Does anyone miss the "old" judging system?

[karne]

I have no problem with edge calls, URs and downgrades being heavily punished. Poor technique should not be rewarded.

 

[Blades of Passion]

CoP still feels like a minefield for losing points (especially with the stupid double toe Zayaks), but it encourages skaters to execute their planned content and rewards skaters who adhere to the rules and optimize their programs as such.

That's not how skating should work, though. I mean obviously people should have a good gameplan and train a program, but people shouldn't be thinking about zayak deductions or random spin issues or whatnot. They should think about performing and doing the most they can out there. Any extraneous elements should simply be given less credit, within whatever the rules do allow. Entire jumps and spins that are well executed shouldn't just be given '0' (unless it's a literally a case of a skater doing something completely nonsensical, like two solo layback spins in the SP or something) because of some random rule. The score needs to reflect what the skater actually put out on the ice.

There should be a mandatory GOE deduction for sure, but I guess the additional deduction is acceptable because the skater did not really execute a lutz (or flip).

There shouldn't be a mandatory GOE deduction! GOE is all about the quality of an element. Both ! and 'e' calls should be deducted in base value and then the jump should just be scored as that version of the jump, assessing its actual qualities. Otherwise there is cognitive dissonance in the scoring when it comes to the jumps being scored correctly. Someone can still do a beautiful flutz, after all.

 

[drivingmissdaisy]

Someone can still do a beautiful flutz, after all.

But there's no "flutz" element that the skater is trying to do. It's a flawed lutz.

 

[andromache]

On the one hand, I agree with BOP that a flutz does not deserve a mandatory GOE deduction when it is already getting a BV reduction based on the technique. There are some skaters with gorgeous flutzes. Even if the entrance is flawed, it might hit enough positive GOE bullets to receive positive GOE. Part of me agrees with this line of reasoning because it's still getting penalized, but HOW MUCH it gets penalized is up to the judge. Karne as a judge might still choose to give -3 GOE for a flutz, but another judge might decide that the height and flow of the jump is more important and give it +1 or +2.

On the other hand, this might give judges too much power. Ashley Wagner and Mao Asada both have very famous flutzes. Judges who politically favor the US might decide to "overlook" Ashley's flutz and give it positive GOE, while giving Mao negative GOE and justifying it by the takeoff edge. And vice versa (not trying to imply anything about actual skating politics here). So, while I like BOP's solution in theory, in practice it might not work so well.

 

[Sam L]

I'm old school 6.0 fan. I miss it so much.

 

[Blades of Passion]

But there's no "flutz" element that the skater is trying to do. It's a flawed lutz.

And the flaw is reflected in the reduced base value, just as in any spin or footwork sequence where a skater doesn't hold an edge long enough. The GOE needs to be about the quality.

 

[Mathman]

And the flaw is reflected in the reduced base value, just as in any spin or footwork sequence where a skater doesn't hold an edge long enough. The GOE needs to be about the quality.

It's kind of tricky to make the distinction, though. For instance, you might put both hands down on the landing -- but that does not affect the quality of the jump provided you put them down gracefully -- it's just a technical error. So it should not be punished in GOE.

 

[drivingmissdaisy]

And the flaw is reflected in the reduced base value, just as in any spin or footwork sequence where a skater doesn't hold an edge long enough. The GOE needs to be about the quality.

I think it is. Some jump qualities that two judges can look at, perhaps whether the skater had control on the landing, and one could say yes and the other no. With the "e" call, it's objectively an error. I don't see how you can judge a lutz to be well done when it's not really a lutz. Lowering the level of a footwork sequence is still properly classifying the sequence, and the skater would still be subject to -GOE is the error that caused the level to be lowered also affected the quality of the sequence.

 

[Sandpiper]

Mao's SP at CoC made me miss 6.0. We can talk all we want about COP scores not being comparable across events (which is a problem in and of itself), but I'm sure under 6.0 Mao wouldn't have scored similar to Evgenia at SA or Ashley at SC.

Evgenia and Ashley were great, but we're talking about the most complex ladies SP ever, all landed on one foot, by a very "on" Mao Asada... I admit the score was a little disheartening (though I understand how the judges/tech panel got there).

 

[drivingmissdaisy]

Mao's SP at CoC made me miss 6.0. We can talk all we want about COP scores not being comparable across events (which is a problem in and of itself), but I'm sure under 6.0 Mao wouldn't have scored similar to Evgenia at SA or Ashley at SC.

Evgenia and Ashley were great, but we're talking about the most complex ladies SP ever, all landed on one foot, by a very "on" Mao Asada... I admit the score was a little disheartening (though I understand how the judges/tech panel got there).

I admit, when I watched I had already known the score and was surprised how well she skated. She looked pretty fast out there too. Unlike other skaters, such as Mirai, Mao's "<" are a bit harder for me to see so the combo looked great when I saw it. I thought the "e" call was right on the lutz; she turned over onto this inside edge well before the take-off.

 

[Blades of Passion]

It's kind of tricky to make the distinction, though. For instance, you might put both hands down on the landing -- but that does not affect the quality of the jump provided you put them down gracefully.

LOL, who puts two hands down gracefully? Anyway, every jump has a the same definition of what a good landing is. That error can be applied to any jump. The lutz/lip issue only applies to those jumps, though. That's why base value deduction for a takeoff edge mistake is the most accurate way of judging. There are other mistakes aside from just the takeoff edge that someone can make in the jump and standardized GOE for all jumps isn't built to take into account all of the normal mistakes plus the edge mistake too.

I don't see how you can judge a lutz to be well done when it's not really a lutz. Lowering the level of a footwork sequence is still properly classifying the sequence.

An edge mistake doesn't totally make a jump "not a lutz" or "not a flip" either, though. There are more to the mechanics of those jumps than just that. Lowering the level of a footwork sequence doesn't make it "not a footwork sequence" and doesn't put some kind of restriction on the GOE it can receive.

Just think of it as being three levels of lutzes - correct edge, "!", and "e".

 

[drivingmissdaisy]

Neither "!" or "e" (especially "e") are, by definition, lutzes, so if you were trying to do a lutz and earned one of those it is a quality/execution error.

 

[Sandpiper]

I admit, when I watched I had already known the score and was surprised how well she skated. She looked pretty fast out there too. Unlike other skaters, such as Mirai, Mao's "<" are a bit harder for me to see so the combo looked great when I saw it. I thought the "e" call was right on the lutz; she turned over onto this inside edge well before the take-off.

I'm not really disputing the calls (okay, maybe the -3Lo, though it would make sense if the panel marked her down for pre-rotation. Landing looked acceptable to me). It's just... what's the point of going for triple axels and difficult combos and landing them with (mostly) good flow on one foot, when little arcs on the ice can kill all your TES? (depending on the day... the panel...) Better off backloading and tano'ing and not even attempting a lutz... hwell: And I do like Evgenia and her program. But--in this case--COP seems to be taking the sport backwards.

I had the opposite experience from you. Watched the skate without knowing the score. I knew some jumps would be scrutinized, but I still expected around 74 (considering the inflation this season + she's done 78 in the past with no 3-3 and no lutz). I do understand where some people are coming from, especially regarding whether the flutz, but if Mao skates like this and winds up below Ashley/Evgenia... something just doesn't add up.

 

[Blades of Passion]

Neither "!" or "e" (especially "e") are, by definition, lutzes

Again, there's more to the jumps than just the edge. They aren't totally "not lutzes".

This semantic doesn't matter, though. If you want to consider the various degrees of flutzing to be separate jumps, then whatever, sure. Just consider it a separate jump of lesser value that still takes up the lutz jump box. Such an element still deserves to be scored on GOE the same as any other jump.

 

[karne]

Well, except GOE is grade of EXECUTION. And you can't say that a Lutz jump was well EXECUTED when it contained a major technical error...

 

[andromache]

Well, except GOE is grade of EXECUTION. And you can't say that a Lutz jump was well EXECUTED when it contained a major technical error...

But other major technical errors, such as falls, do not receive a BV deduction (sans URs). How do you justify a deduction in BV and GOE for this particular type of error? Is it a poorly-executed lutz (thus necessitating negative GOE) or is it a lutze/!, which is a different type of jump altogether that differs in BV but should otherwise be judged GOE-wise on its own merits? (A lutz in the counter-rotation of the body typical for a lutz but wrong take-off edge is what I mean here.) Is a lutz on a correct edge but with a nasty fall better than a wrong-edge nicely landed one? Which technique do we privilege, take-off or landing?

(Just to clarify, because I realize asking direct questions can sound combative or argumentative: I'm genuinely curious as to your reasoning, not trying to be argumentative at all. )

 

[Mathman]

But other major technical errors, such as falls, do not receive a BV deduction (sans URs). How do you justify a deduction in BV and GOE for this particular type of error? Is it a poorly-executed lutz (thus necessitating negative GOE) or is it a lutze/!, which is a different type of jump altogether that differs in BV but should otherwise be judged GOE-wise on its own merits? (A lutz in the counter-rotation of the body typical for a lutz but wrong take-off edge is what I mean here.) Is a lutz on a correct edge but with a nasty fall better than a wrong-edge nicely landed one? Which technique do we privilege, take-off or landing?

Taken all in all, I think the present compromise is not bad. The extreme positions are (1) a wrong edge changes the jump from a Lutz to an unlisted element = 0 credit. And (2) No big deal about the edge, take a -1 GOE hit and go on with your program.

 

[Blades of Passion]

you can't say that a Lutz jump was well EXECUTED when it contained a major technical error...

Then say a flatz or flutz was well executed.

 

[karne]

But other major technical errors, such as falls, do not receive a BV deduction (sans URs). How do you justify a deduction in BV and GOE for this particular type of error? Is it a poorly-executed lutz (thus necessitating negative GOE) or is it a lutze/!, which is a different type of jump altogether that differs in BV but should otherwise be judged GOE-wise on its own merits? (A lutz in the counter-rotation of the body typical for a lutz but wrong take-off edge is what I mean here.) Is a lutz on a correct edge but with a nasty fall better than a wrong-edge nicely landed one? Which technique do we privilege, take-off or landing?

(Just to clarify, because I realize asking direct questions can sound combative or argumentative: I'm genuinely curious as to your reasoning, not trying to be argumentative at all. )

I think both examples that you give should be punished. A fall is obviously the worst mistake on the scale of mistakes. Actually, I think falls should be worth a drop in BV too. So, the Lutz on the correct edge but fall should score less - but both would lose points, and both should be discouraged.

I do not like the suggestion that the ISU floats every now and again of "call it on the edge" (meaning if your flutz is bad enough it gets called a flip etc). I think - I'll correct that to "I know" because I, myself, actually, shamefully, have the beginnings of a Lutz that is ! on a good day and e on my bad days - there are differences in the mechanics of the jump that are overall significant enough that a flutz is NOT the same as a flip, and should not be counted as such. So, a flutz should be counted as a poorly-executed Lutz, and -GOE is necessary, as it would be for a fall.

I think I just talked myself in circles but I would like to see tech panels be stricter about the correct edges at the lower levels, so that the problem can be corrected earlier. For me, I do a lot of Lutz-entry exercises with my coach in an attempt to correct the edge problem before I even rotate the jump (which I can't do - yet). I have seen others at the rink working on corrections. It is something that CAN be fixed, and it is better, IMO, to fix it early, at the beginning, then try and fix it later.

 

[Sam-Skwantch]

Then say a flatz or flutz was well executed.

So we would have:

Lutz
Flatz (!)
Flutz (e)

I just want to strip the tech panel of as much power as possible. The judges should be able to counter a bull headed tech panel or have the freedom to agree with them.