If you could change one rule in any discipline

[DizzyFrenchie]

I'm not sure what you mean here.

First of all, GOE rules have changed at times. When the +5/-5 GOE scale first came in (2018?), the guidelines required all of the first three positive bullet points to be present, along with one or two (or all three) of the others, for the element to start at +4 or +5, before any necessary GOE reductions. (The official terminology for negative GOEs is "reductions," distinct from the "deductions" that are taken off the whole segment score.)

Originally there was no cap on the starting GOE based on the presence of errors.

Then a few years later it was specified "To establish the starting GOE Judges must take into consideration the bullets for each element. If in an element there is any kind of mistake that requires a reduction, the starting GOE cannot be higher than +3." Is that what you're referring to?

And also "Errors with a grey background must not have higher than +2 starting GOE." (The errors with a grey background were moderate to serious errors for jumps and spins, but also included "Does not correspond to the music" for choreographic and step sequences, which could have reductions as small as -1.)

These caps were in effect last year, 2025-26, and I think also 2024-25. But not before that.

This season (2026-27), the guidelines have eased up a bit.
For positive GOEs, only the first two bullet points are now mandatory for +4 or +5 starting GOE; the "effortless throughout" bullet is no longer mandatory.
Also, this year's guidelines now state: "If in an element there is any kind of mistake that requires a reduction, the starting GOE cannot be higher than +4."
I.e., as of this year, if you have 4 or 5 bullet points including the first 2 but not the 3rd (effortless), even if there is an error requiring a reduction the starting GOE is now capped at +4 before the reduction.
The "Errors with a grey background must not have the higher than +2 starting GOE." wording from the negative GOE chart does still apply.

So if you're going to complain about judges not following rules, make sure you're comparing to the rules for the same season that the judges were judging under.

Sorry, I had forgotten this recent change in rules, since 2024 indeed the rules have become clearer!

 

[TontoK]

Do you propose not to call a jump at all and consider it part of choreography?
The reason I am asking is while I am generally on board the no credit for fallen jump ship, because falls are unambiguous and too many falls disrupt the program, so do many bad landings.
But I am afraid whether to give a full credit or no credit for a wrong edge take-off is exacerbated by inconsistent calling and borderline cases, when the panel couldn't see well or the edge is not clear. This might lead to tiny edge variations causing big score variations. In math we call this an ill-posed or unstable problem and generally tend to avoid those and try to approximate them by less exact but more well-posed / stable ones to avoid exactly this: big errors in the solutions caused by tiny errors in the data. It's like a badly tuned water tap that you turn a tiny bit and feel the water instead of changing the temperature a tiny bit go from icy cold to scalding hot.

Basically, I'm just stirring up because I get annoyed when people minimize the importance of proper edges on takeoff and landing, all the while sniveling that so-and-so was robbed by at least a point in PCS.

In my heart, I consider a flutz to be a failed element, and therefore unworthy of any points. But I'm realistic enough to know I won't win that battle.

For the record, I'm a fan of artistic skating. I just want it done to technical mastery of the elements. If skaters feel they must present a flawed element, I really wish they wouldn't.

 

[DizzyFrenchie]

Basically, I'm just stirring up because I get annoyed when people minimize the importance of proper edges on takeoff and landing, all the while sniveling that so-and-so was robbed by at least a point in PCS.

In my heart, I consider a flutz to be a failed element, and therefore unworthy of any points. But I'm realistic enough to know I won't win that battle.

For the record, I'm a fan of artistic skating. I just want it done to technical mastery of the elements. If skaters feel they must present a flawed element, I really wish they wouldn't.

Actually I agree with everything you said except "unworthy of any point". I find present rules a bit too lenient regarding the take-off but if they were consistently enforced that would be a huge progress (idem on the landing).

 

[TontoK]

Actually I agree with everything you said except "unworthy of any point". I find present rules a bit too lenient regarding the take-off but if they were consistently enforced that would be a huge progress (idem on the landing).

If we're going to reward a flutz, then let's be honest with ourselves and add it to the code of points as a new jump. I could stomach that a lot better than everyone pretending the skaters have performed an element they have not.

When I watch videos from olden times, I'm always struck by how pure the jump technique was on some of those doubles and easier triples. Of course, some skaters can now do quad lutz, and I'm happy about that - heck, I'm excited by that! But I want the only difference between a double lutz and a triple lutz... or a triple lutz and a quad lutz... to be one more rotation. We shouldn't accept the notion that "this is a harder jump, so we're going to excuse the edge."

Now the counterpoint, and I acknowledge the validity, is that we DON'T excuse the edge. It's penalized. We pretend it's the same jump with a flaw. But if the penalties were harsh enough, then these take-off flaws would be fixed by now, or skaters would find alternate layouts that would encourage the skater to perform the content they can actually do.

Edit: What made a skater like Hanyu so exceptional is that he presented competitive programs that were artistically compelling AND were technical marvels. In later years, I thought he lost a bit of finesse on the running edge exit sometimes, but when he was on, he was ON. No flutzes or lips, excellent air, clean and precise edges. I want more of that kind of skating,

 

[yfan1]

If we're going to reward a flutz, then let's be honest with ourselves and add it to the code of points as a new jump. I could stomach that a lot better than everyone pretending the skaters have performed an element they have not.

It already is? A Lz(e) does have a different base value from Lz.

 

[TontoK]

It already is? A Lz(e) does have a different base value from Lz.

True, and I acknowledged there is some attempt to address the issue in my third paragraph of the post you cited.

The penalty is not severed enough. Skaters respond to the code of points. So, hammer the flaw in the code of points. Harder. If Lz(e) had a base value of 0 with no GOE awarded, I bet we wouldn't see many of them. Treat them like Kevin Aymoz' 0A. It gets a notation on the protocol, but no numerical value.

 

[gkelly]

When I watch videos from olden times, I'm always struck by how pure the jump technique was on some of those doubles and easier triples.

Have you watched a lot of lower-level seniors (or lower events) from that era?

When you did see lutzes, the skaters were usually making a clear effort to show off the counterrotated outside edge takeoff, and the ones we saw on TV usually succeeded at doing so.

But if they weren't capable of doing a clean lutz takeoff, much of the time they did not do a lutz, unless it was required in teh short program that year.

Or at least, they stuck to double lutzes, and only one in the FS, if it wasn't going to be a nice clean one.

As of 1990 (last year of figures), can we name 10 different women who had successfully landed triple lutz in competition?

In the post-figure era, doing more triples became more important. So more skaters started attempting triple lutz even if they couldn't maintain a pure BO edge and also complete the three revolutions.

So we started seeing more bad triple lutzes, because we started seeing more triple lutzes in general.

And there wasn't much concern about flips rocking onto the outside edge before IJS tech panels started scrutinizing.

if the penalties were harsh enough, then these take-off flaws would be fixed by now, or skaters would find alternate layouts that would encourage the skater to perform the content they can actually do.

With IJS, in order to remain competitive, skaters need to include all the different jump takeoffs if they can. They want to fill the limited number of jump slots available, and they want to fill them with triples rather than doubles (and quads rather than triples if they can, mostly on the men's side).

This year, there are only six jumping passes to fill instead of seven. So it could be less costly for a skater to leave out one takeoff that gives them trouble. BUT there are also now restrictions on the number of jumps of the same takeoff a skater can get credit for in the free skate, of any number of revolutions. So a woman who can't do a triple or double lutz with a clean takeoff and who is already doing two double axels, won't be able to make up for the missing lutz with another jump of base value comparable to 3Lze. She can do something like
3F+3T
3F
3Lo
3S+2A+2A
3T
And then what? 2F or 2Lo?
This would have been even more of an issue when there were 7 jumping passes to fill.

If we want to prevent skaters from earning points for bad lutzes, then let's offer them opportunities to earn points on other skills they might be able to do better. Perhaps non-jump elements that deservedly have base values higher than double axels (like level 4 steps and spins). I'll start another post for that.

 

[gkelly]

I've been saying this almost since the beginning of IJS: I want to see more options for how to construct free skates that allow skaters to build up points for high-quality/difficult elements that match their personal strengths, regardless of whether those strengths are focused on jumping or spinning or edge skills or flexibility moves, etc.

It wouldn't mean just changing one rule though.

I'd want to introduce new types of elements.

And also make the number of each type of element flexible. If there are a total of 12 elements, then between 5 and 7 could be jump elements, between 2 and 4 could be spins, 1 leveled step sequence, and then there would be multiple optional element types skaters could choose among for the extra slots if they chose to do fewer jumps or spins. Maybe some types would also be leveled elements or all could be choreo elements.

With one fewer jump passes/total elements in freeskates starting this year, and with choreo spin as well as choreo sequence, the ISU is going in a different direction to try to encourage creativity and greater variety between skaters. But how to reward greater creativity is inherently vaguer and more subjective, so it still remains to be seen whether the current new rules will have the desired effect in that regard.