ISU Single & Pairs: SOV & GOE update

[Pamigena]

*barging in even though my knowledge about technical stuff is negligible*

I don't think the judges ding for each jump in bad form. Do they?

They kind of do, don't they? I'm getting confused We're talking about negative GOE, aren't we? Not additional deductions of the total points, like the -1 for a fall.

 

[jenaj]

It's a step in the right direction. The rules committee seemed to have lost sight of the original reason for the Zayak rule in the first place, which was to avoid programs where a skater just repeated an "easy" triple jump. The idea was to make skaters include different kinds of triples, instead of just relying on a jump the skater liked best or found easiest. Applying this rule to double jumps (or triple, for that matter) done in combination makes no sense. If the concern is too many combos, put a limit on the number of combos. Allowing repeated double jumps in combos doesn't give skaters an incentive not to include different kinds of triples. I do think a skater should not get credit for a botched combo in the short program because it is a required element. But that is a different issue from the Zayak rule.

 

[QuadThrow]

The score for the Lasso A Lift rise.

Now 5RLi4 and 5ALi4 has a BV of 7,5. I do not know why the ISU pushes the lifts that hard. Only a Quad or a Triple Axel Throw has a slightly higher BV.

 

[MaxSwagg]

The score for the Lasso A Lift rise.

Now 5RLi4 and 5ALi4 has a BV of 7,5. I do not know why the ISU pushes the lifts that hard. Only a Quad or a Triple Axel Throw has a slightly higher BV.

Because lifts are one of the most integral parts of pairs skating.

 

[gkelly]

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"?

Not much, as far as I can tell.

Under the current, 2015-16 Short Program rules, if you do solo 3T and 3Lz+3T in the SP, you'll get no credit for the combination at all.

If you do solo 3T and 3Lz+1T, the 1T will be asterisked and get no value; you'll get full base value for the 3Lz (assuming it's rotated) and the GOE is required to be -3. (The only remaining mandatory GOE is -3 for a short program jump combo that doesn't have two valid jumps according the rules for that element -- same penalty if one if them is singled or if there is no second jump.)

My understanding of the proposed new rule is that if one of the jumps in the combination is a repeat of the solo jump, that jump will be treated the same as a single or nonexistent jump: no base value, but the non-repeated jump does get full credit and the GOE would have to be -3.

That's the penalty for not doing a valid combo. Essentially the same as if the second jump is nonexistent, but it still fills the required combo slot with value for the nonrepeated jump.

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.)

Well, not full credit for doing a combo, because of the required GOE penalty.

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.

Agreed.

Oh, scratchy is a technical term. i thought it was a general term for a not-so-good landing.

Scratchy = toepick scratching on the ice, usually with the weight too far forward on the blade. You can hear the scratching if you're sitting near the ice. If there's nothing else wrong with the jump, the landing stays on one foot just too far forward, it will probably get 0 or -1 GOE.

I meant a serious lapse - touch down, etc.

Touchdown (little weight on the free foot) is a moderate error, step out or two-foot landing more severe, fall even moreso.

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?

They do, but they also reward for good aspects of the jump, so the final GOE might not be as low as the recommended reduction.

As long as the jump is fully rotated and landed on one foot (and doesn't have an incorrect takeoff edge), it's unlikely that the GOE would be less than -1 and may well be 0 or +1 if there are enough positive aspects to outweigh the slight negatives. But most of the top jumpers will be getting +1 to +3 for their cleanly landed jumps, so that does make several points of difference per jump between the great triples/quads and the so-so ones.

The rules committee seemed to have lost sight of the original reason for the Zayak rule in the first place, which was to avoid programs where a skater just repeated an "easy" triple jump.

The original reason for the Zayak rule in the first place, 1982 was to avoid programs where a skater just repeated the same triple jump over and over and thereby racked up points for a high total number of triples (all of which were "difficult" jumps for the ladies at the time) without demonstrating a wide variety of different jumping skills.

Under IJS, skaters tend to repeat more difficult jumps to earn higher base values, or their most reliable jumps to earn higher GOE. Double toe tends to be the most reliable way to accomplish a combination.

Many skaters would plan all their combinations as +2T, +2T, and +2T+2T, which showed a limited range of combination skills. Others (Mao Asada sometimes, at the highest level) who were good at loops would plan all double loops on their combinations, more difficult but no more evidence of varied combination skills.

By limiting the number of repeated doubles, the rules force skaters to show other combination skills -- either putting a triple at the end of a combination, and/or mastering half-loop+salchow or +flip combos. This, I think, is a good thing and in keeping with the reasoning of not letting skaters rack up points for repeating the same skill over and over again.

However, giving no points for the whole combination when only one of the jumps was an extra repeat was overly harsh, so I'm glad they are looking to change that. Especially because it usually happens by mental mistake, when a skater misses and earlier combination and tries to make up for it. No need to lose credit for a valid triple jump just because it was in combo with an invalid double.

 

[dorispulaski]

It's a step in the right direction. The rules committee seemed to have lost sight of the original reason for the Zayak rule in the first place, which was to avoid programs where a skater just repeated an "easy" triple jump. The idea was to make skaters include different kinds of triples, instead of just relying on a jump the skater liked best or found easiest. Applying this rule to double jumps (or triple, for that matter) done in combination makes no sense. If the concern is too many combos, put a limit on the number of combos. Allowing repeated double jumps in combos doesn't give skaters an incentive not to include different kinds of triples. I do think a skater should not get credit for a botched combo in the short program because it is a required element. But that is a different issue from the Zayak rule.

The original point of the Zayak rule was to handicap Zayak so she would not outjump everyone. Period.

To do that, not only were repeated jumps limited, total combinations were limited, and a toe walley was made the same as a toe loop where previously they were considered different jumps.

Meanwhile, no limit was placed on double axels, a jump which was almost as highly regarded as a triple toe, but which most senior ladies could do.

It was perhaps the most personally targetted rule change I am aware of in singles.

 

[gkelly]

Well, there were other skaters in the early 80s, more male than female, racking up higher total triple counts in their freeskates by doing three or more triple toes, and I'm sure the ISU had the whole trend in mind when passing the rule, even if support for the limits may have been strengthened by Zayak winning Worlds with five of them.

I wasn't really following skating in that era, I've only read and watched videos retroactively. My impression was that Dick Button or other commentators may have framed the rule in terms of its effect on and inspiration by Zayak specifically and that non-skating media such as Sports Illustrated may have read more personal and/or sexist intent into it than the rulemakers intended.

I'm not sure who introduced the handy unofficial name "Zayak rule" for the repeat-triples limit, or when. I assume someone American.

There have certainly been other rules that have seemed designed to make adjustments to competition structure or allowed program content with specific high-profile examples as well as trends in mind. No one called the introduction of the short program "the Schuba rule," but its effect was no more or less targeted on skaters-like-Schuba than the Zayak rule was on skaters-like-Zayak, aside from the fact that Schuba had retired.

And then in IJS there have been increases in the values of quad specifically in reaction to Buttle's and Lysacek's wins at 2008 Worlds and 2010 Olympics.

The rule that invalidated whole combinations if one of the jumps was an illegal repeat came after Slutskaya's win at 2005 Worlds with three triple loops (for the 3Lo+2Lo last combination she got credit for the 2Lo, and would again with the proposed rule next year). Was that targeted against Slutskaya specifically, or using her as an example of a trend the ISU didn't want to encourage (but unfortunately IMO overreacted in the penalty they imposed, which they are now proposing to correct).

Or the limit on the number of times a skater could earn credit for a Biellmann position, and later for any specific spin variation/feature -- was that also specifically targeted against Slutskaya, or did it just use her as a handy example of a successful skater who overused a feature in a way that the ISU did not want to encourage?

The question is how many of these changes were personally or politically motivated against specific skaters, and how many were introduced in recognition that a specific prominent skater represented a trend that should be discouraged.

Or encouraged, in the case of allowing that hadn't been allowed before, such as 3A as the solo axel in the ladies' short program when Mao Asada was clearly the intended beneficiary by Japanese proponents, although others may have seen it as an incentive for more women to try to master that jump.

 

[Blades of Passion]

Yeah, the rule wasn't targeted wholly at Zayak herself. Other skaters could have started doing tons of Triple Toeloops and still beat her. Katarina Witt never had any problem with that jump either. It simply wasn't what anyone wanted to see in the sport.

 

[Mathman]

... and a toe walley was made the same as a toe loop where previously they were considered different jumps.

That is an interesting question in its own right. Why is Flutzing/wrong edge take-off so cataclysmic for the flip and Lutz, while no one cares at all about what edge you take off from on a toe-loop/toe Walley?

 

[StitchMonkey]

That is an interesting question in its own right. Why is Flutzing/wrong edge take-off so cataclysmic for the flip and Lutz, while no one cares at all about what edge you take off from on a toe-loop/toe Walley?

I have asked this before... I am not sure we have a very clear answer. I am sure we could fund some other wonky angles if we really looked. It does seem strange that these two jumps are in their own little world... maybe the idea is they are seen as harder so come with more risk?

 

[Blades of Passion]

Distinguishing between toeloop and toe walley is just fruitless since it's the exact same entrance and toe walley is from a very slight inside edge. Not really possible to do a triple toe walley from a deeper inside edge, certainly not with any great amount of stability and size to the jump.