New IJS System Improvements

[singerskates]

If you fall and rotate, you get less than for a good double axel. That pretty much is where the problem lies. It's not worth the risk.

A 3A for a lady is much, much bigger a deal as well as more rare than a quad for a man, yet the reward is smaller.


Balancing should be done for the top levels. The lower end skaters will make do with what they get.

The only way a fall on a 3A is is worth less than a 2A, is if the jump short more than a ¼ rotation; ex. fall 3A has less than 3 & ¼ revolutions making it a downgraded jump and then they apply the fall.

 

[singerskates]

< calls reduce the base value of a jump, e.g. 2A< only gives 2.3 as opposed to 3.3
<< calls downgrades the jump, so a 2A<< is only worth 1.1, the value of 1A

It does mean that skaters who underrotate are being penalised twice, first in the base value and then GOE by the judges.

Yes

 

[moonvine]

That would be some extra buttery popcorn. We’d probably see a lot more double jumps too :hap85:

In my opinion, it is ridiculous that a quad attempt is worth more points than a cleanly landed triple.

 

[Sam-Skwantch]

In my opinion, it is ridiculous that a quad attempt is worth more points than a cleanly landed triple.

Agree!!!

 

[moonvine]

Agree!!!

I can't get Johnny's voice out of my head. "It's better to rotate a quad and fall than to land a triple". Makes zero sense.

 

[skatenewbie]

I don't think we should do different base values for men and ladies, simply because not all skaters which the scoring system applies to is a top tier skater, and there are just as many men who will try hard and never get their triple axel as women. The risk is the same, the reward should also be similar.

And I don't know, the reward for a triple axel is pretty good, in my opinion. Up to 6 points compared to a double, and if you fall and rotate you still get more than a 2A. Obviously if you fall AND underrotate you should not be getting more than a double axel.

if you fall and rotate you didnt really get more than ok 2A. If you falling on 3A you get 5 point and 1 point deduction so basically 4 point. A 2A worth 3.3 point (3.63 in 2nd half) its easy to get 0.5/+1 GOE for 2A (even Satoko get that much. So if you got more than 0.4 GOE for your 2A in 2nd half its already more than fall 3A. I kinds agree with 3A being higher with men. Because women body type make it far more harder to do 3A... For almost 30 years less than 10 women can complete 3A in int. comp. For men... How many? Hundreds have land 3A...

 

[bobbob]

if you fall and rotate you didnt really get more than ok 2A. If you falling on 3A you get 5 point and 1 point deduction so basically 4 point. A 2A worth 3.3 point (3.63 in 2nd half) its easy to get 0.5/+1 GOE for 2A (even Satoko get that much. So if you got more than 0.4 GOE for your 2A in 2nd half its already more than fall 3A. I kinds agree with 3A being higher with men. Because women body type make it far more harder to do 3A... For almost 30 years less than 10 women can complete 3A in int. comp. For men... How many? Hundreds have land 3A...

First of all...it is 5.5 for a 3A fall not 5.

The scoring should be based on the the element and only the element, not the characteristics of who is skating. By this logic, a layback spin which can get a level 4 should be worth more than a quad for men since few of them can do the positions necessary for a level 4, fewer than the number that can do a quad.

 

[Miller]

In my opinion, it is ridiculous that a quad attempt is worth more points than a cleanly landed triple.

The proposed change to +5/-5 GOEs should solve this problem. The base value will be reduced while the GOE will increase from about the current 30/40% depending on the jump to 50%, while the cleanly landed triple could in fact be worth more - the crossover point based on what I saw last year will come at +4 GOE on the new values, this will be very close to what you get for the current +3 GOE i.e. if it makes sense a +5 GOE jump should be worth even more than what you can get now.

 

[moonvine]

The proposed change to +5/-5 GOEs should solve this problem. The base value will be reduced while the GOE will increase from about the current 30/40% depending on the jump to 50%, while the cleanly landed triple could in fact be worth more - the crossover point based on what I saw last year will come at +4 GOE on the new values, this will be very close to what you get for the current +3 GOE i.e. if it makes sense a +5 GOE jump should be worth even more than what you can get now.

Thanks. May I never hear Johnny Weir say that sentence ever again.

 

[miloandtock1]

I sincerely hope the "better to fall on a quad" does go away. Falling on a quad toe should not get you more points than a cleanly landed triple anything. And the falls need to impact the second score too. Dick Button would be furious in the old system when a skater would fall two twice and have a couple mistakes and some judge was still giving a 5.8 for artistic impression. A fall (or a pop) does impact the choreography and transition and overall flow of the program. It's hard to justify a 9.5 or 9.25 with a fall, I don't care who you are.
It is interesting though how we are all voicing thoughts on this new scoring system and the finer points of it. At least - correct me if I am wrong - there is not the egregious cheating and block judging (although I would say Yuna Kim not winning in Sochi was cheating or extremely highly questionable, I think Sotnikova was just the chosen one - or patsie). Did I just open a can of worms as I am sure that result has been argued and debated many times...

 

[Metis]

I sincerely hope the "better to fall on a quad" does go away. Falling on a quad toe should not get you more points than a cleanly landed triple anything. And the falls need to impact the second score too. Dick Button would be furious in the old system when a skater would fall two twice and have a couple mistakes and some judge was still giving a 5.8 for artistic impression. A fall (or a pop) does impact the choreography and transition and overall flow of the program. It's hard to justify a 9.5 or 9.25 with a fall, I don't care who you are.
It is interesting though how we are all voicing thoughts on this new scoring system and the finer points of it. At least - correct me if I am wrong - there is not the egregious cheating and block judging (although I would say Yuna Kim not winning in Sochi was cheating or extremely highly questionable, I think Sotnikova was just the chosen one - or patsie). Did I just open a can of worms as I am sure that result has been argued and debated many times...

It’s dead. Quad BV down 10% as well, apparently, and backloading is being targeted. Doesn’t seem to be decided, but the 10% bonus itself will be removed or front/back-loaded programs will be punished in PCS, as programs are now required to have distribution.

-5 GOE for falling, -3 for step out, assume -1 deduction for fall remains. BV for attempting a quad and/or completing rotation but failing the landing will be completely shot.

 

[daphenaxa]

i have a few thoughts :

- 1st about backloading obviously it's a huge problem but there is no need to completely remove the 10% bonus. Just say that you need to do 3 jumping passes at least in the 1st half and that's it. I think the 10% bonus was a really nice addition to have balanced programs and some hard elements in the second half before it was abused. But removing it completely will just bring back frontloading which is as unbalanced as backloading.

-spin levels should be only in the SP. Have the SP be the really technical program with the levels to achieve on spins and footwork. Then in the FS let the skaters do the spins and steps they want and judge on GOE just like for the choreo sequence. It would bring back some original spins, some fast cratch spins etc. because it's true everyone is doing the same. If they don't want to remove levels completely at least have one of the spins be a choreo spin, with the other two with levels.

-encourage original combos. Bonuses for combos with the loop as a second jump instead of toeloop or the flip as a 3rd jump in the half-loop combos instead of salchows.

-encourage spinning and jumping in both directions, we could have some exciting jump combos that way!

-have the jump variations count only once each. So if you do a tano on a jump it count as an original variation for that jump and you can't repeat it, you need to have a different variation or just jump normally.

I feel those things could bring back a little bit of originality/personality instead of having everyone do all the same things.

As for the judging, i strongly believe that there should be two judging panels : one for the technical elements and then one for the PCS.

I think merge all TR, CO, INT and PERF into a mark outa 10 because they are all about the choreography and how well it is presented.
Have the SS be another mark outa 10 but on it's own.

Actually announce all those marks and the corresponding ordinals with the judges nationalities just like they used to do in the 6.0 system.

 

[cheerio2]

I don't think backloading is a huge problem or even a problem. Granted, I didn't watch every Olympic performance, but besides Alina, who else did all their jumps in the second half? It's an incredibly difficult and risky thing that most skaters are not even capable of doing. Plus, a 10% bonus on jumps is not that much. Doing jumps on tired legs in the second half will not be worth the loss of GOE for skaters with less than Alina's insane stamina and jumping ability.

 

[eriecold]

I have a suggestion regarding appeals: do the same as gymnastics.
You should be able to appeal an error in your base value, specially given that only one person gives the levels.
They also charge something like $250 in cash for the appeal, which is returned if the error is conceded (this is to discourage people from doing it without a solid argument) and give you very little time to do so, requiring the coach to be super ready with the numbers
That would help a bit with the problem of only one tech specialist giving UR calls and level calls (although it doesn't solve the overforgiving judges with certain skaters).

 

[gkelly]

I have a suggestion regarding appeals: do the same as gymnastics.
You should be able to appeal an error in your base value, specially given that only one person gives the levels.

It is false that only one person gives the levels. Determining levels is a process performed by three people working together.

If the skater/team was trying to achieve three or four different features and only got credit for one or two or three, most likely either they didn't even come close on something so there was an obvious lower call that all agreed with in real time, or there was some question about whether they achieved it and the three-person tech panel already reviewed the element after the program.

However, if, among people who are familiar with how the technical panel calling procedure works including all the specific calling rules, there is a widespread belief that the calls are often too harsh, then there could be a procedure instituted for skaters to pay for an additional review as you suggest.

Maybe in the presence of the skater and coach and/or team leader and also a representative of the ISU,and the presence of all three members of the tech panel (or just the Technical Controller or the Technical Specialist) can point out to them why they didn't award the features, showing the video and the calling rules. Occasionally the panel might agree that they made the wrong call and change the protocol to award the level and the protest fee could be returned. More often, I suspect, the skater would say "Oh, I didn't know about that rule" or "Oh, I counted 2/3/8 revolutions in position but now I do see that it was really only 1.5/2.5/7.5" or "That was supposed to be a counter, but I guess I did change edge going into it so I see why you called it a three turn," or the like; they'd lose their money, but they would learn something.

Most federations already have mechanisms in place to monitor and educate skaters about the rules and guidelines. But that's not the same as feedback from official panel about the specific performance at a specific major event, and the critiques at competitions that offer them don't change the results of those events.

 

[Baron Vladimir]

i have a few thoughts :

- 1st about backloading obviously it's a huge problem but there is no need to completely remove the 10% bonus. Just say that you need to do 3 jumping passes at least in the 1st half and that's it. I think the 10% bonus was a really nice addition to have balanced programs and some hard elements in the second half before it was abused. But removing it completely will just bring back frontloading which is as unbalanced as backloading.

-spin levels should be only in the SP. Have the SP be the really technical program with the levels to achieve on spins and footwork. Then in the FS let the skaters do the spins and steps they want and judge on GOE just like for the choreo sequence. It would bring back some original spins, some fast cratch spins etc. because it's true everyone is doing the same. If they don't want to remove levels completely at least have one of the spins be a choreo spin, with the other two with levels.

-encourage original combos. Bonuses for combos with the loop as a second jump instead of toeloop or the flip as a 3rd jump in the half-loop combos instead of salchows.

-encourage spinning and jumping in both directions, we could have some exciting jump combos that way!

-have the jump variations count only once each. So if you do a tano on a jump it count as an original variation for that jump and you can't repeat it, you need to have a different variation or just jump normally.

I feel those things could bring back a little bit of originality/personality instead of having everyone do all the same things.

As for the judging, i strongly believe that there should be two judging panels : one for the technical elements and then one for the PCS.

I think merge all TR, CO, INT and PERF into a mark outa 10 because they are all about the choreography and how well it is presented.
Have the SS be another mark outa 10 but on it's own.

Actually announce all those marks and the corresponding ordinals with the judges nationalities just like they used to do in the 6.0 system.

I will comment only on things i disagree with (cause i agree with most of them :thumbsup. First, i think the word 'balance' is so overrated here. The only balance which should be important is the one connected with word variety and inclusion. The rest should be skaters and choreos choices. To forbid front loaded or backloaded or any kind of choreo concepts which has nothing to do with required tech elements will just make FS competitions boring to watch. Second, i think its wrong to talk about TR, PE, CO, IN as they are all about the choreo cause they are also connected with the skaters abilities and how skaters skated the programme at one exact time (for example when skaters missed to perform loop jump or sit spin position or enough skating on one leg or not jumping in the middle of the rink - in that case we will see CO mark go lower or not high enough). Neither one of ISU definition of components actually uses choreographs work in it, everything is connected only with skaters work on a competition day. Further more, cluster analyses of PCS shows that connection between PE, CO and IN is not that strong at all comparing with SS at the other side. Sometimes CO is more connected with SS mark than with PE or IN mark. Actually IN, PE or TR mark are the one which made their own individual category most commonly, not SS. So the problem i see with PCS is in their understanding, their names are misleading to the general audience, maybe its better to name them A, B, C, D and E mark, or only A, B, and C mark and define them the way they are (or similar). Or people should be educated better with what those words are connected to in this exact FS world.

 

[Elucidus]

In my opinion, it is ridiculous that a quad attempt is worth more points than a cleanly landed triple.

I can't get Johnny's voice out of my head. "It's better to rotate a quad and fall than to land a triple". Makes zero sense.

The proposed change to +5/-5 GOEs should solve this problem. The base value will be reduced while the GOE will increase from about the current 30/40% depending on the jump to 50%, while the cleanly landed triple could in fact be worth more - the crossover point based on what I saw last year will come at +4 GOE on the new values, this will be very close to what you get for the current +3 GOE i.e. if it makes sense a +5 GOE jump should be worth even more than what you can get now.

I sincerely hope the "better to fall on a quad" does go away. Falling on a quad toe should not get you more points than a cleanly landed triple anything.

I am sure I will be in minority here but.. I don't like it, tbh. While I agree that it seems more logical at the first glance to punish for falls more harshly - one should see more than one step ahead - far consequences and future of one's propositions too. With lowered BV of quads, -5 GOEs for falls, +5 GOE for good triples, removed backloading bonuses being in place - we would remain with two huge problems:
1) technical regress of figure skating. There will be zero motivation for attempting multiple quads in programs, Nathan Chen's Olympic feat will become a thing of a past. It will be era of Rippon, Brown, Chan, Rizzo skating. Old favorites (Chen, Fernandez, Hanyu, Uno, Jin) will be struggling with them on more equal grounds and even they will be compelled to simplify their programs - returning their skating to Plushenko times with two 4T per FP.
2) BV and TES (in other words - the only objective part of the score) - due to reduced values and increased penalties - will become much less relevant. Likewise PCS will become more important and gains more weight. And with increased GOE's range - scoring as a whole will become much more subjective, more dependant on judging bias. Basically it means that figure skating will transform into ice dance discipline with their wholly reputational, stagnant judging.

I don't want to see it.

Also, what do you think about this? https://twitter.com/chiburahakkai/status/970546318241230848 Alas, it seems my fears are becoming reality. ISU is too nearsided to see that old system - while maybe imperfect - encouraged progress. For me ideal changes would be reducing FP time to 4 min and number of jump elements for man by 1 - and that's it. It's strong enough change to help with messy men programs. Maybe reworking PCS system to more transparent one. But do not touch TES - it's good as it is.

 

[daphenaxa]

Second, i think its wrong to talk about TR, PE, CO, IN as they are all about the choreo cause they are also connected with the skaters abilities and how skaters skated the programme at one exact time (for example when skaters missed to perform loop jump or sit spin position or enough skating on one leg or not jumping in the middle of the rink - in that case we will see CO mark go lower or not high enough). Neither one of ISU definition of components actually uses choreographs work in it, everything is connected only with skaters work on a competition day. Further more, cluster analyses of PCS shows that connection between PE, CO and IN is not that strong at all comparing with SS at the other side. Sometimes CO is more connected with SS mark than with PE or IN mark. Actually IN, PE or TR mark are the one which made their own individual category most commonly, not SS. So the problem i see with PCS is in their understanding, their names are misleading to the general audience, maybe its better to name them A, B, C, D and E mark, or only A, B, and C mark and define them the way they are (or similar). Or people should be educated better with what those words are connected to in this exact FS world.

TR are the linking movements in between the tech elements so they are choreographed. Obviously the marks also reward the quality of them and the ability of the skaters to perform them but they are choreographic elements.

CO is the intentional and original arrangement of all movements according to the principals of proportion, unity, space, pattern, structure and phrasing. So basically the choreography.

INT is the personal and creative translation of the music to movements on ice. Abilities to use the tempo and rythms in a variety of ways along with the use of finesse to reflect the nuances of music. So it is your ability to perform your choreography in a way that it is in time with the music and translates the music into a personal physical display that portrays a theme or your emotions. Once again this is linked to choreography and success of delivery of your choreography.

PE is the involvement of the skater physically, emotionally, intellectually as they translate the intent of the music and choreography. It judges the quality of the movements (clarity of movements, body lines ect.) and the precision of the delivery, the variety, contrasts of the movements, the use of the whole body and the projection towards the audience. Once again I think it touches to the actual choreography and how it is presented and projected by the skater to the judges and audience. It also judges the overall delivery of the performance.

So for me those 4 categories could be regrouped in 1. They are already very codependent or mark some of the same things.

Skating skills is different for me because it is more of a technical proficiency. Can you use your rythmic knee to push on your blades and use your edges to create momentum and flow. Are your edges deep, can you vary your speed, can you do the turns or do they look sloppy etc. Is your weight well positioned on your blades to create continued gliding without choppiness. Do you need to involve your upper body and arms or does it come from your blades etc.
I don't see it as a choreographic element but really as a proficiency mark so that's why i thought it should be separate from the other PCS.

First, i think the word 'balance' is so overrated here. The only balance which should be important is the one connected with word variety and inclusion. The rest should be skaters and choreos choices. To forbid front loaded or backloaded or any kind of choreo concepts which has nothing to do with required tech elements will just make FS competitions boring to watch.

The thing is that frontloading and backloading are not choreo concepts.
People who frontloaded didn't do it because of an artistic parti-pris but because they wanted to be done with all their difficult elements at the beginning of their programs when they are less tired.
People who backload now are not doing it to present original choreography or groundbreaking concept, they are doing it to get TES advantage on all their jumps. All those junior girls that start to jump the next second after the midway point are very clearly doing it for the points and not for the art and yes it kinda ruins those programs.
ISU needs to address this as it will become an epidemic just like the tanos and rippons. I do think limiting the backloading with a number of required jumps in the 1st half while still keeping the 10% bonus for the people with the most stamina is the way to go.

 

[daphenaxa]

I am sure I will be in minority here but.. I don't like it, tbh. While I agree that it seems more logical at the first glance to punish for falls more harshly - one should see more than one step ahead - far consequences and future of one's propositions too. With lowered BV of quads, -5 GOEs for falls, +5 GOE for good triples, removed backloading bonuses being in place - we would remain with two huge problems:
1) technical regress of figure skating. There will be zero motivation for attempting multiple quads in programs, Nathan Chen's Olympic feat will become a thing of a past. It will be era of Rippon, Brown, Chan, Rizzo skating. Old favorites (Chen, Fernandez, Hanyu, Uno, Jin) will be struggling with them on more equal grounds and even they will be compelled to simplify their programs - returning their skating to Plushenko times with two 4T per FP.
2) BV and TES (in other words - the only objective part of the score) - due to reduced values and increased penalties - will become much less relevant. Likewise PCS will become more important and gains more weight. And with increased GOE's range - scoring as a whole will become much more subjective, more dependant on judging bias. Basically it means that figure skating will transform into ice dance discipline with their wholly reputational, stagnant judging.

I don't want to see it.

I agree. If the mistakes are more severely punished with the -5 goes i don't think they should lower the BV of the quads. The skaters still need an incentive to do them. All the best skaters in the world have been doing the triples since they are like 13-14. Having them doing clean programs with triples is not challenging to them and frankly it is not exciting for me personally. Punishing the falls more harshly is one thing that i think everyone agrees on, but those changes seem to want to actually kill the tech progresses.
As for the GOEs yeah, they are very often reputational so increasing the scale is basically increasing the power of the panel to do as they please regardless of BV.

 

[Miller]

I am sure I will be in minority here but.. I don't like it, tbh. While I agree that it seems more logical at the first glance to punish for falls more harshly - one should see more than one step ahead - far consequences and future of one's propositions too. With lowered BV of quads, -5 GOEs for falls, +5 GOE for good triples, removed backloading bonuses being in place - we would remain with two huge problems:
1) technical regress of figure skating. There will be zero motivation for attempting multiple quads in programs, Nathan Chen's Olympic feat will become a thing of a past. It will be era of Rippon, Brown, Chan, Rizzo skating. Old favorites (Chen, Fernandez, Hanyu, Uno, Jin) will be struggling with them on more equal grounds and even they will be compelled to simplify their programs - returning their skating to Plushenko times with two 4T per FP.
2) BV and TES (in other words - the only objective part of the score) - due to reduced values and increased penalties - will become much less relevant. Likewise PCS will become more important and gains more weight. And with increased GOE's range - scoring as a whole will become much more subjective, more dependant on judging bias. Basically it means that figure skating will transform into ice dance discipline with their wholly reputational, stagnant judging.

I don't want to see it.

Also, what do you think about this? https://twitter.com/chiburahakkai/status/970546318241230848 Alas, it seems my fears are becoming reality. ISU is too nearsided to see that old system - while maybe imperfect - encouraged progress. For me ideal changes would be reducing FP time to 4 min and number of jump elements for man by 1 - and that's it. It's strong enough change to help with messy men programs. Maybe reworking PCS system to more transparent one. But do not touch TES - it's good as it is.

Falls on quads should be worth about 3 points less than the current system, so I would expect a lot less 'jump and hope' or planned falls than you get now. Also I don't think skaters will attempt quads unless they're sure they're ready. However if they do perform them cleanly then there's no motivation not to do so, a totally clean program will do just as well as now, so unless the GOE requirements are more stringent I doubt it will have that much effect on the men - at a certain point it seems that a quad is just another quad, it's just down to your individual technique and stamina as to whether you can do another one.

However it might well have a big effect on the Ladies. From what I remember Triple Axels will also be affected quite a lot by the proposals, and the Triple Axel Barrier really does seem to be an athletic barrier which is very difficult to cross, and especially when it comes to the landings. Hence there could be even fewer Ladies attempting them than there is now, which would be bad news IMO. However as we saw with Alina, fortune favours the brave when it comes to these sort of things, her 3Lz-3Lo combination opened up a whole new world of being able to repeat Lutzs and Flips rather the ubiquitous Lutz/Flip and Toe Loop. So hopefully 1 or 2 Ladies will still be brave enough to attempt them.

Re the tweet, I hope that some sort of 10% bonus remains in the SP otherwise you'll just get all the jumps done up front - I still remember Scott Hamilton's comment re Sasha Cohen at the 2010 Nationals - "and now the performance starts!"' once she'd done her 3 jumping passes. Mind you it was pretty good, LOL. Also in the LP you don't get some sort of penalty for doing what Alina did, if it fits choreographically with the music when why not? If they're bothered about the 'boring' Step Sequence, then change it, set a time limit, and use the time saved for a much more 'audience friendly' Choreo Seq, that wouldn't be a bad idea IMO.