ISU VP Lakernik: № of quads may be limited

[Baron Vladimir]

Do you have a link for a document with this? All I've got is the USFSA's guidelines http://www.usfsa.org/content/2017-18 SP GOE Guidelines.pdf which just has the 8 bullet points including good height and distance. However I've heard the Eurosport commentators (Mark Hanretty) talk about extra credit for example for 2nd jumps in combinations being as big as first ones and he is very accurate when it comes to these sort of things. If you or someone else has a further breakdown of the guidelines I'd be very interested.

The point is that those are quidelines - general recommendations, not the strict rules. Judges are 'free' to give extra something if they feel extra something exist. Variations are also appriciated. If judges think for example Gabbys height and distance in 3T-3T or Zagis entry/exit/variation in 3F-2lo-2T deserves max GOE they should give it, like they did tho Because of that we get average GOE of more judges opinion, which counts

 

[Metis]

Oh, like that document from Icenetwork (I think) from like September? I tend to think that's outdated info, seeing that in that proposal, the BVs got decreased unevenly for different jumps, but in all the recent rumors it seems like the decrease will be even (as in 10% of BV lower for quads).

To be clear, the 10% BV reduction for quads was part of the last rumour batch but it has been floated for a long time. It’s just not a change I see anyone especially hungry for, as it does nothing regarding the PCS-TES split and bringing TES down is a lot more complex and tends to introduce far more unintended consequences than simply changing PCS factouring. But this time I can at least recall the source! BVs for quads will still be higher than for other jumps, of course, but knocking 10% BV off quads doesn’t change the quad race or scoring in any meaningful way when you consider that idea in a vacuum.

BVs in general... who knows? Up? Down? I have no clue. I think they have to go down significantly due to the new GOE scale and how we understand its application, because if the TES ceiling is actually increasing, then the floor has to drop to keep PCS relevant, but ISU could have just refactoured PCS. Hell, ISU could have implemented changes to negative factouring to quads and/or a change to standard deductions for falling on quads and that would have fixed the “better to rotate and fall than do a well-executed but lower BV jump” issue without all the potential issues this new system causes for women’s technical development. (Why go for the 3A if you’re going to lose about half the jump’s BV if you fall?) (These are the things that drive me out of my tree with regard to ISU....)

There’s really way too much we don’t know without a SoV, because factouring is key. +/- 50% BV in GOEs could mean very little in actual points. We don’t know. And I’d point out that we also don’t know if other elements will be worth more (spins, step sequences, even the choreo sequence), either due to relative values shifting or new GOE range bulking up their potential max value — which would mean there are a lot more potential points on the ice, period, and the min-maxing game could become ridiculous.