Double penalty on under-rotation: Pros and Cons?

[Bennett]

Was it really that bad?I believe the "logic behind it" is this. When the CoP first came out it was expected that the judges would give out significant negative GOEs for mistakes like cheating the landing and wrong edge take-offs.

They didn't. So the ISU took that prerogative away from the judges and gave it to the technical panel.I wanted tio add...

Thanks for your insights.

Well, in that case,

1) they could have just told the judges that they must give minus GOE while giving the technical panel to call for UR. i.e., technical panel decides if the jump was URed. Then it is decided that the jump was URed, the judges must give minus GOE, while calling the jump underrotated quad/triple/double without downgrading it to triple/double/single.

Or

2) Alternatively, they could let the technical panel to downgrade it, while letting the judges give whatever GOE they want to.

But somehow they decided to give the double penalty. Why was that? I believe that there would have been some good rationales for them to go for it.

 

[Wrlmy]

All these come down to: If judges did their job properly in the first place, we wouldn't be seeing all these nonsense

 

[Skye]

I know I'm the minority here, but I agree with the current rules regarding URs and edge calls. I like the concept of rewarding quality over quantity, and expect to see proper technic from these world class skaters.

As a fan of Yukari Nakano, I admit that her jumps are prone to downgrades because of the delay her leg wrap creates. The technical panel is never going to give her the benefit of doubt, so she just has to work harder to get those triples fully rotated. Caroline Zhang for example, look how far she has come since the start of the season when almost all of her triples were virtually on the borderline. She would have won Skate America had her under-rotations been overlooked, but then she would probably still be popping off those pseudo-triples. I think that bronze medal was actually a blessing in disguise, just like when she finished off the Junior podium at 2006 Nats with 0 triples ratified.

My only pet peeve is the fact that there is so little consistency between events. Yukari has been doing the same 3A all season and Worlds was the only time she got downgraded. According to the protocols, she was flutzing at one GP, and lipping at another GP. Different panels for different events, so different calls for the same jumps, I guess.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

Watch Oksana Baiul's Gold-medal winning performance.

She was Queen of Two Foot Landings and still. But that was cold war scoring in those days.

Joe

 

[Mafke]

She (Oksana Baiul: mafke) was Queen of Two Foot Landings

And not Tanja Szewczenko after all?

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

There is a three-person technical panel that votes on it. The Technical Controller, the Techical Specialist ("caller") and the Assistant Technical Specialist. (I think it is rare that the original call of the tech specialist is challenged by the other two, however.)

There is no measuring device except eyeballing it. But the tech panel does have access to slow motion instant replay (unlike an edge call, where the infraction must be "obvious (to the tech panel) in real time.")

Isn't it time for the ISU to clear all that up? 1. Why not have the Troika split up and be place in 3 different parts of the ice? 2. Let the fans know how each of them judged the call. Of course, there will be booos in the Arena, the media will pick it up and Cinquanta will not be allowed to bring his skaters to the Olys. He will not get another chance since he was warned after 2002.

Is the tech caller impartial? Of course he is -- just ask Cinquanta!It's hard to say, because all errors were swept up into one mark -- an artificial placeholder at that.

hmmm. There are no bias judges, are there? Has anyone ever seen the individual decisions of the Panel in the protocols? Of course not. Much too controversial for fans. They would not understand it.

If you look up a skater's "official jump statistics," double-footed landings are always so designated, like they are not "really" a triple toe after all.

But a Flutz is still a Lutz although it was not perfect. yeah! The attempt at 4 rotations in the air look more like the jump then a lazy skater refusing to learn a proper lutz to me.

Joe

 

[Mathman]

Of course, there will be booos in the Arena, the media will pick it up and Cinquanta will not be allowed to bring his skaters to the Olys. He will not get another chance since he was warned after 2002.

This is what I think will happen. When the Olympic games roll around, all of a sudden we won't be seeing all these downgrades and edge calls any more.

If the audience sees one competitor give a whiz-bang performance, but lose out to someone else because of invisible (to the audience) infractions and nit-picky rules that the average fan does not understand, this is just terrible PR for the sport.

 

[gkelly]

Here's a triple axel that's fully rotated but not terribly well controlled. What do you think? Base mark for the triple and 0 for the GOE? Or would you give it -1?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yOzmRwRAiA


Now here are several that would be downgraded by today's standards. What's the best way to handle the underrotation?

Which of them, if any, do you think should get the triple axel base mark with -1, -2, or -3 GOE? Which, if any, do you think should get downgraded to the double axel base mark with -1, -2, or -3? Should downgrade in the base mark with 0 or +1 GOE be an option?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhqMx2HE_UI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2v6hQyRJQ1w

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nudusAq68mw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcZ-ZVO6Z_M

 

[Bennett]

Thank you gkelly. I'd look forward to watching your videos when I have the access to YOUTUBE.


BTW, despite some problems, I do see some logical rationales in the current rules. I've never seen rules get less strict. Usually, the opposite is true. I wonder it ever would.

 

[Mathman]

Here's a triple axel that's fully rotated but not terribly well controlled. What do you think? Base mark for the triple and 0 for the GOE? Or would you give it -1?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yOzmRwRAiA


Now here are several that would be downgraded by today's standards. What's the best way to handle the underrotation?

Which of them, if any, do you think should get the triple axel base mark with -1, -2, or -3 GOE? Which, if any, do you think should get downgraded to the double axel base mark with -1, -2, or -3? Should downgrade in the base mark with 0 or +1 GOE be an option?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhqMx2HE_UI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2v6hQyRJQ1w

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nudusAq68mw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcZ-ZVO6Z_M

OK, I looked at each of these once in real time.

The first one by Ito seemed to me to be fully rotated. I would give it 0 GOE. The spring, height, and position in the air balance the swing on the landing (pus, it's a TRIPLE AXEL!)

Nakano's looked beautiful to me (is this 2008 Worlds?). I did not notice the underrotation and would have given full base value and at least +1 GOE.

Meissner -- the underroation was very evident. I think a downgrade is appropriate. Downgrade plus 0 GOE (if the rules permitted it) would be acceptable to me.)

Onda -- the two-footed landing was more obvious than the degree of underroataion. I think the underroation was what caused her feet to get tangled up. I might, however, have missed the underroatation and just given -2 GOE for the jump.

Ito (1996). The commentator (Barbara Underhill?) said that the jump was overrotated. I guess the overroatation came on the ice rather than in the air and produced the effect of an unchecked landing (?)

Overall, as an armchair amateur tech specialist, I usually can't see underrotations at all. The skaters skew their blades around very fast, plus I can't really tell the exact moment that they hit the ice and what angle their blade is at at that moment. (Reason number 3954 why I am not a tech specialist or judge. )

 

[Kinga]

I know I'm the minority here, but I agree with the current rules regarding URs and edge calls. I like the concept of rewarding quality over quantity, and expect to see proper technic from these world class skaters.

How is two-foot landing or a fall a measure of quality?? It seems it is, because for that mistakes skaters get more points then for slight UR. That is definitely not something going along with 'quality' definition to me!

Watch Oksana Baiul's Gold-medal winning performance.

That's a different story. She was 'suppose' to win, so of course that she got credits for those jumps. But just any other skater would not. I was not talking about conspiracy judging. I meant double foot landing in general.

 

[Skye]

How is two-foot landing or a fall a measure of quality?? It seems it is, because for that mistakes skaters get more points then for slight UR. That is definitely not something going along with 'quality' definition to me!

More than a quarter revolution short is not a "slight UR" IMO. ISU is sending out the message that you are better off doing a well-executed double than sqeaking out an under-rotated triple, and that is the concept I concur with.

Penalty for two-foot landings and hand-downs could be harshened by giving out higher GOE to clean jumps (I don't understand why judges are reluctant to reward +3s for textbook jumps like Yu-Na Kim's) but that is another story.

 

[Kinga]

More than a quarter revolution short is not a "slight UR" IMO.

Someone already mentioned it. 0,25 is a slight UR, but 0,26 is not slight anymore. How can you measure this? It is ridiculous.

 

[Skye]

Someone already mentioned it. 0,25 is a slight UR, but 0,26 is not slight anymore. How can you measure this? It is ridiculous.

The line has to be drawn somewhere, and this is a sport judged with human eyes. Sometimes 0,24 is called for UR and sometimes 0,26 is ratified. Does expanding the range for downgrades to half a revolution short (as some have suggested) solve any of these problems? We would then be arguing whether it's 0,49 or 0,50 and may eventually end up with another OGM who has two cheated 3-3s.

 

[enlight78]

I would just like to say that I agree with the fact that UR triple is worth less than a Fall Triple, or a Twofooted triplr because a UR triple is not even a triple.It is a overrottated double. The other errors may look more ugly but at least the accomplish the element. UR is almost like cheating. Tricking the audience a judges in believing you have more skill than you actually have. If UR were award more than fall and TF the ISU will be givng credit to skaters for something they didn't even do which would be cheating the sport, skaters who can fully rotate their jumps,and fans like me.I also must admit being double penalized is wrong,unless overrottation is a legitmate cause for -GOE

 

[gkelly]

So for the ladies' triple axels I posted above, would the following scoring make sense?

Ito 1989
full base mark, 0 or -1 GOE


Nakano
downgrade base mark, +1 or 0 GOE

Meissner
downgrade, 0 or -1

Onda
downgrade, -1 or -2
[btw, the closeups shown at the end of the youtube clip show that she did land on one foot, but facing forward on a forward inside edge, and then kind of jerked or hopped a three turn onto the back outside]

Ito 1996
downgrade, -2 or -3

And an underrotation that results in a fall would get the downgrade, -3, and also the fall deduction.

I could live with that.

It allows positive or at least non-negative GOE for a downgraded jump that otherwise looks good and is not too severely short of rotation. Which I think should definitely be an option for combinations in which only one jump is downgraded.

On the one hand, there isn't a mandatory GOE penalty for underrotation of 90-180 degrees, which might be considered as being "soft" on cheated jumps, but on the other hand the reduction in the base mark is a more significant penalty than the GOE reduction would be. No double penalty for jumps whose only flaw is moderate underrotation, but plenty of room for additional GOE reductions if there are additional flaws.

 

[ChrisH]

Here are the deductions for the short program under 6.0:

Axel Jump, Solo Jump
0.5 Omission
0.4 Fall or less than required number of revolutions
0.3-0.4 Rotation not complete
0.3 Takeoff or landing on two feet
0.3 Stepping out of a landing
0.3 Repeating a jump from the jump combination
0.1-0.3 Takeoff from wrong edge
0.1-0.3 Not immediately preceeded by steps/skating movements
0.1 Only 1 movement preceeding jump
0.1 Touch down with the free foot or hand

Jump Combination
0.5 Omission
0.4 Fall on takeoff of first jump
0.4 Both jumps landed on two feet
0.3 Repetition of Solo Jump or Axel Jump
0.3 Stepping out of a landing
0.3 Fall on second jump
0.3 Either jump less than required revolutions
0.2 Two footed takeoff on either jump
0.1-0.3 Takeoff from the wrong edge
0.2 Either jump with rotation not complete
0.2 One jump landed on two feet
0.1-0.2 Touch down with the free foor or hand
0.1 Turns or steps between the two jumps

http://www.iceskatingintnl.com/archive/rules/deduct1.htm

The penalty for under-rotations of solo jumps was less severe under 6.0 (compared to the other penalties). The penalty for under-rotations of combinations was much less severe under 6.0.

The more severe penalties under CoP didn't have noticeable affects prior to this year (except perhaps in the long term for novice levels and below), but with the stricter enforcement this year, the excessive penalty has become very noticeable.

The penalty for wrong edge takeoffs is about the same. Its stricter enforcement has caused much fewer problems.

 

[ChrisH]

I believe the "logic behind it" is this. When the CoP first came out it was expected that the judges would give out significant negative GOEs for mistakes like cheating the landing and wrong edge take-offs.

They didn't.

Yes. Now, when the technical specialist decides to not give a "<" or an "e" for close calls, the judges give GOEs that are a bit too high (too positive). I consider it a kind of round-off error. These errors are likely smaller under CoP than 6.0, though.

... So the ISU took that prerogative away from the judges and gave it to the technical panel.

And hence we're now seeing "<" and "e" marks in the protocols. In theory, I like the change. However, I think we both agree that the requirement that the judges give overall negative GOEs to downgrades and to wrong edge calls is wrong. There are instances, especially with combination jumps, where other aspects should result in overall neutral or positive GOEs. And, it's possible that after the technical panel gives its opinion about the jumps, that the judge may disagree as to whether it warranted a downgrade or a wrong edge call at all.

 

[Bennett]

There are instances, especially with combination jumps, where other aspects should result in overall neutral or positive GOEs.

ITA.

 

[PolymerBob]

We can argue which is the worst; underrotation, 2-foot, hand down, step out, or fall. There can be honest disagreements here. But I can not see the logic of a bad triple being worth less than a clean double, nor the worst infraction being something undiscernable to the human eye.

I don't blame the judges; they are just following rules. But I think the rules need to change ................... or find a scientific way to measure rotation. We can measure the diameter of a boulder on Mars 100,000,000 miles away, we can measure the rotation of a planet 10 lightyears away, but we can't measure the rotation of a figure skater.