CoP Olympic report card

[Joesitz (RIP)]

Hockeyfan, you know I love you dearly but when you go for a lutz, the entrance is from a back outside edge. That's what the entrance to a lutz is!!

Your case is for an attempt at a back outside edge. If the skater can't hold a back outside edge, the skater should not be in Seniors. More than JMO.

Joe

 

[Mathman]

But Joe, every sport has to have rules or it's not a sport at all. The ISU rules about how to penalize a faulty take-off edge are perfectly clear, and should be followed by the judges.

You may want to change the rules. For instance, you might want baseball to change the rules and allow only two strikes instead of three. You might say, anyone who can't hit the ball in two strikes doesn't belong in major league baseball. Well, maybe MLB will take up this suggestion one day.

Then again, they might not. And the ISU might not follow your proposal to ignore everything else -- the entry curve, the counterrotation, etc. But right now the rules say, no, we are not going to ignore all that. We are not going to change the rules and johnny-one-note this element.

IMO what we need is not new rules but rather to enforce the rules we have. As Hockeyfan mentioned previously, the problem is that the judges are not deducting properly for a faulty edge. According to the rules, that is supposed to be a deduction of 1 to 3 points, depending on the severity. I think if skaters found themselves actually penalized in this way, they would work a little harder to clean up their attack on this jump.

If the skaters knew for a certainty that they were going to get only 3 or 4 points for a flutz (as the current rules state), instead of 6 for a Lutz, that would be incentive to clean up their act.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

MM - You are now becoming a protector of the Flutz

Every sport has rules and defintiions. Do you know the definitiion of a Touchdown? a Double Play? a Knockout? a Triple Gaynor? A Double Fault? Missing a Slalom gate - even though there was an attempt to not miss it. duh.

A Lutz is a jump in figure skating when a skater who is on a back outside edge toes off with his free leg; does an appropriate air turn(s) and lands on the other foot on a back outside edge. I didn't make this up. This is the rule for a Lutz.

Now, an attempted Lutz is another matter. Can you imagine credit for an attempted Touchdown?; and attemped Double Play?; an attempted Knockout?; an attemped Triple Gaynor? Yes, the attempt is there, but if it doesn't succeed then there is no credit. Now is figure skating a girlie sport?

Joe

 

[Mathman]

Yes, figure skating is a girly sport. Viva la femmes!

I have been reading up on this, and here's one girl who agrees with you -- Nancy Kerrigan. In her book Artistry of Ice she has a whole chapter on how to do a Lutz. She concludes:

"As I mentioned before, the most common error in the Lutz comes from rocking over on the blade before the jump. This actually turns the jump into a flip because you are on the inside edge, and the judges are required to deduct for the mistake. The rules dictate that you do two of each jump, and one has to be in combination. So if you do two flips and two Lutzes, but your Lutzes are flips, you should be marked down."

She goes on to give tips on how to approach the jump (position of the arms, location of the toe pick, etc.) that will help you stay on the outside edge.

"We still see people do flutzes even at the Olympic level, which indicates how difficult this jump is, but it is a mistake, and you should work to land them correctly."

Well, it's hard to argue with that. I guess you and Nancy have won me over.

 

[chuckm]

The problem in the current system is that the caller rates the flutz as a full-credit lutz and the judges ignore the flutzing and the skater gets a 0---in my eyes that is full credit for a poorly executed jump. That's why I say the caller should say the jump is a FLUTZ with a lower base value.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

The problem in the current system is that the caller rates the flutz as a full-credit lutz and the judges ignore the flutzing and the skater gets a 0---in my eyes that is full credit for a poorly executed jump. That's why I say the caller should say the jump is a FLUTZ with a lower base value.

Hooray for some sanity here on what Lutz is and I'll go further and say that the Caller (CoP lovers would never doubt him) when rating a flutz as a full-credit lutz gives a disservice for all those skaters who worked so hard on doing a real lutz.

Cheers for Kerrigan, too. She is a skater and ALL skaters know what a lutz is and they know that a back inside edge toe take off is going to get you a flip. Only non-skaters, imo, believe differently.

Joe

 

[Mathman]

The more I think about ChuckM's solution the better I like it. The caller calls flutz, the base mark goes down to, say 3.5, with the possibility of even further deductions in GOE if there are other problems with the jump, such as a two-footed landing.

Joe, the reason that I am not completely convinced by the analogies with other sports is this. True, in football you don't get any points for "attempting" to make a touchdown.

But they don't say, "well, you didn't score a touchdown in the first quarter, so we are going to take away the field goal that you made in the fourth quarter." If you made the field goal, you should get the points for it, no matter what went before. (There is no Zayak rule in football that says you can only try to score two touchdowns.)

Suppose you slightly flutz your two Lutzes (and receive next to nothing because what you really did was two badly flawed flips), and then you do your two perfect flips and receive 0 credit because of Zayak violation. Now your two bad jumps have negated not two but four jumping passes.

I think this would put a burden on the skater inappropriate to the severity of the offense. If you weren't sure about whether you really got that outside edge down on your opening Lutz, then you would have to decide on the fly whether maybe the caller thought it was a flutz, then you can't do the flip that you had planned next, so maybe you change it to a Salchow -- no, I already did a Salchow, so I have to do a Salchow combination, no I already did my two combinations, so I have to put in a bunny hop and call it a sequence...

I think the rules have to be that you choreograph your program in accordance with the requirements of the CoP. Then you execute the program as best you can. You get credit for the elements that you do correctly, you get partial credit for the elements you mess up on, and essentially no credit for the elements that you blow completely.

But don't take away my beautiful flip at the end just because I screwed up my Lutz attempt at the beginning.

 

[SeaniBu]

... I am not completely convinced by the analogies with other sports is this. True, in football you don't get any points for "attempting" to make a touchdown.

I don't like the analogies because FSkating is the most unique to me. The only comparison to me is how unique it is.

I really feel that importance directed in only one direction can take away from the sport. I hope the Artistic doesn't get lost in the hubub over the Technical. There needs to be an equal amount of attention to both IMO.

 

[gkelly]

OK, you're a caller. How would you call each of the following jumps (all counterclockwise jump rotation)? For which ones might you need slow motion replay to verify your decision? For which might you revise your assessment of what jump was intended after seeing the rest of the program, if your initial impression would lead to a repeated jump in the short program or Zayak violation in the long?

1) Long deep left back outside (LBO) edge into the corner, edge flattens out as the skater reaches to pick so that the actual takeoff is from a flat or maybe a tiny 1-inch hook to the inside edge after all the weight has been transferred to the picking foot.

2) Long deep LBO edge to the corner with great speed, high swinging free leg that reaches far to the right and swings the skating foot onto a deep inside edge to pick, creating an S curve covering 3-4 feet within about a second's time (and great height and distance in the jump and flow out of the landing).

3) Moderately deep LBO edge at moderate speed that slows down on the approach to the jump, shift over to small curvy inside edge, tap with free toe and take off from inside edge after the tapping toe has left the ice (rotates in place with a curvy, slower landing).

4) Straight forward glide on two feet or shallow RFI edge down center ice, LFI mohawk, cross in front to LBO edge and immediately reach to pick for the jump, in the process flattening out the edge to flat and then to shallow inside edge for about one blade length.

5) Clockwise turning footwork into the corner ending with LFI mohawk and cross in front to shallow LBI edge, immediately pick and jump.

6) Deep LFI-to-LBO bracket with strong counterrotation of upper body before and after the turn, slow and relax counterrotation with picking action so that the edge rocks over and hooks around the pick on an inside edge for 6 inches.

7) Long shallow LBO edge down center ice, LBO three, paw ice with free toe to change edge and regain speed, shallow LFO rocker to LBO edge, pick and jump.

8) Deep LBO edge, rock over onto clear LBI edge for a couple of feet, then shift back to clear LBO for the pick and jump.

 

[hockeyfan228]

I think the rules have to be that you choreograph your program in accordance with the requirements of the CoP. Then you execute the program as best you can. You get credit for the elements that you do correctly, you get partial credit for the elements you mess up on, and essentially no credit for the elements that you blow completely.

Which the code provides for already. A bad flutz where the other three phases of the jump are done average (base) gets 3 points instead of 6, or 1/2 credit. A fall on an underrotated 3A downgraded to a 2A gets a fraction (.2) of point after the fall deduction. A fall on any jump never allows for compensation for great height or perfect air position or intricate steps into take-off; it's -3 GOE and -1 for the fall. While I might argue that a jump with a fall should never receive more than 1/4 or 1/3 or [fill in the blank] of base, I suspect the ISU's counter-argument for rewarding 5 points (vs 9 base) for a fall on a fully rotated 4T and 3.5 (vs 7.5 base) for a fall on a fully rotated 3A is to encourage risk-taking, although many in the audience prefe an all-or-nothing approach to the big elements.

It is pretty clear from looking at scores of skaters with blatant flaws, like Liashenko's -3 telegraphs and Cohen's -3 flutzes and Sokolova's -3 lips and -3 telegraphs that this isn't being enforced, and the ISU said they were trying to address the flutz/lip issue this year. I, personally, am in favor of anything that takes power from the hands of federation-appointed judges and puts it into the hands of the ISU officials, because problems fall at the feet of Cinquanta. If Lambiel really performed a 3A instead of a 2A at Calgary, we know it was called by Scott Davis and his team:

Technical Controller Mr. Benoit LAVOIE ISU
Technical Specialist Mr. Scott DAVIS ISU
Assistant Technical Specialist Ms. Pirjo UIMONEN ISU

If Delobel/Schoenfelder's lift that was called illegal at TEB and wasn't, we know it was called by Andrzej Dostatni and his team:

Technical Controller Ms. Christine HURTH ISU
Technical Specialist Mr. Andrzej DOSTATNI ISU
Assistant Technical Specialist Mr. Daniel HUGENTOBLER ISU

There is never going to be perfection in officiating -- talk to Don Derringer, who received death threats after blowing a late-inning call that allowed Kansas City back into the 6th game of the World Series, which they won over St. Louis in the 7th game that probably wouldn't have happened had the correct call been made. (It wasn't remotely close, and video replay wasn't an option.) But there is at least the possibility of accountability if the officials are hired independently, than, let's say, the umpires in baseball being hired by the Yankees, the White Sox, etc.

But don't take away my beautiful flip at the end just because a screwed up my Lutz attempt at the beginning.

ITA. It's hard enough for skaters to improvise when they know they've missed an element, but how can a sport be credible when it penalizes the athlete without even telling him/her so that s/he can adjust?

 

[SeaniBu]

ITA. It's hard enough for skaters to improvise when they know they've missed an element, but how can a sport be credible when it penalizes the athlete without even telling him/her so that s/he can adjust?

If you know it going in, there is your credit. That is the way it is before you began, if they do or do not make the realization and can or can not adjust, that to is a part of the "abilities" of an individual athlete's sport. IMO. Yes it is harder, and if anyone should be aware of their "mistake" it really should be the skater. Maybe I am wrong, but I can feel the difference when I am flat or on one edge and most of the time what part of the edge. Maybe I wouldn't if I was competing, but I haven't been skating everyday of my life for three hours or more either.

I maybe way off, but the ability to adjust or choose not to is an attribute of the skater abilities. Also - this is a question - can't the coach shout in from the boards?

The only other thing I have to say about that post is it is totally true that the lack of perfection will always exist in sports. My choir teacher always said that "practice doesn't make perfect, perfect practice makes perfect." The oxymoron was not lost on me at least.

 

[Mathman]

Practice makes perfect, there you go. In your LP you plan to keep on trying a Lutz until you get it right. The first two you screw up, so you get credit for two flips. Then you finally get two right.

You just scored the highest you can get out of four jumps, two flips and two Lutzes, a total of 23 points!



Or... Plan B. You try triple Axels till you get it right. You get so confused on the first two that you end up turned around backward. Not only that, but you only get in three rotations instead of three and a half. Now you have 8 points for two triple toes. Then you get it right on the third try and do two triple Axeld, for 15 more points -- a total of 23!

 

[gkelly]

If you know it going in, there is your credit. That is the way it is before you began, if they do or do not make the realization and can or can not adjust, that to is a part of the "abilities" of an individual athlete's sport. IMO. Yes it is harder, and if anyone should be aware of their "mistake" it really should be the skater. Maybe I am wrong, but I can feel the difference when I am flat or on one edge and most of the time what part of the edge. Maybe I wouldn't if I was competing, but I haven't been skating everyday of my life for three hours or more either.

Are you saying that the skater should be able to tell during the program that s/he changed edge sufficiently on the lutz takeoff that it was called as a flip, or made a similar error, and adjust the subsequent program content accordingly?

A similar situation would be, e.g., a skater knowing in the moment that triple jump was underrotated enough to likely be called as a double and having the option to try the triple again. Or knowing that a quad attempt would be called as a triple and thus feeling that it would not be safe to include another planned triple of the same takeoff.

There has been a rule added after the first COP season specifically to avoid penalizing skaters for downgraded quads counting as triples for the Zayak rule. On the other hand, downgraded triples are still counted as triples for that purpose.

Underrotate and edge change are not simple yes-or-no questions. They're matters of degree, and even if you set up a clear rule as to when to call the jump as something other than what was intended, e.g., 90 degrees of rotation as the threshold for downgrading jumps, there are always going to be borderline cases in which different observers will disagree and individuals will be uncertain enough to check replay before making an official decision.

For edge changes, generally taking off from a flat is not considered changing to the other edge. A allowable brief change, perhaps specified in terms of inches/centimeters, could be officially written into rule, or the rule could officially say that flat is acceptable but even the tiniest shift to the opposite edge at the last split second turns a lutz or flip into the other jump. But it will still need to be estimated visually and sometimes unclear depending on the angle each person sees the jump from live in real time and the camera angle for review.

If the caller can't even be certain without review, how do you expect the skater to know in real time when s/he needs to forget about that jump once it's done and focus on the next element?

Even if they're aware there was a slight mistake and guess correctly about which way the caller will call it, they have no way of knowing whether the guess was correct at that time. Changing the jump content in the rest of the program is just as likely to introduce a violation (if they guessed wrong) than to avoid one.

It would be kind of like expecting a baseball player to guess whether every pitch they didn't swing at was called as a ball or a strike without telling them the call before the next pitch.

 

[Mathman]

I eagerly await someone taking on GKelly's challenge in post 49 above.

If you can't, then all this talk about a Lutz is a Lutz is a Lutz is just talk.

 

[Mathman]

It would be kind of like expecting a baseball player to guess whether every pitch they didn't swing at was called as a ball or a strike without telling them the call before the next pitch.

 

[SeaniBu]

Are you saying that the skater should be able to tell during the program that s/he changed edge sufficiently on the lutz takeoff that it was called as a flip, or made a similar error, and adjust the subsequent program content accordingly?

Yep.

Are you saying that they don't have the ability to tell?

Please thoroughly inspect the fact I did state, "I maybe wrong," yet I don't see how a sport other than POSSIBLY gymnastics could have any relevance to comparison. Here we go with thew apples and oranges scenario again, both fruits but beyond that, totally different. At least a gymnastics comparison would be more like a Granny Smith and A red Delicious.

I am feeling like Joesitz is on the money here saying a Lutz is a Lutz, end of comparison there for me. Kerrigan appeared to know the difference.

And although I am adverse to comparing a sport like baseball to FSkating, the pitcher should have a good "idea" of what the last pitch was, obviously or they wouldn't turn into little pouty kids when they feel the call was wrong. Also due to the horrible comparison between the to sports, note that baseball has a automatic acknowledgment of "score." FSkating doesn't. Hence - not comparable with any kind of accuracy what so ever.

As far as #49 goes, that is what it means to be a judge and doing so would mean I felt as though I had the ability to be a judge. This I do not claim so I will not attempt that. I am afraid enough of the response I will get with this post let alone "tackle" something like that. But I can't wait to see what the response to that post will be. So surprised Mathman didn't "tackle it" himself.

Really I have been looking at this all as "need for definitive and FOLLOWED rules." You start getting all "wafflie" about what rule you decide to follow when, and you wind up loosing credibility. The Technical score should NOT be approached with the same "flexibility" as the artistic.

Artistic is "impressionistic."
Technical is scientific, is or isn't. - Yin Yang

So do we really need to wonder how come a large number of poetical fans criticize FSkating? Certainly not by changing the scoring system alone, that is only going to mean that a majority of people have to trust the judges even more until they can grasp one of the most vast and intricate scoring system there is.

Lastly, what about the coach telling the skater? "Plan "B" Sasha, Go to plan "B"!" They might not know FOR SURE, but aren't sports places where you take some chances, make preparations for variations that can occur? Aren't athletes supposed to make adjustments when they feel like it is necessary? Or is the shift here to actually have "robots" out there performing a routine that has been programed? Yes I am getting a little exaggeratory, but here again, where do you draw the line?

 

[gkelly]

Yep.

Are you saying that they don't have the ability to tell?

I can't speak for anyone else, but if I'm working on single lutzes, sometimes I know that I didn't come close to doing the takeoff correctly, and sometimes it feels correct to me. If I go back and look at the tracing I can see whether the edge hooked over just at the point of takeoff or changed significantly a foot or two earlier. If I'm more often doing the former, I may feel that the jump is correct enough to put in my program. But if in the heat of competition I happen to do the latter, I won't necessarily know that it was worse than usual, or by how much.

Also, my coach may tell me, and I may see on video or from the placement of the pick mark in relation to the end of the takeoff edge, that I'm not getting my weight off the left foot and jumping off the pick on either the lutz or flip. But I cannot feel the difference well enough to know whether it looks to an observer like a lutz, a flip, or a toe-assisted salchow.

Similarly, when I was working on double salchows and felt that I spun around more than once in the air and landed backward, I couldn't even tell from the tracing whether it looked to an observer like a single or a double. And the ones that felt like actual doubles to me were in practice without witnesses, so I don't know if I can honestly say that I have ever landed a double jump or not.

By the time I'd be ready to put them in a program I'd have more experience doing them correctly at least some of the time with feedback from a coach so I would have a better idea of what correct felt like.

But even so, the difference between say a 1-inch and a 1-foot change of edge on a lutz, or between an 80-degrees vs. 100-degrees underrotated double or triple is not going to be something I or probably most skaters could feel with any degree of confidence. And different callers or different judges might have different perception thresholds for when to give skaters the benefit of the doubt. There would be no way to consistently guess accurately how they are going to call each borderline attempt.

I am feeling like Joesitz is on the money here saying a Lutz is a Lutz, end of comparison there for me. Kerrigan appeared to know the difference.

Do you mean Kerrigan as a skater, or as a commentator?

Re the former, she did not change edge on her lutzes, but she did have a habit of popping them. But how about a skater like Kwan, whose outside edge takeoff is less pronounced but usually, if not pure outside edge, at least close enough to count?

Re commentators (and judges and callers) . . . sure they know the difference when it's obvious. But it's always a matter of degree, and no matter where you draw the line there will ALWAYS be borderline situations.

As far as #49 goes, that is what it means to be a judge and doing so would mean I felt as though I had the ability to be a judge. This I do not claim so I will not attempt that.

So you don't feel that you personally have the ability to identify borderline examples of lutzes according to the official definition of the jump, but you do feel that the border is clear enough that when judges don't necessarily agree with each other or with you, you personally do have the ability to say that they're not applying the rules correctly?

 

[SeaniBu]

Your post was awesome, thank you.

First you are above me, I would conceder myself novice in rules when getting into specifics. I approach this as a need for clear definition. Convolution = controversy ~ leading to lack of crediblity.

I can't speak for anyone else, but if I'm working on single lutzes, sometimes I know that I didn't come close to doing the takeoff correctly, and sometimes it feels correct to me. If I go back and look at the tracing I can see whether the edge hooked over just at the point of takeoff or changed significantly a foot or two earlier. If I'm more often doing the former, I may feel that the jump is correct enough to put in my program. But if in the heat of competition I happen to do the latter, I won't necessarily know that it was worse than usual, or by how much.

So either you play it safe or take a chance?

Also, my coach may tell me, and I may see on video or from the placement of the pick mark in relation to the end of the takeoff edge, that I'm not getting my weight off the left foot and jumping off the pick on either the lutz or flip. But I cannot feel the difference well enough to know whether it looks to an observer like a lutz, a flip, or a toe-assisted salchow.

Similarly, when I was working on double salchows and felt that I spun around more than once in the air and landed backward, I couldn't even tell from the tracing whether it looked to an observer like a single or a double. And the ones that felt like actual doubles to me were in practice without witnesses, so I don't know if I can honestly say that I have ever landed a double jump or not.

By the time I'd be ready to put them in a program I'd have more experience doing them correctly at least some of the time with feedback from a coach so I would have a better idea of what correct felt like.

I feel like at the level we are discussing, the skaters mentioned would also "have a better idea of what correct felt like." But again a feeling, my thought which could be wrong, although it doesn't sound like it.

But even so, the difference between say a 1-inch and a 1-foot change of edge on a lutz, or between an 80-degrees vs. 100-degrees underrotated double or triple is not going to be something I or probably most skaters could feel with any degree of confidence. And different callers or different judges might have different perception thresholds for when to give skaters the benefit of the doubt. There would be no way to consistently guess accurately how they are going to call each borderline attempt.

I am some what of a conflict "resolutionist" with a desire to please everyone and allow for validation even if some one is wrong. My first thought on this is - Get rid of the sponsors on the ice and put in a grid system. This would make it a little more like "line judgment." Or Tron

Do you mean Kerrigan as a skater, or as a commentator?

Skater. And I said appeared, this was via a comment Joestiz made earlier and I have faith in him most of the time - hence it appeared she knew the difference.

Re commentators (and judges and callers) . . . sure they know the difference when it's obvious. But it's always a matter of degree, and no matter where you draw the line there will ALWAYS be borderline situations.

I am going to smack myself now for saying this, but in light of the comparison that was done earlier with baseball, "tie goes to the runner." That is a definitive action of a borderline call.

So you don't feel that you personally have the ability to identify borderline examples of lutzes according to the official definition of the jump, but you do feel that the border is clear enough that when judges don't necessarily agree with each other or with you, you personally do have the ability to say that they're not applying the rules correctly?

As an Opinion, yes - that is not uncommon among fans. The issue is they should not have the ability to have nearly the amount of disagreement amongst themselves if the "action" was definitively followed. PARTICULARLY when it come to the Technical elements.
Again I hate to compare with this sport, but I think it is working for others so -

Put two umps at first and see how you would feel if both of them standing side by side (same view of play) had different calls of safe and out.

Now we all know review, and this does happen in both sports. The biggest issue is when the review has been done and there is still a discrepancy. Yes it still happens once and a while, but with the frequency you find in FSkating? That is harder to swallow.

Again awesome posts of yours!

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

Bottom Line for me and no ISU is going to tell me differently. Every element before execution is an ATTEMPT. For me the question becomes was the attempt successful or not. I don't see the grey area. If it was not successful then there was no element. If it were successful then how well or badly were the parts of the element executed? Enter GoEs.

Viktoria Volchkova does the text book Lutz so we don't have to think in term of whether the jump is hard or not. If she perfected the jump then other senior skaters should also.

Now another case is Oksana Baiul. She also does the correct take off but how she lands may not be the best.

BTW, If you look at the lutzes of VV and OB you will see great height. The reason is because the toe off acts as a pole vault when done properly. That is fact. Any skater when doing a proper lutz will have better height on that jump than any other.

Joe

 

[SeaniBu]

Bottom Line for me and no ISU is going to tell me differently. Every element before execution is an ATTEMPT. For me the question becomes was the attempt successful or not.
Joe

:agree: :agree: :agree: !!!!!!