New ISU rule changes: "Flutzing" addressed

[Joesitz (RIP)]

The properly executed jumps are not less energy consuming than a properly executed spin (I read lots of comments from the top skaters regarding the energy needed to execute a quad). As we all know, in order to execute a jump, the skater needs to jump high+ rotate in the air + control landing&attain a proper landing position and for a jump combo the process must be repeated immediately. So jump+rotate+land + jump+rotate+land + eventually jump+rotate+ land in case of three jumps combos is less energy consuming than even the most complicated spin?

I agree I overstated the energy consuming jumps. However, my point was that after the completion of a well executed jump, a skater is not as tired for the next element as much as completing a well executed convoluted spin especially if the spin combo has a sitspin included. Completing that spin puts the skater having to gain speed again for the next element (like a Quad) whereas a well executed Quad will not cause fatigue for a great combo spin.

My point is 'the next element' not the present one.

Joe

 

[antmanb]

It was? What's difficult about it? I mean, all positions are difficult, but isn't this the basic thing that we mean when we talk about a sit spin? So then, that is one position (now you've got a level 1), then you stick your arms down like this

http://nymag.com/health/features/regimen060213_1_560.jpg

and now your element is a level two, then you change edge and go in the opposite direction and it's a level 3. Isn't that it?

Is this a "difficult position," or is it just, "This is how to do a sit spin. When I finish with this I'll show you how to do a spiral."

MM i think the pic of the spin Johnny was doing may ultimately have recieved higher levels but to my mind the position hjohnny is in is a good sitpsin and provided the requisite number of revolutions were completed and nothing more was done to the spin then it would have been a level 1. I think teh understanding you write in this post is correct.

Ant

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

I think from the other thread on Levels, that assigning a Level is in the eyes of the Tech Assists. Of course, it is based on some sort of standards which will be adhered to or not. You figure.

Joe

 

[Mathman]

The technical specialist "calls" the level, but I don't think it is right to say that it is whimsical or a matter of opinion. The rules spell out pretty precisely just what you have to do to get a level 2, 3 or 4.

For instance, for a "Spin in one position" (i.e., upright, sit or camel) there are five criteria:

1. One difficult position
2. Second difficult position different from the first one.
3. Backward entrance
4. Spinning on both edges
5. At least 8 revolutions without changes of position/variation and edge.

To get a level 2 you must do 2 of these five things. To get a level 3 you must do three, and you must do four out of five for a level four.

Of course a caller can make a mistake. Still (in intention anyway) it is completely cut and dried. Either you spin on both edges or you don't. Either you do 8 revolutions or you don't. As for what constitutes a "difficult" position, that, too, is specified with quite a bit of care in other parts of the guidelines for tech specialists.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

I understand that.

But difficult is not defined.

A flying camel will give you a back entrance. It would be more difficult if one lands the flying on the forward edge and spin. not easy.

spinning on the same edge on one skate and then the oppoite skate would be more impressive.

8 revolutions as it should be. They do that in ballet despite the friction.

I suppose if the Caller makes a mistake they'll take it up in May. Yeah.

Joe

 

[Mathman]

But difficult is not defined.

I don't agree at all. There are page after page of definitions, discussions and examples throughout the piles of "ISU Communications" on this. In the document under discussion on this thread, there is the following summary (scroll down to page 5 ff):

http://www.isu.org/vsite/vfile/page/fileurl/0,11040,4844-183415-200633-121139-0-file,00.pdf

"Definition: A difficult variation is [by definition] a movement of a body part, leg, arm, hand or head which requires more physical strength or flexibility and that has an affect on the balance of the body core. Only such variations can increase the level."

That's why everyone is doing this. The balance of the body is different than in the regular sit spin position.

There are lots of clarifying emendations. For instance,

"In any spin a clear jump within a spin started and landed on the same foot (at least 2 revolutions before and after the jump) will be considered a difficult variation."

And for a change of foot spin, "Difficult: requires significant strength and skill, e.g. a clear jump over or any form of a "butterfly" from sit to camel position directly into a sit or camel position."

The ISU holds seminars for coaches, judges and technical specialists to make sure that everyone is on the same page as far as what "difficult" means in the specific application of the ISU rules for determining levels. (This might be different from a dictionary defintion for use in ordinary discourse. For instance, it might be "difficult" to spin on your head, but you won't get a level four for doing it in your LP.)

Whatever we like or dislike about the New Judging System, I don't think we can say that the ISU just threw it together willy-nilly without thinking about what the terms mean.

 

[Mathman]

Meissner is all the way down and twisting. She deserves a high GoE.

http://i.a.cnn.net/si/2007/more/03/22/womens.meissner/tx.meissner.jpg

Actually, no, I don't think so, not the way the ISU rules on spins are written. That's the whole point. Kimmie does not deserve a high GOE. What she deserves is a high level.

This is a "difficult variation." Along with other enhancing features, this gets Kimmie a level 4 sit spin (2.4 points instead of 1.2 for a level 1).

But she does not get positive GOEs unless she does this difficult variation exceptionally well.

At Worlds, for instance, sure enough, she got credit for a SSp4 (level four sit spin) with 0.00 GOE.

By the way, Kimmie also did two level four change (of position and foot) combination spins (CCoSp4) in her LP. Under the new 2007-08 rules this will not be allowed. She will have to change one of her spins to a different kind.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

Sorry - I read as though using the difficult word was personal and not according to an official definition.

Is doing a spin one way on one skate and changing to the other skate to repeat that spin covered in the definitions? Not being able to spin the same on two different feet would not get one into a John Curry show. I've seen a few skaters doing this, e.g., Kwan and Klimkin.

Joe

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

so the levels are obvious if the Caller does not make a mistake. But the GoEs remain subjective. Is that correct?

 

[mskater93]

Sorry - I read as though using the difficult word was personal and not according to an official definition.

Is doing a spin one way on one skate and changing to the other skate to repeat that spin covered in the definitions?

Joe

Do you mean a CSSp/CCSp/CuSp? Yes, it's covered

 

[gsrossano]

so the levels are obvious if the Caller does not make a mistake. But the GoEs remain subjective. Is that correct?

If the guidelines are followed the GoEs should be only partially subjective, at least for some errors. The are extensive guidelines for what GoE to give if there is an error. There is little, if any, specific guidance written down for what gets a + GoE.

Despite early claims by the ISU that the TP calls were not subjective, all the muckety mucks now will say that there are grey areas, and subjective calls, and these are considered field of play decisions. A number of these grey areas were discussed at the recent PSA conference. Also, interestingly, there are some errors where the policy is now that reviews for these errors have take place with the replay at normal spead, with no slo-mo allowed.

 

[SeaniBu]

Also, interestingly, there are some errors where the policy is now that reviews for these errors have take place with the replay at normal spead, with no slo-mo allowed.

Wow, interesting, thanks gsrossano for the insider POV. Sounds a bit like what baseball is going thru right now (from what I am "hearing") and other sports in the past.

 

[Mathman]

So the levels are obvious if the Caller does not make a mistake. But the GoEs remain subjective. Is that correct?

Well, I think that is the intention anyway. I am struggling to get a handle on all this, but at least I'm having fun trying.

To tell the truth, I hope they don't succeed in taking the subjective part out altogether (the whole sport versus art thing.) If you look at the actual judges' protocols, I think (I hope) that the judges are still giving out marks for, "oh, isn't that pretty!"

For instance, Sasha got a big whopping +2 GOE on her spiral at the Olys just because, hey, it's the Sasha best-in-the-world spiral! :agree: Alissa Czisny finished only 12th in the free skate at 2007 worlds, but she got very strong GOEs on all of her spin elements (including one +3 on her layback.)

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

If the guidelines are followed the GoEs should be only partially subjective, at least for some errors. The are extensive guidelines for what GoE to give if there is an error. There is little, if any, specific guidance written down for what gets a + GoE.

Veeerrry Interesting. So not everything is perfect as I would read in many of these posts.

Despite early claims by the ISU that the TP calls were not subjective, all the muckety mucks now will say that there are grey areas, and subjective calls, and these are considered field of play decisions. A number of these grey areas were discussed at the recent PSA conference. Also, interestingly, there are some errors where the policy is now that reviews for these errors have take place with the replay at normal spead, with no slo-mo allowed.

Really, more veeery interesting. We don't have to suck up every decision that is made. I'm so glad to read a post that questions rather than accepts everything that is presented. I was never a star student in Sunday School. Too much questioning on my part.

Well, I guess we have rules but I do not have to believe they are gospel.

Joe

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

For instance, Sasha got a big whopping +2 GOE on her spiral at the Olys just because, hey, it's the Sasha best-in-the-world spiral! :agree: Alissa Czisny finished only 12th in the free skate at 2007 worlds, but she got very strong GOEs on all of her spin elements (including one +3 on her layback.)

I know you go by the results as being perfect and as you know I am one of those questioning types. I did see Czisny in Tokyo. She did not do the spins as I had seen in previous competions. If she got strong GoEs, she was held up (by reputation) imo. She could have done better, but I am sure, she was very nervous.

Joe

 

[Mathman]

I know you go by the results as being perfect...

Oh, not at all, Joe. As Joe E. Brown said to Jack Lemon, "nobody's perfect."

But I am interested in trying to understand the protocols and why the judges gave the marks that they did.

As for my own personal opinion, I don't think anyone on this forum is much interested in reading about that, LOL. (Hold the presses! Mathman thinks Joannie Rochette underroted her triple flip at the Eric Bompard Trophee -- like someone gives a hoot what Mathman thinks about Joannie Rochette's flip. )

 

[Mathman]

Despite early claims by the ISU that the TP calls were not subjective, all the muckety mucks now will say that there are grey areas, and subjective calls, and these are considered field of play decisions.

If you think about it, how could it be otherwise?

In baseball, if the pitch is right down the pipe, it's a strike. If it's in the dirt it's a ball. If it just nips the corner -- maybe -- the unpire takes his best shot. Half the audience booes, the other half cheers, the manager comes out and puts on a little show for the TV audience then goes back to the dugout.

It's not that the rules are ambiguous, it's just a close call.

In basketball, two players collide. Half the fans scream defensive block, the other half cry for an offensive charge. The ref makes the call, the players shrug and go on with the game.

Unlike the fans, the players have the maturity to know that sometimes the call goes your way, sometimes it goes against you. You don't see the players rushing to the Internet to moan about being robbed by a bad call. (They leave that to the fans, LOL.)

 

[SeaniBu]

Unlike the fans, the players have the maturity to know that sometimes the call goes your way, sometimes it goes against you. You don't see the players rushing to the Internet to moan about being robbed by a bad call. (They leave that to the fans, LOL.)

Literally on the floor laughing. If I truly understood everything you just said, that is the most "wonderful post" to me at this point in my time at GS. The whole thing said so much about the view of the scoring sys... I am nodding my head:yes: with a "that's it feeling." Maybe I am just getting to know you "peoples" to well

 

[Zuranthium]

Meissner is all the way down and twisting. She deserves a high GoE.

http://i.a.cnn.net/si/2007/more/03/2...x.meissner.jpg

Not the most flattering picture. She doesn't look so happy....

~Z

 

[antmanb]

Sorry - I read as though using the difficult word was personal and not according to an official definition.

Is doing a spin one way on one skate and changing to the other skate to repeat that spin covered in the definitions? Not being able to spin the same on two different feet would not get one into a John Curry show. I've seen a few skaters doing this, e.g., Kwan and Klimkin.

Joe

I'm not good at quoting chapter and verse but i believe that you can spin one way on one foot and the other way on the other foot as a level enhancer in a combination or change foot spin.

Ant