

Remember the Grand Prix Final last year when Mao Asada simply didn't do the planned triple lutz in her short program and got 0 points for it (and no additional deduction).

Do you think that trying the jump and falling should net the skater fewer total points (more negative points) than not trying it at all?

Maybe the rules would have to be different for short programs than for long programs.

In the senior SP it is required to do a solo triple jump out of steps, so if you don't even make the effort to do a jump at all you need to earn fewer points (i.e., none) for that element. Whether there should also be an additional penalty for not even attempting a required move is up for debate.

An attempt to do the move that results in a popped jump with insufficient rotations would be worth less than a fully rotated but failed attempt, and then if the jump with either enough or not-enough rotations also ended in a fall there would be an additional penalty.


In long programs the only required jumps are some kind of axel jump. A single axel would suffice if the double is iffy but would earn lower base mark. So there would be no penalties for not attempting jumps, other than the loss of opportunity to earn points. A skater who tends to underrotate and fall on her triple jump attempts more often than not would be better off planning a program with only those double jumps she can land consistently and trying to earn extra points on GOEs by putting her energy into doing those easier jumps as well as possible and extra points for Transitions by making productive use of the time she wouldn't have to spend setting up doomed triples and then picking herself up off the ice afterward.

 

[Bennett]

How about assigning zero score as well as deducting one point from the overall score if a required element is skipped?

 

[Tinymavy15]

I very much agree about what was said about Mao's skipping the lutz and not being much worse off than if she had tried it and fallen.
There has to be diffrent rules for the SP and the LP. otherwise it is pointless having the SP. If a skater does not complete one of the required elements there should be a major deduction... like 2-3 points as well as the skater obviously not gaining the points for that element.