Double penalty on under-rotation: Pros and Cons?

[Joesitz (RIP)]

Until we get Instant Replay in the slomo mode, we will be arguing all this to our graves. Let's face it is difficult to see errors from where you are sitting and even watching it on TV. We have no choice but to accept the Technical Panel.

It happens to be a very nervous sport at the top official levels that want to keep the judge's infalliblity in tact. Big Brothers are never wrong.

Nothing we can do about it. We can argue the plusses and minusses which are pure biasesly scored, but we knew we couldn't do any thing about that even in 6.0 system.

Did you notice that some posters only see underrotations from skaters not on their favorite list? Just thinking. No offense intended.

Joe

 

[myasada]

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.

ITA.

Here's ABC Ice Moves - A look at cheated landings
http://youtube.com/watch?v=edHUN_sCiiA

 

[enlight78]

Would it be easier to just have automatic deductios for UR, wrong edges, and two footed jumps, and allow the judges to give goe witch better match the overall quallity of a jump. Or will judges be throwing out +2 and+3 to ofset the deductions. Also since the scoredboard usually show automatic deductions like with fall ,time, or music violations. If people would have saw like a 7 point deduction with Yukari score. The audience would have seen the judges didn't held her back. It was something with the rules.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

RE: automatic deductions for URs and Wrong Edge Takeoffs should be formalized as the jumps are, and the commputer should do the subtractions automatically and not let the judges decide how much of a GoE should be subtracted. They do it for Falls so why not for URs, and WETs.

A skater would get the full base value of the attempted jump less the automatic deduction.

Joe

 

[sk8ingjudge]

There are mandatory reductions to the GOE that the judges are required to give. Sometimes, the GOE has to be in the negatives after all the math is done, sometimes not.

http://www.usfigureskating.org/content/establishingGOE-singles.pdf

If a judge has other positives in a jump, then they subtract the required reduction for an UR or downgraded ( which are different reductions) and come up with their GOE. So a skater that has a difficult entry, good take off , air position, etc can get credit for those aspects of their jumps, but then the judge has to take off for the poor aspects of a jump.

An under rotated jump has errors in two phases ( out of 4) of a jump. The air and the landing. An under rotated jump gets a ding of -1 for each of these ( -2) for the jump, but you can still end up at a 0 GOE for this jump if you have positives in the other phases of the jump.

A downgraded jump ( as determined by the majority of the technical panel) has to be in the negative GOE's. This jump has the same errors as the UR jump, just to a worse degree. A downgraded jump gives the judge the option of a range of -1 to -3 ( an UR jump has to be a -2 reduction).

In reality ( not just elite skaters) there are many errors in a jump that is UR or downgraded. Usually starting from the preparation through the take off, etc.

I look at the required GOE reductions for UR and downgraded jumps as a way to REWARD those skaters who have worked hard to have the proper technique. They should be given more credit and points than someone who hasn't yet mastered the skill.

 

[ChrisH]

I look at the required GOE reductions for UR and downgraded jumps as a way to REWARD those skaters who have worked hard to have the proper technique. They should be given more credit and points than someone who hasn't yet mastered the skill.

However, downgraded jumps aren't just reduced in GOE. Both the GOEs and the base value of the jumps are reduced. The original question posed was what is the rationale for this double penalty?

 

[sk8ingjudge]

I believe the rational was to encourage skaters to perform jumps that they can actually, technically do. A triple jump with over more than a 1/4 rotational deficit is not a triple jump and should not get the same base value as one that is fully rotated . A jump with a small UR ( skaters do have to start trying the more difficult jumps under pressure and this is when you should see small under rotations). This should be penalized by the GOE. A skater who obviously is performing jumps above their skill set ( and get down grades) should be encouraged ( by being told through a protocol) to work on these jumps.
Sometimes you have a skater who can perform these jumps, but sometimes has mistakes or other issues trouble them on a particular day. They also should not get the same credit as those that do perform that day.

Competitions are for picking the best skater on that particular day ( I don't want to get into the whole issue on whether or not competitions are prejudged, etc, that is another discussion all together) . The skater with the best technique and performance skills should be rewarded and those with lesser technique, etc should not.

The whole issue has to do with quality. A fully rotated jump gets full credit and then the appropriate GOE on how it is performed. A slightly UR jump, gets full credit and the GOE on how it is performed ( -2), a downgraded jump should not get full credit ( we see way too many cheats as it is, I would not want to encourage skaters to fill their programs with poor technique ), and should be penalized for the mistakes in the jump phases as well as for the obvious UR.
In the US, IJS is being used for Juvenile events and up. We are trying to encourage the best technique for our skaters as they progress through the ranks. Giving them full credit for not doing something does not encourage them to ever try and fix it and do it better.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

I look at the required GOE reductions for UR and downgraded jumps as a way to REWARD those skaters who have worked hard to have the proper technique. They should be given more credit and points than someone who hasn't yet mastered the skill.

How do we list those skaters who work hard? Not every elite skater is at his best on that night. Some go into a slump as did Joubert from 2005-2006 and Lambiel the entire season in 2007. And then there is Kimmie.

A skater who executes a aproperly defined jump should be rewarded in a given competition. That's what the score is about - not rewarding skaters who practices harder.

Joe

 

[sk8ingjudge]

Maybe I should have been clearer, I wasn't saying to just reward them for their technique, even if they do not perform up to snuff on a particular day, I was saying that in general a skater who has worked hard to be able to do a jump properly, should get rewarded ( when performed well). A skater who has not learned how to do the jump properly ( a DG jump) should not get the same credit as one who does do it properly. Sorry if I wasn't clear. I said in a subsequent post
" Sometimes you have a skater who can perform these jumps, but sometimes has mistakes or other issues trouble them on a particular day. They also should not get the same credit as those that do perform that day."

 

[myasada]

Thank you, sk8ingjudge. I totally agree with your opinion.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

Maybe I should have been clearer, I wasn't saying to just reward them for their technique, even if they do not perform up to snuff on a particular day, I was saying that in general a skater who has worked hard to be able to do a jump properly, should get rewarded ( when performed well). A skater who has not learned how to do the jump properly ( a DG jump) should not get the same credit as one who does do it properly. Sorry if I wasn't clear. I said in a subsequent post
" Sometimes you have a skater who can perform these jumps, but sometimes has mistakes or other issues trouble them on a particular day. They also should not get the same credit as those that do perform that day."

Exactly!!! There are a number of flutzers who never work on that jump but get the benefit of a full base value and only wrist slap for the error. It does, however, give these types a right to an extra jump pass.

Joe

 

[sk8ingjudge]

It does, however, give these types a right to an extra jump pass.

I am not sure I understand what you are saying, can you elaborate? thanks

 

[ChrisH]

I believe the rational was to encourage skaters to perform jumps that they can actually, technically do. A triple jump with over more than a 1/4 rotational deficit is not a triple jump and should not get the same base value as one that is fully rotated . A jump with a small UR ( skaters do have to start trying the more difficult jumps under pressure and this is when you should see small under rotations). This should be penalized by the GOE. A skater who obviously is performing jumps above their skill set ( and get down grades) should be encouraged ( by being told through a protocol) to work on these jumps.

That, to me, can justify why a jump is downgraded. It doesn't, however, justify downgrading a jump and at the same time giving the jump negative GOE.

Besides, skaters are sometimes downgraded for jumps that they can "technically do". There are several example of skaters who have certain types of jumps downgraded in one competition but not the previous or the next competition.

... a downgraded jump should not get full credit ( we see way too many cheats as it is, I would not want to encourage skaters to fill their programs with poor technique ), and should be penalized for the mistakes in the jump phases as well as for the obvious UR.

By mistakes in the jump phases, you're referring to your previously mentioned air phase as one of the other phases. You did not provide a source for that and I believe that you're mixing that up with a different set of rules. A jump may get negative GOE for the air phase, but that has nothing to do with whether a jump is downgraded or not. Jumps are downgraded for only two reasons:
* more than a 1/4 turn under-rotated
* or "a clear forward takeoff" (too pre-rotated) on the 5 types of back jumps.
http://www.usfigureskating.org/content/First-Aid-Single_2007-08-15.pdf (page 50)

Besides, "should not get full credit" is a far cry from getting less than half credit AND then negative GOE on top of that.

Let's use a practical example. Nakano got 7.30, 7.50, 7.50, and 2.24 points for her 3As in ISU events this season. The base value of a 3A is 7.50 points and the base value for a 2A is 3.50 points. Nakano's 3As were very similar in quality. Simply put, the high variabililty in the scores shows how poorly the under-rotation rules accurately reflect the quality of the performances. When poorly supported theory has been debunked by practical examples as it has this past season, I think that it's time to fix it rather than support it.

 

[Bennett]

Thank you sk8ingjudge and ChrisH for your informative posts and interesting discussions. I feel that I am learning a lot from you.

 

[Mathman]

I agree with Chris H's analysis.

If you underrotate your triple attempt by, say 150 degrees, then it is downgraded to a double. Fair enough, because it is not really a triple.

But then the rules say that the judges have to put an additional penalty of -1 to -3 GOE specifically for the underrotation. The judges can also evaluate other aspects, like proper take-off, in air position, hand down, etc., but that is a separate issue from the underrotation.

If the jump is ruled to be "not really a triple," how can it be penalized further for having fewer complete rotations than is required for a triple jump.

Nakano's triple Axel at 2008 worlds is the perfect example.

Instead of getting 7.5 ponts she got

(a) 4 points taken off because it was underrotated; and

(b) 1.26 points taken off because it was underrotated.

 

[sk8ingjudge]

T

By mistakes in the jump phases, you're referring to your previously mentioned air phase as one of the other phases. You did not provide a source for that and I believe that you're mixing that up with a different set of rules. A jump may get negative GOE for the air phase, but that has nothing to do with whether a jump is downgraded or not.

In my quote in your post, you will see that I said that they should get penalized for the mistakes in the jump phases AS WELL as the obvious UR.

.. a downgraded jump should not get full credit ( we see way too many cheats as it is, I would not want to encourage skaters to fill their programs with poor technique ), and should be penalized for the mistakes in the jump phases as well as for the obvious UR.


meaning the judges take off their GOE's for the jump phase issue and the tech panel downgrades the jump.

We can agree to disagree on whether it is too harsh to get the lower base mark and the GOE reduction. Most coaches I know ( especially of developing skaters) like the feedback ( they already know about the cheats;-) and it helps them help their skaters ( and their parents).

If everyone goes in knowing the rules and then still choose to put in badly under rotated jumps into their programs, then they have to learn to live with the consequences. If it is just an 'occasional' bad day on the part of the skater or another mistake leads to a downgrade ( on a jump that is usually clean) then for me this is just part of the competitive nature of the sport.

The skaters know the rules of the game going in ( if they don't, they should). Good skating will get rewarded, bad skating will not.

 

[myasada]

If everyone goes in knowing the rules and then still choose to put in badly under rotated jumps into their programs, then they have to learn to live with the consequences. If it is just an 'occasional' bad day on the part of the skater or another mistake leads to a downgrade ( on a jump that is usually clean) then for me this is just part of the competitive nature of the sport.

True. The skaters know the rules.

 

[Mathman]

^ Still...the CoP did not come down from the mountain with Moses. If we can find ways to improve the current version of the judging system, we should.

 

[sk8ingjudge]

^ Still...the CoP did not come down from the mountain with Moses. If we can find ways to improve the current version of the judging system, we should.

I agree that IJS is something that needs some tweaks and has had some tweaks done to it since it's early conception ( as CoP). The biggest problem with this is that you are dealing with the ISU and all its member federations. Everyone has their own agenda and then you add in the language barriers that can occur and it takes time.

Right now, the current rules of IJS that we have are what the skaters need to know going into a competition. If things change at the June congress of the ISU, then the skaters will have to make changes.

 

[fiercemao]

I
We can agree to disagree on whether it is too harsh to get the lower base mark and the GOE reduction. Most coaches I know ( especially of developing skaters) like the feedback ( they already know about the cheats;-) and it helps them help their skaters ( and their parents).

The skaters know the rules of the game going in ( if they don't, they should). Good skating will get rewarded, bad skating will not.

This is the sort of dishonest opinion from skating judges that ticks off fans and ordinary audience. How the earth can they tell audience with a straight face whether a jump is 85 degrees or 95 degrees short of rotation?

In many occasions, skating judges are simply cheating to curry favor for or put down on certain skaters, and they have the nerves to make all sorts of excuses, and tell us they are simply following the rules and doing the job.

Yu Na Kim fell on a horribly cheated triple jump in her short program at 2008
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdnYw8KG2PA

Read the protocol, she got full credit for it. Did we hear any complaint about this? NO. Why? Because she's the favorite, she's supposed to have good/full rotated triples.

Please do not make excuse for skating judges. Many of them indeed make us to question their honesty.