- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
We have to remember that the scale is for ALL skaters, from beginners on up. Yes, I would expect everyone competing in major Senior ISU events to be "above average or superior."
New ISU rules for the upcoming season
- Thread starter Lunalovesskating
- Start date
We have to remember that the scale is for ALL skaters, from beginners on up. Yes, I would expect everyone competing in major Senior ISU events to be "above average or superior."
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
By the way, since triple and quad Lutzes and flips have the same value, we might as well combine them into one jump -- either edge OK. Then for a jump that is truly different, add in the "wrong way Lutz" (clockwise if you are a counterclockwise jumper.
This would truly be a new skill. I wonder how many skaters could do a double wrong-way Lutz (or a double Walley, for that matter.
Sonja Henie had a dandy clockwise (single) Lutz.
This would truly be a new skill. I wonder how many skaters could do a double wrong-way Lutz (or a double Walley, for that matter.
Sonja Henie had a dandy clockwise (single) Lutz.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
I don't know thus for sure, but I suspect it has to do with how easy a quad Lutz seems to be (everyone and his little sister seems to have one) compared to how hard a quad flip is (only a couple of skaters in the world have even tried one in competition).
Maybe the ISU reasons that skaters just learning to jump find the flip easier than the Lutz, but as they go on to more revolutions, not so much. (?)
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2019
Instead of changing the rules, they should work on a system to make judges and tech panel do their jobs more consistently and efficiently. Adapt technology to reduce subjectivity and doubt, etc... 
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2019
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2016
4Lz, 4F, 4Lo all have the same Base Value of 11.00 now.
Now a skater gets a donwgrad call << which means the Base Value of the triple jump.
4Lz (BV 11.00) 4Lz<< = BV 5.30 (3Lz) skaters loses 5.70 points of the BV
4F (BV 11.00) 4F<< = BV 5.30 (3F) skaters loses 5.70 points of the BV
4Lo (BV 11.00) 4Lo<< = BV 4.90 (3Lo) skaters loses 6.10 points of the BV
On the one hand ISU is telling us that the 3 quad jumps are all of the same difficulty and they give them the same BV.
At the same time if skaters do a mistake and do not fully rotate this quad jumps they get penalized more if they get a downgrade call on the 4Lo???
Where is the logic here??? Why a skater for the same mistake gets a bigger reduction in his score than other skater for the same mistake???
Cant be fair....
Now a skater gets a donwgrad call << which means the Base Value of the triple jump.
4Lz (BV 11.00) 4Lz<< = BV 5.30 (3Lz) skaters loses 5.70 points of the BV
4F (BV 11.00) 4F<< = BV 5.30 (3F) skaters loses 5.70 points of the BV
4Lo (BV 11.00) 4Lo<< = BV 4.90 (3Lo) skaters loses 6.10 points of the BV
On the one hand ISU is telling us that the 3 quad jumps are all of the same difficulty and they give them the same BV.
At the same time if skaters do a mistake and do not fully rotate this quad jumps they get penalized more if they get a downgrade call on the 4Lo???
Where is the logic here??? Why a skater for the same mistake gets a bigger reduction in his score than other skater for the same mistake???
Cant be fair....
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2019
The Tech specialist will take more time checking rotation, but on the other hand take less time checking edges - so this may even out. I still don't know how they can tell between 90 degrees "q" and 89 degrees with this new BS.
It's easy enough if you practice it hard. Lambiel could do some triples both ways and double axels both ways. I can do double loops both ways. Me and a friend used to train 2Lz+1Lz+2Lz rotating both directions in the combo and with practice it was doable.
It won't be as much of a skill if kids are trained from the beginning to jump both ways. In fact, if they are struggling with it or have a bad habit they could move on from it and correct it the other way and get the child a jump without a bad habit from a different rotational direction. I'm all for teaching all singles in both directions at the beginning ensuring that they are solid before moving onto doubles in the chosen / preferred direction.
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2013
First: my stance is and always has been that correct jump technique should be the endgame for rule changes. Therefore, I have always been on the side of punishing UR and <<, and e and !, even more harshly than they already are, because you do not get people learning correct jump technique when there is no incentive for them to fix the bad technique.
The q is an absolute joke. The ISU will be left red-faced the very first time a skater with a sheet full of qs beats a skater with cleanly rotated jumps. You rotate your jumps, or you don't. If you don't - if you land on the quarter, which is underrotated - you suffer the punishment, and it should encourage you to work on fixing your technique. The GOE reduction is only -2 - we could literally see q jumps getting +GOE. (But that'll only be for big country skaters. Little country skaters, I imagine, will be stuck in the negative GOE for q jumps).
The ISU's message to those skaters who have put in the blood, sweat and tears to rotate their jumps properly is: "We don't care about the work you've put in for proper jumps. We won't reward it." Congratulations, ISU.
(And may the poor Data Operators of this season rest in peace. Imagine, at the end of a 30+ group of Basic Novice ladies, when you've been in the rink all day and your tongue is frozen, reading back: 2Lzq-2Tq-2Loq. Not to mention the mess this will surely make of the screen. It's 2p-3p all over again.)
I have the same feeling about the equation of the flip and the lutz. The Lutz is and always has been the much harder jump for a reason. Where is the incentive for skaters to learn a proper Lutz, if they can get the same value from a flip? And don't get me started on the 4Lo-4F-4Lz equivalency; whatever your thoughts on the loop's place in the scale of difficulty, to compare it to a 4Lz is ridiculous. People weren't doing 4Lz because it was easier; they were doing 4Lz because it got the most points. Go big or go home.
And just do not get me started on the "full blade" lunacy. Of all the things the ISU chose to pay attention to in the fandom, that toxic bulldust from one whinging toxic crybaby group of fans is it?! It's not even a proper technical term - it's not even a proper thing - you try taking off a Lutz from the full blade you're going to eat ice quickly and hard. Skaters using the lower part of the toepick and front part of the blade is not, I repeat not, bad technique, and it's not using the full blade.
In summary: WHAT THE BEEP, ISU.
The q is an absolute joke. The ISU will be left red-faced the very first time a skater with a sheet full of qs beats a skater with cleanly rotated jumps. You rotate your jumps, or you don't. If you don't - if you land on the quarter, which is underrotated - you suffer the punishment, and it should encourage you to work on fixing your technique. The GOE reduction is only -2 - we could literally see q jumps getting +GOE. (But that'll only be for big country skaters. Little country skaters, I imagine, will be stuck in the negative GOE for q jumps).
The ISU's message to those skaters who have put in the blood, sweat and tears to rotate their jumps properly is: "We don't care about the work you've put in for proper jumps. We won't reward it." Congratulations, ISU.
(And may the poor Data Operators of this season rest in peace. Imagine, at the end of a 30+ group of Basic Novice ladies, when you've been in the rink all day and your tongue is frozen, reading back: 2Lzq-2Tq-2Loq. Not to mention the mess this will surely make of the screen. It's 2p-3p all over again.)
I have the same feeling about the equation of the flip and the lutz. The Lutz is and always has been the much harder jump for a reason. Where is the incentive for skaters to learn a proper Lutz, if they can get the same value from a flip? And don't get me started on the 4Lo-4F-4Lz equivalency; whatever your thoughts on the loop's place in the scale of difficulty, to compare it to a 4Lz is ridiculous. People weren't doing 4Lz because it was easier; they were doing 4Lz because it got the most points. Go big or go home.
And just do not get me started on the "full blade" lunacy. Of all the things the ISU chose to pay attention to in the fandom, that toxic bulldust from one whinging toxic crybaby group of fans is it?! It's not even a proper technical term - it's not even a proper thing - you try taking off a Lutz from the full blade you're going to eat ice quickly and hard. Skaters using the lower part of the toepick and front part of the blade is not, I repeat not, bad technique, and it's not using the full blade.
In summary: WHAT THE BEEP, ISU.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2019
Before the "q" jumps that landed on the quarter were considered clean though. If missing MORE than a quarter they were under.
Not sure the difference between 89 degrees and 90 degrees though.
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2016
still dont get the "q" sign thing either ... haven't we seen in the past many questionable calls for < and << which describe a range of missing rotation. So a Technical Panel couldn’t figure this out correctly or used different attempts to get this right or wrong ...
Now they make the Technical Panel to call on an exact measure point of landing "on the quarter" ... how is this possible for them to exact say this jump was missing 90° and gets the "q" sign and not only missing 89,99° or it misses 90.1° and will get a < ???
For sure we will wait even longer for the scores as they have now maybe to review all the 13 jumps to get it right if it was on the point of the quarter landed...
If they would maybe use some technology which measures for them exactly such things we would be moving the right way ... but with only the "q" sign how it stands now … it just will add more questionable calls and open up manipulations to play around with on the Technical Panel side and in a further consequence on the GOEs the judge can give…
Now they make the Technical Panel to call on an exact measure point of landing "on the quarter" ... how is this possible for them to exact say this jump was missing 90° and gets the "q" sign and not only missing 89,99° or it misses 90.1° and will get a < ???
For sure we will wait even longer for the scores as they have now maybe to review all the 13 jumps to get it right if it was on the point of the quarter landed...
If they would maybe use some technology which measures for them exactly such things we would be moving the right way ... but with only the "q" sign how it stands now … it just will add more questionable calls and open up manipulations to play around with on the Technical Panel side and in a further consequence on the GOEs the judge can give…
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2019
Just want to mention full blade can't be seen in full speed. Either they need to call it via tech panel where they can slow mo it, or they won't call it at all.
But it does clearly exist when you see with good camera's: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQqVreuD7A0
But it does clearly exist when you see with good camera's: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQqVreuD7A0
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2013
Incorrect - since the start of the 2018-2019 season on the quarter has been UR. Don't you remember Zakrasjek's famous post-SkAm meltdown after the tech panel correctly showered Zhou with carrots?
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2019
sorry confusing myself with older communications.
Still goes back to the argument 89 degrees vs 90 degrees with current technology.
Still annoyed with myself that didn't notice that rule change after 17/18 season.
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2017
As I said before - not the full blade is the biggest problem. The biggest problem is the excessive pre-rotation (which is always related to a full blade, but whatever). Some skaters have 270 degrees pre-rotated flips and lutzes (Like Shcherbakova), they rotate a big part of these jumps on the ice, when these jumps should be completely airborne. Just compare Kolyada's 4 Lz to Shcherbakova's 4 Lz.
Skaters like Yuzuru, Nathan, Boyang, Kolyada, Yuna Kim, Carolina Kostner, Alexia Paganini, Elizaveta Tuktamysheva, Anastasiya Tarakanova, Polina Tsurskaya, Maria Artemieva, Polina Edmunds, Alaine Chartrand, Tomoe Kawabata have textbook technique.
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2017
https://youtu.be/Q7tl_zfGjW4
Amazing lutz by Polina Tsurskaya
Amazing lutz by Polina Tsurskaya
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2018
ISU Vice President revealed in an interview that the new q rule for underrotations was invented because the Russian Federation was unhappy with the strict judging during the Grand Prix last season.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/sportmail.ru/amp/news/figure-skating/41738243/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/sportmail.ru/amp/news/figure-skating/41738243/
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2017
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2018
Wow. I had suspected already that this new “q rule“ would be abused - with only certain skaters getting the q and others losing BV with a real UR call. (Because there‘s no way for technical callers to differentiate between all these criteria with the insufficient camera angles and equipment they‘re being given. They‘re only human)
But that it was quite literally invented to serve one federation and their skaters only? And that they‘d openly admit it, without any shame? Just... wow. Looks like the temper tantrum and the “letter“ to the ISU worked.
Why do I watch this sport again?
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2014
Instead of changing the rules, they should work on a system to make judges and tech panel do their jobs more consistently and efficiently. Adapt technology to reduce subjectivity and doubt, etc...
Um.. do you remember when the ISU decided that USB sticks were too new fangled? That was.. last year or the year before.
Similar threads
