ISU Council decision on Jr Pair ages

[gsk8]

Communication No. 2575
SINGLE & PAIR SKATING
ISU Council decision as to the application of Rule 108 (age) for Junior Pairs during the transition period 2023/24

At the Congress in June 2022, during consideration of proposals relating to Rule 108, it was agreed to create an “Age Categories Harmonization Junior and below” Working Group, and the Working Group was duly established by the Council.

The Working Group is preparing a proposal for the Agenda of the 2024 Congress to increase the upper age limit of Junior Skaters for Pair Skating, and in order to support the preparation of this, the Council decided to apply Rule 108, paragraph 3.b) in the season 2023/24 in the following way:

Pairs that have competed in the Junior category during the season 2022/23 at Junior Grand Prix of Figure Skating Events or at the ISU World Junior Figure Skating Championship 2023 and in which the male partner will already have reached the age of twenty-one before July 1, 2023, are able to compete at the Junior level during the 2023/24 Season.

The Council makes this ruling under Article 17. 1.q) of the ISU Constitution in consideration of the exceptional circumstances that have been created by the 2022 Congress decision to increase the age limit for Seniors in combination with the above-mentioned new proposals to be made to the 2024 Congress. This will disadvantage certain Pairs who would otherwise be obliged to either split up or not compete for one Season as they will not fall into the Junior or Senior category in the season 2023/24 but will again fall into the Junior category in the season 2024/25 if the above mentioned increase in age limit is accepted by the 2024 Congress.

ISU Members of Pairs affected by this exception are requested to send the relevant information including the names and birthdays of the Pairs to [email protected] by July 20, 2023 latest. After review, the ISU will subsequently confirm whether the Pairs are subject to this ruling in due time for the season 2023/24. Seoul, Jae Youl Kim, Pr

 

[Diana Delafield]

Whew! Certainly glad when we were Juniors an eon ago my pairs partner and I were exactly the same age, both born in August of the same year two weeks apart. (And in the same hospital, so never any hassles about nationality .) I'd hate to have to do all the math pairs and their coaches need to do now!

 

[Amei]

So this is basically an attempt at an exception for the junior world champs, but based on this writeup it still would require increased intervention for a couple of years, Tioumentsev is 21 years old, his partner Barum is 14 (November 2008), correct me if I'm wrong but she won't even be senior eligible till after the next Olympics. Maybe they should help or encourage them to find age appropriate partners vs. making exceptions to the rules.

 

[surimi]

IIRC, there were just three pairs affected by the increased age limit, correct? It's not a big number, and we don't even know if the partnerships would last once the female partner grew, so the older partner advantage may not even last long. I see no point in forcing the meagre 3 already existing partnerships to split due to a new announcement, considering the overall low number of pairs, and the time it takes to gel and be successful. But since Moriguchi and Murakami didn't wait and have already split, we're just looking at one or two pairs that wil become the last ever to compete with such an age difference. I really don't see the big deal.

 

[moonvine]

So this doesn’t help Timmy and Ellie at all? Ugh.

 

[Amei]

IIRC, there were just three pairs affected by the increased age limit, correct? It's not a big number, and we don't even know if the partnerships would last once the female partner grew, so the older partner advantage may not even last long. I see no point in forcing the meagre 3 already existing partnerships to split due to a new announcement, considering the overall low number of pairs, and the time it takes to gel and be successful. But since Moriguchi and Murakami didn't wait and have already split, we're just looking at one or two pairs that wil become the last ever to compete with such an age difference. I really don't see the big deal.

The same argument could be said about not making exceptions for them "its just one or two pairs, not a big deal". And per my remark 1 of these pairs its not a 1 year exception that would need to be made but for multiple years. And as you said the advantage or partnership might not even last, so why should there be special rules made up for them?

And maybe the Feds and ISU who are supposedly all about protecting the athletes especially minors should be discouraging a child and adult pairing together. There is a 7 year age gap between them like there is between the junior world champs.

 

[surimi]

The same argument could be said about not making exceptions for them "its just one or two pairs, not a big deal". And per my remark 1 of these pairs its not a 1 year exception that would need to be made but for multiple years. And as you said the advantage or partnership might not even last, so why should there be special rules made up for them?

I literally listed my arguments for 'why' in the post you reacted to. If you don't find them convincing, let's agree to disagree, because I do. Very few pairs and each gelled pair counts; these few existed before the ruling; and they don't accept any new pairs like these so they aren't encouraging child+adult pairings anymore.
I am satisfied with this ruling.

 

[icewhite]

They aren't encouraging new couples like this, but nonetheless they are sending a signal and it's not a good one.

 

[Amei]

I literally listed my arguments for 'why' in the post you reacted to. If you don't find them convincing, let's agree to disagree, because I do. Very few pairs and each gelled pair counts; these few existed before the ruling; and they don't accept any new pairs like these so they aren't encouraging child+adult pairings anymore.
I am satisfied with this ruling.

I countered that your argument is equal justification that they shouldn't be making an exception. But sure agree to disagree, but I'm not going to cheer on an exception to be made for a partnership that can be described as the girl needing her mommy to drive her home from a competition because she can't legally drive (that's her situation for the next year and a half) and the man can legally do celebratory tequila shots for their victories.

 

[Amei]

They aren't encouraging new couples like this, but nonetheless they are sending a signal and it's not a good one.

Proving yet again that SafeSport is just nice corporate lingo.

 

[el henry]

I disagree that any exception should be made to age rules. but, given that there are only two such couples, I do see the other side.

Since only 50% of the couple are American, diddly squat to do with Safe Sport. Health and safety of pushing young skaters too far, too fast does not come under the mandate of Safe Sport even for those who are American.

But age limits are, IMO, an excellent way to preserve the health of young skaters even if it is not a Safe Sport issue.

 

[4everchan]

well... that's disappointing news to me. It shows the ISU's lack of vision and when they finally come up with something good, they are not going to hold on if pressure is applied. Am I surprised? nope... and that's even more disheartening.

 

[Flying Feijoa]

I disagree that any exception should be made to age rules. but, given that there are only two such couples, I do see the other side.

Since only 50% of the couple are American, diddly squat to do with Safe Sport. Health and safety of pushing young skaters too far, too fast does not come under the mandate of Safe Sport even for those who are American.

But age limits are, IMO, an excellent way to preserve the health of young skaters even if it is not a Safe Sport issue.

Just to clarify, both are US-born.

Not that I think it matters much here, but this mistake seems to happen a lot with skaters of Slavic heritage nowadays - also East Asians whose parents didn't for whatever reason give them an Anglo name.

 

[el henry]

Just to clarify, both are US-born.

Not that I think it matters much here, but this mistake seems to happen a lot with skaters of Slavic heritage nowadays - also East Asians whose parents didn't for whatever reason give them an Anglo name.

I'm sorry, I was unclear.

I meant of the two couples who were "grandfathered", only one of the couples was American; the other is German. Only the American couple (both members) would be subject to Safe Sport's jurisdiction.

 

[4everchan]

i think using the term grandfather here makes it even worse LOL

Sorry, i had a very long day

 

[el henry]

i think using the term grandfather here makes it even worse LOL

Sorry, i have a very long day

I didn't even notice that, I just used the word automatically and didn't think of its etymology. But I must be tired too, because I honestly can't think of another word.

 

[4everchan]

I didn't even notice that, I just used the word automatically and didn't think of its etymology. But I must be tired too, because I honestly can't think of another word.

I cannot think of another word either but yeah it's been not only a very long day but with the humidex factor it was 40 degrees (celsius of course) here... so i am burned out literally.

 

[lilimum]

I am just happy for Alyiah and Tobija that they have the possibilty to compete this season. And when I watch their training I see nothing that gives me a bad feeling about their age difference.

 

[surimi]

I countered that your argument is equal justification that they shouldn't be making an exception. But sure agree to disagree, but I'm not going to cheer on an exception to be made for a partnership that can be described as the girl needing her mommy to drive her home from a competition because she can't legally drive (that's her situation for the next year and a half) and the man can legally do celebratory tequila shots for their victories.

Having a low number of pairs and each of them therefore being valuable, is justification for splitting several pairs by introducing a rule? Okay, if you feel that makes sense. It doesn't to me. Seeing the ironic, condescending tone re. either partner in the latter half of your post (and your focus on this one pair only, when there were actually 2-3 originally), I don't feel like discussing this matter with you any further. I've said what I wanted to say, I don't see any facts presented by the opponents that make a good case for dissolving existing partnerships being a good and just solution, and I'm out of here.

 

[icewhite]

I don't have "a horse in this race". I enjoy watching pairs now and then, but I am really not following them closely, and I don't have any real favourite couples.
But it is my believe that figure skating as a whole needs to show they are serious about protecting minors and that it's not just a topic that is brought up for show (marketing) or when it's convenient, but because it believes in the principle that minors, especially U16, need to be protected as such.
It's not about specific couples, where people might correctly say "this one I know personally, they are totally fine". It's a question of principle.