New ISU rule changes: "Flutzing" addressed

[Zuranthium]

Sarah Meir does lip? I think she has both the jumps.

She does lip. Not to such a degree that it's a distraction, though.

~Z

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

"In obvious cases of starting from the wrong edge the Technical Panel will indicate this error to the Judges who must reduce their GOE accordingly."~Z

I would prefer a deduction in base value but this is at least something. Now when the Tech Panel calls a wrong edge jump, Just what GoEs will be given out. The USA. Russian, Canadian, French, Chinese, and Japanese judges will all give skaters from their respective countries a whopping -1 but will give the other skaters in that contest at least a -2 if not a -3 Now what do you think the Uzbekistan judge will give?

Joe

 

[Zuranthium]

I would prefer a deduction in base value but this is at least something. Now when the Tech Panel calls a wrong edge jump, Just what GoEs will be given out. The USA. Russian, Canadian, French, Chinese, and Japanese judges will all give skaters from their respective countries a whopping -1 but will give the other skaters in that contest at least a -2 if not a -3 Now what do you think the Uzbekistan judge will give?

None of the judges should give the jump any kind of negative GOE at all unless there is something wrong with the landing. That's what the deduction is for.

~Z

 

[mskater93]

None of the judges should give the jump any kind of negative GOE at all unless there is something wrong with the landing. That's what the deduction is for.

~Z

Grade of Execution is for all phases of the jump: take off, air position, and landing. Go read the ISU communication on GOE.

 

[Zuranthium]

:banging: :banging: :banging:

Yes, obviously that's how it is right now. I'm talking about if there was a POINT DEDUCTION in place for Flutzes.

~Z

 

[mskater93]

There is no point deduction in place for a Flutz/Lip and it's not likely to happen, so the ONLY way it can be taken care of is by grade of execution, which is where it SHOULD be taken care of.

 

[Zuranthium]

There is no point deduction in place for a Flutz/Lip and it's not likely to happen

What exactly is stopping it from happening?

so the ONLY way it can be taken care of is by grade of execution, which is where it SHOULD be taken care of.

No, it shouldn't be. If left like that, someone who falls on a Flutz gets the same amount of points as someone who falls on a Lutz.

~Z

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

Can someone tell me what this thread is about? The topic says New ISU rule changes: Flutzing addressed!!!

According to some last comments, the Caller Panel will annonce Wrong Edge and there will be no deductions if the landing is correct. duh. Old stuff. I believe the attention of the judges will decide what to do with an incorrect jump in their GoEs. Any other comments on what will be the results of a flutz by the judges?

Joe

 

[gio]

Any other comments on what will be the results of a flutz by the judges?

Joe

The result will be that the flutzers will receive a -1GOE, not more IMO. Especially some flutzer that has overinflated scores (I'm not talking about Mao) won't be penalyzed that much. We will see.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

The result will be that the flutzers will receive a -1GOE, not more IMO. Especially some flutzer that has overinflated scores (I'm not talking about Mao) won't be penalyzed that much. We will see.

It's worth doing a Flutz and to stop practicing what the definition is.

I think we should stop saying jumps are underrotated. Why not? Definitions do not mean much.

Joe

 

[gkelly]

According to some last comments, the Caller Panel will annonce Wrong Edge and there will be no deductions if the landing is correct.
duh. Old stuff. I believe the attention of the judges will decide what to do with an incorrect jump in their GoEs. Any other comments on what will be the results of a flutz by the judges?

It is incorrect that there will be no deductions if the landing is correct. That was Zuranthium's explanation of how s/he would work things in the Code of Zuranthium, if there were automatic deductions for wrong edge takeoffs. That has nothing to do with the actual ISU judging system.

Judges are supposed to deduct (lower the GOE) for all sorts of errors or weaknesses in a jump, not just errors on the landing. (For example, significant telegraphing, including lack of preceding steps for the short program solo jump, or disorganized air position, which is why a popped jump is likely to get lower GOE than an intentional single or double of the same takeoff.)

Judges have also been instructed to give no higher than -1 GOE for a jump with an incorrect takeoff. But often the jump looks good enough in real time that if judges aren't sure they saw an incorrect takeoff edge they will give the skater the benefit of the doubt and give GOE of 0 or +1 for a clean jump.

The new rule for 07-08 is that if the technical panel sees a clear change of edge on the takeoff, they will inform the judging panel, so there will no doubt to give benefit of and the judges will be required to give negative GOE even if the rest of the jump was good.

 

[feraina]

Judges have also been instructed to give no higher than -1 GOE for a jump with an incorrect takeoff.

My question is what happens if it's a combo and one of the jumps is flagged as having incorrect edge take-off. Is it still a mandatory -1 to -3 GOE, or can the other jump balance out the GOE somehow. I have a feeling that this is how things have been done in the past. Caroline Zhang for instance consistently gets -GOE for her solo lutzes, but usually 0 or slightly positive GOE's for her lutz combos.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

Good post, gkelly. Just this para brings up another question for me:

Judges have also been instructed to give no higher than -1 GOE for a jump with an incorrect takeoff. But often the jump looks good enough in real time that if judges aren't sure they saw an incorrect takeoff edge they will give the skater the benefit of the doubt and give GOE of 0 or +1 for a clean jump

For underrotations on a landing, the Rule and the judges are solid. The deduction is automatic whether the judges are sure they saw an incorrect landing or not. Lambiel in Calgary got the deduction, but most judges gave him +2s and +3s because they and many in the arena did not see an underrotation. It was assumed that Lambiel would have a problem with the 3A which brought the Tech Asst to call it underrotated.

Why can't the sloppy take off for a lutz have an automatic deduction? It would certainly force skaters to put some time into practicing it.

Joe

 

[Mathman]

But often the jump looks good enough in real time that if judges aren't sure they saw an incorrect takeoff edge they will give the skater the benefit of the doubt and give GOE of 0 or +1 for a clean jump....

The new rule for 07-08 is that if the technical panel sees a clear change of edge on the takeoff, they will inform the judging panel...

The assumption throughout the NJS seems to be that the technical specialist is better at seeing these things than the judges are. Same with underrotations. (Rachael Flatt's "underrotated" triple/triple at U.S. Nationals, for instance. The caller saw a flaw that no-one else did, even in slow motion replays.)

Granted, the technical specialists are well-trained experts.

But so are the judges. The judges can look at instant replays just like the tech specialist can. In a questionable case, do you think it would be better for each judge to score what he/she saw, rather than having one person's call overruling the judgment of nine?

Or do you think that the whole "tech specialist" idea was invented for political purposes, to deflect suspicions about crooked judging and conspiracies by national skating federations?

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

Granted, the technical specialists are well-trained experts.[/QOTE]

Are they? Is there eyesight better than the judges who have been doing this for years? and it is a question of eyesight!!! Tech Assts and Judges know the definitions of the elements and they all sit on one side of the arena. Do you think brand new Tech Assts when calling for the first time are never in error? and that they see better than the judges? Cmon, we are all watching the same elements.

I think the establishment of the Tech Assts Panel was a good idea on paper. I don't think now after a few years, that it is any better than just having the judges do their thing. The judges know when a jump is underrotated.

And no! there is no active polititcs going on under the CoP with the changes of judges from the SP to LP except if the shuffling is planned during the interim between the SP skate and the LP skate, but I have not seen that since the CoP started. There could be too many judges of the same ancestral background that could make a problem but I think SLC taught everyone a lesson!
I'm happy with honest judging today. I'm not happy with incompetent judging.

Joe

 

[gkelly]

Granted, the technical specialists are well-trained experts.[/QOTE]

Are they? Is there eyesight better than the judges who have been doing this for years? and it is a question of eyesight!!!

On average, the technical specialists tend to be considerably younger than the judges, so yes, on average their eyesight is probably better.

And they tend to be relatively recent competitors at a fairly high level. Some are also experienced judges -- the technical controllers usually are. But not all judges were ever competitive skaters at all, or not at nearly as high a level as the skaters they're judging, or not as recently. It does help to have done the moves oneself. Many are currently coaching and thus their eyes are attuned to noticing details of technique about *why* a move succeeded or failed that aren't required by the function of judging how well it succeeded or what the errors were.

One national-level judge I know, who does have some reservations about the new system, cited as a strength of the new system the fact that it has mostly recent competitors doing the element identification and said that she would have been much quicker at those kinds of identifications when she was fresh out of competitive skating herself.

Tech Assts and Judges know the definitions of the elements and they all sit on one side of the arena. Do you think brand new Tech Assts when calling for the first time are never in error?

Anyone can make an error, judges and tech specialists are all human and thus not infallible. Being able to name every element accurately in real time, with standardized names and counting the number of features for each element to determine its level is a new skill demanded by the new system that judges had never had to develop for the 6.0 system. So whether the tech specialist functions are being filled by members of the judging ranks or members

I think the establishment of the Tech Assts Panel was a good idea on paper. I don't think now after a few years, that it is any better than just having the judges do their thing. The judges know when a jump is underrotated.

Yes, usually. As mentioned, anyone can make a mistake now and then, but there's a whole panel of judges and the majority will see the correct element each time.

In the old system, judges were marking whole programs and attempting to rank the skaters. If each judge made one error per skater, usually a small one, in identifying elements or identifying details such as underrotation or wrong-edge takeoffs, usually that wouldn't make a major difference in their rankings. In cases where a judge was way out of line with the rest of the panel on one skater, that might be a case where the judge made a mistake, e.g., didn't notice a skating error that everyone else saw or where they saw or noted down an incorrect element.

If the system is adding up points for each element, there needs to be some way to agree on what each element actually was before any bonus points or deductions are added or subtracted, and you want to make darn sure the correct base points are awarded for the correct element. All 8 or 13 or 14 elements. Plus, we still want to have someone (judges) evaluating various aspects of the program as a whole.

Yeah, there are other ways the labor could have been divided other than the system that was adopted. I can certainly think of some that would be a lot less accurate, a lot more political, and/or a lot more time consuming. Because I can't think of any alternative divisions of labor that wouldn't have at least one of those drawbacks, I can see why the current setup was chosen, despite its own drawbacks.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

When "anyone can make a mistake" is quite different when it is included in the scores of the judges. When the Caller makes a mistake it is LAW and can not be changed. It's hard to think the cohorts are always agreeing with him. Nothing really happens in May of that year. Let's be practical.

As for the mistake. Pity the skater but I suppose that's irrelevant.

Joe

 

[vivitt]

uhm...
See this one.
http://kago-ai-chan.net/uploader/img/naver6608.jpg
Sorry.But I cannot see it's LBI edge.
Should I go to the ophthalmology department?

i did not even notice,but you are right.
she does lip.

 

[ykcami]

i did not even notice,but you are right.
she does lip.

Oh, You may have a marvelous ability to distinguish the jumps from a only Photo.

 

[vivitt]

Oh, You may have a marvelous ability to distinguish the jumps from a only Photo.

:yes:that's a lip.