Agenda of the 56th ISU Ordinary Congress

[gsk8]

The Agenda of the 56th ISU Ordinary Congress Dubrovnik 2016 is now available here.

 

[Poice]

Very interesting. I like some proposed changes.

- changes in skating order:

The top three finishers in the short program will be the last to skate in the final group and will draw from the first subgroup. The fourth-, fifth- and sixth-place finishers in the short program will be the first to skate in the final group and will draw from the second subgroup.

Same goes for pairs and ice dance.

Tbh I would prefer just reverse order in LP.

- PCS:

The Skater's/Pair's/Couple’s whole performance is evaluated by five (5) Program Components: Skating Skills,Transitions, Performance, Composition, Interpretation of the Music /Timing (for Ice Dance). For Pair Skating and Ice Dance there must be equal demonstration of the criteria by both skaters.

There are also regulations what must be considered to evaluate program components (p. 108-109).

- GOE:

Starting with the season 2018 – 2019 there will be 10 Grades of Execution.

- duration of warm-up:

Starting with the season 2018 – 2019 the duration of the warm-ups in sub-paragraphs a), b) d) will be as follows: Single Skating, Pair Skating, Ice Dance – Short Program/Short Dance – four (4) minutes duration, Free Skating/Dance – five (5) minutes duration.

They want to make competitions shorter

- changes in Zayak's rule :

If the same jump is executed as a solo jump and as a part of the jump combination, the second execution will not be counted (if this repetition is in a jump combination, only the individual jump which is not according to the above requirements will not be counted).

 

[dorispulaski]

I love the proposed change in the Zayak rule. The current rule is unnecessarily harsh IMO.

 

[rosy14]

They want to make competitions shorter

So they can admit more athletes: either more from the same country or more from new countries.
Th programs will be shorter too.

 

[Snow63]

I don't like the idea of changes in skating order for ice dance. Ice dance is the discipline where skating order still means a lot, and this will give teams who will be leading already after SD even more an of advantage in FD, since they will be skating last. We see this at GP events, I think random order works much better, every team in last group have the their chance.

 

[Layback11]

I might be misunderstanding this, but are they putting in new component marks? Ooh, exciting! The timing one seems like it could be interesting; I wonder what exactly its applications are?

 

[draqq]

Sorry, but the change with the Zayak rule sounds like gobbledygook to me. Can anyone translate what the hell that means in plain English? From what I think it means, it protects skaters from having a jump combination (say, a 2A+3T+2T) entirely voided for repeating something as dumb as a third 2T in the program.

 

[Krunchii]

I might be misunderstanding this, but are they putting in new component marks? Ooh, exciting! The timing one seems like it could be interesting; I wonder what exactly its applications are?

I believe it's to allow judges now to give half GOEs like 0.5, 1.5, 2.5 etc for a total of 10 different ones including the negatives.

Sorry, but the change with the Zayak rule sounds like gobbledygook to me. Can anyone translate what the hell that means in plain English? From what I think it means, it protects skaters from having a jump combination (say, a 2A+3T+2T) entirely voided for repeating something as dumb as a third 2T in the program.

Yepp that's exactly it, now only jumps will be voided and not entire combinations. Phew, too many skaters have suffered from this stupid rule.

 

[FSGMT]

If I'm not mistaken, the Zayak rule change is only about the SP, right? Anyway, it is already an extremely nice thing! :yes:
I really wish they went back to the origins of IJS, when only the Zayakked jumps didn't count e.g. in Irina's FS at 2005 Worlds: IIRC she did three 3Los, and the third was in a combo, but only the triple lost value, not the other jump of the combo.

 

[Snow63]

Finally read it fully. Some very interesting proposals concerning ice dance:

Short Lifts – the duration of the Lift should not exceed seven (7) seconds
Reason: To give more freedom to the choreography of Dance Lifts and allow more variation.

Nice one. Really nice one! 6 seconds is awfully short time to do something creative.

Types of Step Sequences are divided into Groups:
i) Group A: Straight Line Step Sequences
 Midline − skated along the full length of the ice surface on the Long Axis;
 Diagonal − skated as fully corner to corner as possible.
ii) Group B: Curved Step Sequence
 Circular (may be skated in anticlockwise or clockwise direction) − utilizing the full width of the ice
surface on the Short Axis;
 Serpentine − commences in either direction (clockwise or anticlockwise) at the Long Axis at one end
of the rink and progresses in three bold curves or in two bold curves (S-Shaped) and ends at the Long
Axis of the opposite end of the rink, the pattern utilizing the full width of the ice surface.
iii) Group C: Partial Step Sequences
 Pattern Dance Type Step Sequence– performed on the ice surface anywhere or as prescribed by the
Ice Dance Technical Committee.
 One Foot Step Sequence – performed on one foot by each partner simultaneously, in Hold or
separately
iv) Group D: Combination Step Sequences consisting of a One Foot Step Sequence and a Step Sequence of
Group A or B

New group of step sequences will probably be added! Combination step sequence. I bet this would look awesome. Sounds epic, that's for sure.

Hope these will be approved.

 

[Snow63]

245. SINGLE & PAIR SKATING TECHNICAL COMMITTEE
Rule 353, paragraph 1. n), part Fall
Revise Single Skating points (only) as follows:
Single Skating: -1.0 for the first and second fall, -2.0 for the third and fourth fall, -3.0 for the fifth and any further falls.
Reason: to increase reductions for falls in Single Skating.

 

[MaxSwagg]

Confused about the GOEs? Is 0 gone? If they're doing half increments, that still doesn't equal ten. Is there going to be more negative GOEs than positive or vice-versa?

 

[andromache]

I really dislike the idea of splitting the last group into 2 subgroups based on SP placement. It'll simply result in more "saving scores for the last skaters!" which IJS was supposed to end. Should skaters in 4th-6th place after the short program have their scores held down in anticipation of 1st-3rd placed skaters still to come? Let's not allow scores to be determined by skate order any more than they already are.

Proposal to allow second half bonuses for pairs:

In Pair Skating the Base Values (but not the GOE’s) for one throw jump, one jump element (solo jump or jump combination/sequence) and one lift or twist lift, started in the second half of the program will be multiplied by a special factor 1.1. In the case of a repeated element type in the second half, the bonus will go to the element with the highest Base Value. Each factored Base Value for all jump Elements (Single Skating) and for one throw jump, one jump element, and one lift or twist lift (Pair Skating) performed in the second half of the Free Skating program will be rounded to two decimal places.

It's neat, but seems unnecessary. Most pairs programs seem really balanced already.

Norway proposes an end to anonymous judging. We can all dream of that.

 

[StitchMonkey]

Confused about the GOEs? Is 0 gone? If they're doing half increments, that still doesn't equal ten. Is there going to be more negative GOEs than positive or vice-versa?

maybe -5, -4, -3, -2, -1, +1, +2, +3, +4, +5 ? that could equal 10... but I think i would miss zero.

 

[Krunchii]

Confused about the GOEs? Is 0 gone? If they're doing half increments, that still doesn't equal ten. Is there going to be more negative GOEs than positive or vice-versa?

That's a good point, it'll probably only be one side, now the question is if it's to be more lenient on mistakes or more specific on rewards

 

[andromache]

That's a good point, it'll probably only be one side, now the question is if it's to be more lenient on mistakes or more specific on rewards

It'd be way more useful to have more levels of negative GOE. I can't think of many elements that deserve more than a +3. All +3 elements are usually fairly equally impressive, IMO. But, well, a hand down on a jump gets -3 GOE and an Anna Pogo fall also gets -3 GOE? That could be changed around.

 

[Krunchii]

It'd be way more useful to have more levels of negative GOE. I can't think of many elements that deserve more than a +3. All +3 elements are usually fairly equally impressive, IMO. But, well, a hand down on a jump gets -3 GOE and an Anna Pogo fall also gets -3 GOE? That could be changed around.

True I just think about how they used to give -2s on falls to certain skaters instead of -3 and I worry that now judges are going to give -2.5s instead. Personally I think +3 GOEs these days are given out like candy, for me there's a difference between really good and mind-blowingly good. I would prefer the increments on the positive side.

 

[Blades of Passion]

0 will still be there I think, but as usual they've mucked it up because -5 to +5 is going to create more confusion as compared to having half increments from -3 to +3. Going from +1 to +1.5 to +2, so an increment shift of two places from +1 to +2, creates a different mental notation than going from +2 to +4. I feel like everything is just going to automatically get at least +1 if they implement this new system and tons of +4's will be handed out frivolously, which creates a huge score imbalance and at the same time allows judges to say "There's nothing wrong with my judging, I didn't give a +5, so it's fine."

 

[nolangoh]

First of all, I have one proposal. Increasing spacing between the sections of a proposal.

Reason: Easier to read.


I think some of the bullet points in the PCS components maybe overlapping. For example, per my understanding: "Physical, emotional and intellectual involvement", "Purpose (idea, concept, vision, mood)", "Expression of the music's character/feeling the rhythm" and "Using the finesse" mean the same thing, yet they are in different categories. And there are just too many things to consider while evaluating the PCS components.

 

[GF2445]

First of all, I have one proposal. Increasing spacing between the sections of a proposal.

Reason: Easier to read.

Oh i dont know....not sure if the council will be in favour for your proposed change?