ISU Single & Pairs: SOV & GOE update

[gsk8]

Single & Pair Skating Scale of Value and Guidelines for GOE
14 Apr 2016 - Lausanne, Switzerland


Single & Pair Skating Scale of Values, Levels of Difficulty and Guidelines for marking Grade of Execution, season 2016/17


Communication No. 2000 replaces Communications No. 1944


- Updated Scale of Values
- Updated Levels of Difficulty of Single/Pair Skating Elements (season 2016/17)
- Updated Guidelines for marking +GOE of Single/Pair Skating Elements (positive aspects)
- Updated Guidelines in establishing GOE for errors in Short Program and Free Skating

 

[sequinsgalore]

Yay to the proposal on decreasing the penalty for zayak'ed combos in SP and FS!

Now only the extra jump - not whole combo - will be invalid. Hope they pass it at the ISU congress.

 

[Blades of Passion]

It only took them a decade to finally accept one of the proposals for fixing one of the zayak issues with the scoring system. Unfortunately we are still going to see Triple jumps entirely invalidated in cases where someone turns one of their Quads into a Triple, but that's the ISU for you.

They've made the footwork sequences a bit more convoluted again. Apparently it's super important for everyone to be able to twizzle in both directions and on both feet.

 

[StitchMonkey]

I think it is a step in the right direction. I kinda do think that the other jumps should still have some penalty so as to keep the message "don't do this" Honestly having the rest be worth 90% would be fine with me. It would give some penalty, but not be overly punitive....then again a 10% deduction might seem so small as to not be worth the added complexity.

It will also be interesting to see how GOE is handled. Should a combination with a zayaked jump be able to get +3 GOE?... i am not sure. I kinda feel like a +2 as a max would be fair.

Still at this point i would rather too nice of a change than keep it as is. Good for the ISU for addressing it.

I am borrowing myself from FSU, but if anyone is interested...this rule change would have had the following in pact on Mariah Bell's US Nationals FS (a case of too many 2Ts)

She did a 3Z+2T+2T and a 2A+2T both in the second half that did not count.
So she could have recouped 8.03 and 3.63 base value under this rule or 11.36 points. That just as base value would have put her up to 8th ahead of Karen Chen with 171.39 which was only 3.03 away from 7th place Hannah Miller.

 

[MiRé]

Judging is still anonymous and combos are still not rewarded :disapp:

She did a 3Z+2T+2T and a 2A+2T both in the second half that did not count.
So she could have recouped 8.03 and 3.63 base value under this rule or 11.36 points. That just as base value would have put her up to 8th ahead of Karen Chen with 171.39 which was only 3.03 away from 7th place Hannah Miller.

Can Mariah do any combos with 2Lo? (I don't really follow US skaters beside Ashley & Gracie) Looking at her planned elements, she could've easily avoided the zayak rule if she were to plan 2Lo instead of 2T.

 

[StitchMonkey]

Judging is still anonymous and combos are still not rewarded :disapp:


Can Mariah do any combos with 2Lo? (I don't really follow US skaters beside Ashley & Gracie) Looking at her planned elements, she could've easily avoided the zayak rule if she were to plan 2Lo instead of 2T.

There was a lot of improvising that went on in that skate... that was not close to her planned layout. She doubled a planed 3T in an opening 3F+3T attempt then fell on the 2A of a planned 2A+1/2Lo+3S attempt and things went down hill from there. My guess is that she did not feel comfortable trying the 1/2Lo+3S combo as late in the program as her second 2A was and just started trying to fix it. I am guessing at least one of the 2Ts she did later were attempts to fix it with a 3T... which just got popped.

As for a 2Lo... I am not sure and am not sure it is a good choice for her. 3Lo is currently her weakest jump (she has said as much - this is not an insult) so I don't know how stable her 2Lo is or if trying to work on nailing a 3Lo that she struggles with while trying to do 2Lo combos as well.

She has landed the 3F+3T in the past, she has landed the 2A+1/2Lo+3S in the past so those are fine to keep. That lets her do a 2T on something else with no worry. If she pops the 3T in to a 2T, she should still be ok so long as she gets her 1/2 Lo+3S... or just tries to tack that on to something rather than more 2Ts.

She also might be a skater for for now needs to be told "don't try to fix it"

 

[tulosai]

I am happy the Zayak rule is finally undergoing some change. It's not exactly how I'd have tried to 'fix' it but it is a huge improvement over the total madness that has taken over.

 

[Moxiejan]

I think it is a step in the right direction. I kinda do think that the other jumps should still have some penalty so as to keep the message "don't do this" Honestly having the rest be worth 90% would be fine with me. It would give some penalty, but not be overly punitive....then again a 10% deduction might seem so small as to not be worth the added complexity.

I agree about having an extra penalty for the other jumps. Maybe the way to do this simply (in addition to the 0 for the zayaked jump) would be to assess a -1 deduction for an illegal element.

 

[tulosai]

I agree about having an extra penalty for the other jumps. Maybe the way to do this simply (in addition to the 0 for the zayaked jump) would be to assess a -1 deduction for an illegal element.

I like this idea.

 

[karne]

Well, I disagree. And I also feel that this introduces a new complication.

Let's say Max goes with a slightly different layout for his FS next year. He plans a 3Lz and a 3Lz-2T (in that order). But on the opening combination (the 4S-3T), he pops the second jump to a 2T. As usual, he immediately follows this pass with the 3A-2T. So now he's done two 2Ts and can't do a third. Being Max, he decides to improv the 3Lz-2T into a 3Lz-3T. But oh no! He slips on the landing of the 3Lz and can only get a 2T in! He just Zayaked on the 2Ts!

Under the old rule, the whole 3Lz-2T would be thrown out. Potentially disastrous but an easy fix.

Under the new rule, only the 2T gets chucked. But wait! Now suddenly Max has two 3Lz, neither in combination. So he's violated another rule.

Chucking the whole pass was certainly simpler than removing a jump as though it never happened and creating additional rule violations. Plus, what happens if a skater falls on the Zayaked jump? Let's say Max had gone for the 3Lz-3T, but slipped on the landing. Being Max he still tries to get the end of the combo in, but only manages a 2T, lands awkwardly and falls. Now, some people could argue (not me because this is ridiculous) that the fall doesn't count because technically, the jump doesn't exist. And what GOE does the pass itself get, given that it ended in a fall, but the jump that was fallen off didn't count?

Ludicrous, ludicrous stuff.

 

[Rissa]

^^ downgraded quads don't invalidate the following triples. Perhaps the zayaked combo will only be worth as much as the valid jump but as it was still a combo, it will fill the combo slot and not invalidate any following jump?

 

[sequinsgalore]

I like the rule, as it generally seems closer to representing the difficulty done on ice. Let's say a skater plans 4T and 3Lz+3T (BV 20.6) in the SP, but triples the 4T. Now which of the following layout should be worth most?

1) 3T, 3Lz*+3T* - current rules (BV 4.3)
2) 3T, 3Lz+3T* - proposed change (BV 10.3)

Current rules, what should you do:
3) 3T, 3Lz+2T (11.6)
4) 3T, 3Lz+1T* (10.3, mandatory -3GOE 8.2)

No matter what the skater will have lost a significant amount of base value.

But I think it's good to encourage the skater to go for the 3-3, despite the earlier pop. Doesn't seem right that a 3-2 or even 3-1 will net much more than the 3-3

 

[Blades of Passion]

Oh karne, how typical. Arguing that a serious problem should instead remain intact, because of nonsense about how "difficult" it is to apply logic to the situation.

If someone falls on a zayaked jump then you obviously count the fall still. A skater can attempt anything they want, but if they fall then they fall. As for the GOE, that can be the judges' discretion. It's not rocket science. The first legal jump existed and deserves some amount of points.

 

[Mathman]

I think that once the Zayak rules were extended to double jumps, this change about combos was inevitable. In fact, if the ISU had seen it through in the last year's round of rules updates, the logic would have been clear. The main thing is that if you have, for whatever reason, done two double toes and then you do, say, a triple Axel-double toe, you should not lose credit for the triple Axel. IMHO the rest is nit-picking.

 

[Mathman]

Well, I disagree. And I also feel that this introduces a new complication.

Let's say Max goes with a slightly different layout for his FS next year. He plans a 3Lz and a 3Lz-2T (in that order). But on the opening combination (the 4S-3T), he pops the second jump to a 2T. As usual, he immediately follows this pass with the 3A-2T. So now he's done two 2Ts and can't do a third. Being Max, he decides to improv the 3Lz-2T into a 3Lz-3T. But oh no! He slips on the landing of the 3Lz and can only get a 2T in! He just Zayaked on the 2Ts!

Under the old rule, the whole 3Lz-2T would be thrown out. Potentially disastrous but an easy fix.

Under the new rule, only the 2T gets chucked. But wait! Now suddenly Max has two 3Lz, neither in combination. So he's violated another rule.

Chucking the whole pass was certainly simpler than removing a jump as though it never happened and creating additional rule violations.

I don't think that the new rules say that the errant jump never happened. It just receives 0 points. I believe the second Lutz will still be counted as being in a combination, without further penalty. Actually, the wording of the new rule is fairly clear on this point for the Free Skate (but not so clear for the Short Program -- some slightly better language is needed there, IMHO).

The skater who turns his opening 4T+3T into a 3T+3T is still behind the eight ball, and needs a plan B, though.

I wish they would have strengthened the requirement of "preceding steps" for the solo jump in the short program. This is an area where skaters are allowed to thumb their noses at the rule, especially when they omit the second jump of the intended combo and call that jump the "solo jump out of steps."

 

[karlowens2]

Did I read this right for jumps?

-3 for fall
-3 for 2-foot landing
-2 to -3 step out

This will make a big difference. A fall and a couple scratchy landings -9. I think this will add some balance to the jumping craze of last 2 seasons.

 

[gkelly]

I don't think that the new rules say that the errant jump never happened. It just receives 0 points. I believe the second Lutz will still be counted as being in a combination, without further penalty.

Or as +REP, which carries a penalty of only counting as 70% of base value. We'll have to see what the calling guidelines for this are if this rule ends up passing.

Actually, the wording of the new rule is fairly clear on this point for the Free Skate (but not so clear for the Short Program -- some slightly better language is needed there, IMHO).

Not sure what you think needs to change in the short program. Since 1991 it has been illegal to repeat the same jump in two different jump elements of the short program, and under IJS if that happens the second whole jump pass gets thrown out.

A skater who plans a solo quad toe and a triple toe in the combination is asking for trouble if there's any chance of tripling the intended quad. (Same for a skater at lower levels who plans a double in the combo and a triple in the solo jump from the same takeoff.) This is nothing new.

The skater who turns his opening 4T+3T into a 3T+3T is still behind the eight ball, and needs a plan B, though.

That's not a repeat problem though, just a lessening of jump content. There really should not be a plan B for that mistake in the short program -- the skater should just go ahead and do the same solo jump he was always planning to do because there's no way to add more content that wasn't planned.

In a freeskate, the only way to make up for it would be to try another quad that hadn't been planned, which is too risky for most.

I wish they would have strengthened the requirement of "preceding steps" for the solo jump in the short program. This is an area where skaters are allowed to thumb their noses at the rule, especially when they omit the second jump of the intended combo and call that jump the "solo jump out of steps."

The "nose thumbing" more often happens with skaters who are trying their hardest jump as the solo jump (usually quads for guys) and don't bother planning sufficient preceding steps before the intended jump out of steps.

If the intended combo ends up not being a combo, it's usually because there was something wrong with the jump so they're already starting at negative GOE when they fail to perform the second jump. Between whatever that problem was plus the lack of preceding steps, the element will likely end up at -3 anyway; maybe -2 or possibly -1 despite a bad but not disastrous landing if it did have sufficient preceding steps or if it was a really good jump but just, e.g., ran out of space on the ice to allow a second jump.

Adding a combination to the planned solo jump is just a way to try to make up for the problem on the earlier planned combo. Sometimes it's successful, with a clean combo and even higher GOE thanks to non-required preceding steps. Although it may be a combo with +2T on the end when a harder second jump had been planned originally, so it's just salvage mode anyway. And sometimes attempting a combo on the jump out of steps leads to an additional error on this jump pass that might not have happened if the skater had just settled for the planned solo jump there, so that could be two jumps with negative GOE instead of just one.

It's risky. Wise skaters/coaches can plan preceding steps before both jumps, planning a combination on the first but prepared to add one on the second, including practicing that way as a backup plan.

There is new wording on the +GOE guidelines regarding the SP jump out of steps:

clear recognizable (difficult for jump preceded by steps/movements of the Short Program) steps/free skating movements immediately preceding element

So simple steps to fulfill that requirement won't get you the positive bullet points for that element the same way it could for the combo or axel jump, or in a free skate.

Did I read this right for jumps?

-3 for fall
-3 for 2-foot landing
-2 to -3 step out

This will make a big difference.

That hasn't changed. Those GOE reductions are the same as they have been for some time. They are reductions to be taken from whatever GOE the judge would have given that jump without that error, including any positive bullet points. Often the final GOE ends up being -2 or -3, but it is not required. Until 2 years ago the final GOE for those errors was required to be negative (but could be -1) -- that is no longer the case. So it is legal for a judge to give 0 to a jump element with one of those errors. Not very likely though.

A fall and a couple scratchy landings -9.

Huh? A "scratchy landing" is very different from a two-foot landing or step out. "Weak landing (bad pos./wrong edge/scratching etc) gets -1 to -2 GOE. You won't see major loss of points just for a little scratching.

 

[Mathman]

Or as +REP, which carries a penalty of only counting as 70% of base value. We'll have to see what the calling guidelines for this are if this rule ends up passing.

Not sure what you think needs to change in the short program. Since 1991 it has been illegal to repeat the same jump in two different jump elements of the short program, and under IJS if that happens the second whole jump pass gets thrown out.

I was reacting to the difference in wording with regard to the short program versus the free program, in the new document.

Short Program:

If the same jump is executed twice as a solo jump and as a part of the jump combination, the second execution will not be counted (if this repetition is in a jump combination, only the individual jump which is not according to the above requirements will not be counted).

Free Program:

If an extra jump(s) is executed, only the individual jump(s), which is not according to the requirements will have no value.

Is there a difference between "will not be counted" and "will have no value"?

If "will not be counted" in the short program means that the program will be scored as if the element never happened, then Karne's objection is valid. If you do a solo 3T (intending 4T perhaps), and then 3Lz+3T for your combo, is that scored the same as if you did solo 3T and then solo 3Lz (no combo)? The part in parentheses seems to say, no, it means that you do not get any extra points for the +3T, but you still get full credit for doing a combo. (This is a change from the current rule.)

For the Free Skate, to me the wording "will have no value" makes it clear that you get 0 points for the second jump, but you get full credit for the first jump and the element fills one of the three combo boxes. This seems clearly tobe the intent of the new rule, while for the short program the exact intent is not so clear to me.

That's [popping a planned 4T+3T into a 3T+3T] not a repeat problem though, just a lessening of jump content. There really should not be a plan B for that mistake in the short program -- the skater should just go ahead and do the same solo jump he was always planning to do because there's no way to add more content that wasn't planned.

In a freeskate, the only way to make up for it would be to try another quad that hadn't been planned, which is too risky for most.

I meant the free program here. If your opening element is 3T+3T then, under tho old rules, the "lessening of jump content" was catastrophic (Oda) unless you remember to degrade your later 3A+3T or 3Lz+3t to a triple single. You can't even do a triple-double because you already used up your two double toes on your three jump combo. This was wrong because the rules should never reward you for doing less and punish you for doing more. So the new rules help in this regard, although you still lose a lot of points no matter what.

 

[Interspectator]

I was reacting to the difference in wording with regard to the short program versus the free program, in the new document.

Short Program:

Free Program:

Is there a difference between "will not be counted" and "will have no value"?

If "will not be counted" in the short program means that the program will be scored as if the element never happened, then Karne's objection is valid. If you do a solo 3T (intending 4T perhaps), and then 3Lz+3T for your combo, is that scored the same as if you did solo 3T and then solo 3Lz (no combo)? The part in parentheses seems to say, no, it means that you do not get any extra points for the +3T, but you still get full credit for doing a combo. (This is a change from the current rule.)

For the Free Skate, to me the wording "will have no value" makes it clear that you get 0 points for the second jump, but you get full credit for the first jump and the element fills one of the three combo boxes. This seems clearly tobe the intent of the new rule, while for the short program the exact intent is not so clear to me.



I meant the free program here. If your opening element is 3T+3T then, under tho old rules, the "lessening of jump content" was catastrophic (Oda) unless you remember to degrade your later 3A+3T or 3Lz+3t to a triple single. You can't even do a triple-double because you already used up your two double toes on your three jump combo. This was wrong because the rules should never reward you for doing less and punish you for doing more. So the new rules help in this regard, although you still lose a lot of points no matter what.

Oda-saaaan, come back! The time is right!

 

[karlowens2]

Or as +REP, which carries a penalty of only counting as 70% of base value. We'll have to see what the calling guidelines for this are if this rule ends up passing.



Not sure what you think needs to change in the short program. Since 1991 it has been illegal to repeat the same jump in two different jump elements of the short program, and under IJS if that happens the second whole jump pass gets thrown out.

A skater who plans a solo quad toe and a triple toe in the combination is asking for trouble if there's any chance of tripling the intended quad. (Same for a skater at lower levels who plans a double in the combo and a triple in the solo jump from the same takeoff.) This is nothing new.





That's not a repeat problem though, just a lessening of jump content. There really should not be a plan B for that mistake in the short program -- the skater should just go ahead and do the same solo jump he was always planning to do because there's no way to add more content that wasn't planned.

In a freeskate, the only way to make up for it would be to try another quad that hadn't been planned, which is too risky for most.



The "nose thumbing" more often happens with skaters who are trying their hardest jump as the solo jump (usually quads for guys) and don't bother planning sufficient preceding steps before the intended jump out of steps.

If the intended combo ends up not being a combo, it's usually because there was something wrong with the jump so they're already starting at negative GOE when they fail to perform the second jump. Between whatever that problem was plus the lack of preceding steps, the element will likely end up at -3 anyway; maybe -2 or possibly -1 despite a bad but not disastrous landing if it did have sufficient preceding steps or if it was a really good jump but just, e.g., ran out of space on the ice to allow a second jump.

Adding a combination to the planned solo jump is just a way to try to make up for the problem on the earlier planned combo. Sometimes it's successful, with a clean combo and even higher GOE thanks to non-required preceding steps. Although it may be a combo with +2T on the end when a harder second jump had been planned originally, so it's just salvage mode anyway. And sometimes attempting a combo on the jump out of steps leads to an additional error on this jump pass that might not have happened if the skater had just settled for the planned solo jump there, so that could be two jumps with negative GOE instead of just one.

It's risky. Wise skaters/coaches can plan preceding steps before both jumps, planning a combination on the first but prepared to add one on the second, including practicing that way as a backup plan.

There is new wording on the +GOE guidelines regarding the SP jump out of steps:



So simple steps to fulfill that requirement won't get you the positive bullet points for that element the same way it could for the combo or axel jump, or in a free skate.




That hasn't changed. Those GOE reductions are the same as they have been for some time. They are reductions to be taken from whatever GOE the judge would have given that jump without that error, including any positive bullet points. Often the final GOE ends up being -2 or -3, but it is not required. Until 2 years ago the final GOE for those errors was required to be negative (but could be -1) -- that is no longer the case. So it is legal for a judge to give 0 to a jump element with one of those errors. Not very likely though.



Huh? A "scratchy landing" is very different from a two-foot landing or step out. "Weak landing (bad pos./wrong edge/scratching etc) gets -1 to -2 GOE. You won't see major loss of points just for a little scratching.

Oh, scratchy is a technical term. i thought it was a general term for a not-so-good landing. I meant a serious lapse - touch down, etc.

I didn't realize these were already in effect. Why re they not used more rigorously? I can think of skaters who consistently have poor flowout or landing positions - one medalist in particular who jack knifes every jump. If these deductions wre more rigorously taken it would equalize he situation we have now. Skater lands with foot straight but everything else is ugly. They should get a -1 or-2 on all these technically poor jumps. I don't think the judges ding for each jump in bad form. Do they?