New ISU rule changes: "Flutzing" addressed
- Thread starter Mathman
- Start date
Shouldn't something as basic as "flutzing", which has been around for YEARS now, have been addressed when they first switched over to CoP, ESPECIALLY considering the amount of minutae this system loves to deal in??? Why are they just NOW getting around to this?? Furthermore, it seems to me that once the judges were allowed to play back certain elements to "properly" assess them, this should have stopped becoming an issue. (Not the fact that it was being done to begin with, but the fact that it wasn't properly evaluated and marked accordingly.). It was one thing when they had to figure out flutz/no flutz from 75 feet away (thus having to give the skater the benefit of the doubt), but once CoP and replay set in, this should have been taken care of.
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2003
They did in the original CoP: there was a mandatory deduction of -1 to -3 GOE just for the incorrect edge, and, in order to have a start value of +1, all four aspects of the jump had to be done properly, which eliminated a positive start value for a flutz or lip, and if properly graded, always resulted in negative GOE.
However, it was up to the judges alone in original CoP, and after the first (or first two?) season(s) of CoP, the ISU changed the rules to be able to assign a positive start value before the incorrect edge deduction was taken off.
For this aspect of jumping, the net effect of the new rule is the same as the original rule, but the technical team can call the flutz or lip, requiring the judges to grade -GOE.
In my opinion, this is something that should be entered into the system by the technical team, and the software should not allow GOE > -1.
Ando's flip is basically lutz. She will reduce 3F to once and add another 3/3 (possibly 3S+3Lo).
Mao was trying to fix flutzing during GP but still to go. I think she will introduce a 3A combo (3A+3T) in FS and replace the solo 3Lz(s) by 3A(s) in both SP and FS. Risks increase of course, if she succeeds two out of three 3A, no one can challenge her (except Ando with a quad and two 3-3s).
Kim will lose incentives to practice 3Lo and continue juniorish three 2A(s) programs. NO technical progress is expected from her. I'm curious how the judges will evaluate her when the other top skaters take new challenges.
Zhang, Nagasu and Wagner are all flutzers doing 3Lz twice in FS. Wagner is the most serious one. It's better to tackle the problem right away.
Cohen will not come back anyway.
Suguri is the most affected skater by no doubt. She may announce retirement in near future.
Mao was trying to fix flutzing during GP but still to go. I think she will introduce a 3A combo (3A+3T) in FS and replace the solo 3Lz(s) by 3A(s) in both SP and FS. Risks increase of course, if she succeeds two out of three 3A, no one can challenge her (except Ando with a quad and two 3-3s).
Kim will lose incentives to practice 3Lo and continue juniorish three 2A(s) programs. NO technical progress is expected from her. I'm curious how the judges will evaluate her when the other top skaters take new challenges.
Zhang, Nagasu and Wagner are all flutzers doing 3Lz twice in FS. Wagner is the most serious one. It's better to tackle the problem right away.
Cohen will not come back anyway.
Suguri is the most affected skater by no doubt. She may announce retirement in near future.
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2004
Do the new rules address COP's war on Sarah Hughes' olympic gold[FONT="][/FONT] underrotation?
I _still_ say that as long as underrotated triples are called as overrotated doubles that the correct way to call extreme flutzing and lipping is as flips and lutzes respectively and let the loss of points through Zayak deductions serve as a motivator.
I _still_ say that as long as underrotated triples are called as overrotated doubles that the correct way to call extreme flutzing and lipping is as flips and lutzes respectively and let the loss of points through Zayak deductions serve as a motivator.
Mao, Zhang, Nagasu, Wagner and other flutzers are young. If they are really motivated, they could relearn the jump and do it properly. It is possible, because Joannie Rochette did it. Same with lippers.
It amazes me that such a jumper as Mao Asada has technique problems with three jumps (lutz, toe loop and salchow). I guess she is working on them. Just give her time.
It amazes me that such a jumper as Mao Asada has technique problems with three jumps (lutz, toe loop and salchow). I guess she is working on them. Just give her time.
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
This then, does not change anything. The flutz is an accepted jump with the base score as that of a lutz. The GoEs will be based on the distance between the back inside preparation edge and the toe-off. The judges have been doing this all along.. So what is new?
I think many of the European skaters who do perfect lutzes are probably annoyed and may have complained through their coaches that.skaters who are unable to execute a proper lutz should be heavily penalized - not just a simple judgement on how bad the flutz was. This gives credence that a flutz is a ligitimate jump,
I think they should just take off a -1 from the total score as they do with a fall.
Joe
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
As far as I can tell the only thing new is that the judgement about whether it was the wrong edge or not has been taken out of the hands of the judges and given to the technical specialist.
Before, sometimes you would see a split in the judging panel, with some judges giving a negative GOE for a flutz and others saying, huh? what flutz?
If it is a borderline case, so the tech specialist doesn't call it, the individual judges can still still take something off in GOE if they don't like the entry.
Pointswise, a triple Lutz is worth 6.0 points. If it is a terrible flutz (i.e., a flip, period), the -3 GOE brings it down to 3.0 (Cf., for instance, a well-done double Axel = 3.5 under the revised rules)
I am not sure what -- if any -- effect this new rule will have on the skaters, but I would hope that at least there will be more consistency in the penalties (however small) for wrong edge take-offs.
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2003
Since a flutz is not a flip, given the difference in body rotation upon entry, I disagree that the Zayak rule should apply. I think a -3 GOE is the appropriate deduction for a severe incorrect edge take off, but another alternative is to say a "flutz" isn't a defined jump and gets no points at all, since it uses the lutz entrance, which is a critical differentiator for the jump, but a flip take-off.
There is only one type of entry that nullifies a jump completely, and that is spelled out for the axel. For all other jumps, there are (in the code at least) deducitons in GOE consquences for doing the jump incorrectly.
There is only one type of entry that nullifies a jump completely, and that is spelled out for the axel. For all other jumps, there are (in the code at least) deducitons in GOE consquences for doing the jump incorrectly.
Last edited:
What are you referring to here?
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
That would work, if and only if, the Tech Spec and his Assts will really put their point across.
As the Tech Spec can say 'underrotated' he could and should say 'wrong edge'.
but how does a judge react to a jump not according to definition?
This flutz thing will never change, and they should make it legitimate with a base score of 2. It is easier than a Flip.
Joe
Why do you say it's easier than a flip? If you hold the inside edge long enough, it is essentially a flip (especially the way it's often done these days from a straight-line entry, rather than on a shallow back outside curve).
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
Feraina - I totally agree with you, but there are fans who want to preserve the Flutz as an attempted Lutz and therefore shoudl be marked down accordingly as a faulty lutz (-1 in GoE). Trouble is there isn't much of a mark down for a jump that wasn't what it should be.
Joe
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
I have a question about this. Can one tell the difference between a Lutz and a flip by examining the tracings on the ice afterward?
For a Lutz, is this right? Let's say you are a counterclockwise jumper entering a Lutz attempt on your left outside back edge. The tracing on the ice should be curving clockwise all the way up until it disappears because you are now in the air (yes?). Then it starts up again several feet away on the landing. (Do you land to the left, right or directly behind the take-off point?)
For a flip, the entry tracing should be counterclockwise, the same direction as the jump is rotated.
For a mild flutz, I suppose there would be a shallow clockwise curve with a little wobbly hook back the other way at the end (?)
IMHO it's that sudden explosion into the air in the opposite direction that makes the Lutz so cool to watch. Compared to the other jumps, where the skater just kind of lifts into the air. I think only men can really do it to full effect, owing to greater upper body strength.
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2007
Who are known for excuting great lutz?
Yes. But the TV replay may not always show a clear tracing of the takeoff (due to the camera's placement, angle, etc.). It's much easier to see edge tracings when you're actually ON the ice (such as when and how school figures were judged in the "old" days). Then again, you have to make sure you're looking at the correct tracing and that the ice isn't too scratched up!
Paul Wylie is the first skater that springs to my mind.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2005
Yes it does if you read the entire 15 pages. The Flutz argument also addresses the flip with an obvious incorrect take off!
