Proposals to ISU Congress 2018-2019 Season

[Sam-Skwantch]

of course it was rejected, every proposal that hint to a transparent judging system was rejected

All they had to do was pass it and it would have been tried out only on the JGP for the 2019-20 season. They could have then decided at the next Congress if it worked or not and gone to the senior GP or dumped it altogether. So unfortunate they didn’t try it out. I want to see these vote results

 

[DaNiCG]

well given the fact that judges are a word I cant mention, they have to change the rules to make it easier for them (didnt Mishin mention this?) I mean, the old people couldnt even used the vote system at the congress, sadly they rule the sport, so skaters and fans needs to keep with their incompetence.

 

[OS]

The more I think about it the more I think the 3T+3T at the half way mark in the SP is going to get very common in ladies. Maybe a few 3S+3Ts here and there. But must ladies can land a 3T pretty safely and reliable as long a you at least get a +2T on the end... it is probably worth not having to risk a lutz or flip or even loop.

One of the characteristic of post Vancouver changes was the depreciation of 3lz values, by raising other triples, including 3t twice as well as the 3Sal and 3loop. That goes in to why we saw team Russia's Sochi strategy to approach their SP with 3t3t with high GOEs, reduces risk and assures stability, and actually beat the 3lz3t SP through high GOEs. Adelina, Liza have all done this... to great success, and then compete on FS based on quantity.

 

[cohen-esque]

Oh i just remembered something. Wasn't ISU suppose to revise the GOE bullet points for repeated Tano/Rippon/Helicopter arms? I distinctively remember the rumour floating around just before Olympics, about ISU is not going to reward that anymore (possibly by Russian Fed to disincentivise other people practicing and gain team Eteri competitive advantage), at least that was what Brian Orser said at the time regarding to Lil'Bet.

So repeated Tano/Rippon/Helicopter arms GOE bonus stays?! How ironic!!!!!

Now that is an Eteri rule.

“Varied position” is no longer a GOE bullet.

“Body position” is a requirement now, so if a skater does a nice ‘tano or Rippon the judges still have room to reward it under that.

(TBH the particular choice of “body position” for this revised bullet makes me feel like they were targeting Kaetlyn Osmond and her scary weird axis jumps just as much as they were Medvedeva.)

 

[OS]

I thought that the GOE bullet points got completely reworked and that arm variation is no longer a category.

I think they removed it from the bullet points going forward. I think it was too hard for other skaters to keep up so they had to stop it. Funny thing is...at my rink in the US like everyone is doing them now. The people who still put on the knifeboots and jump actusllybenjoy doing them

Oh they did? Hope the judges got the memo! One of the drinking game this season will be,

how many helicopter arms I see
how many backloading I see
how many carmens / swanlakes etc etc...
Is that really Sotskova? She is even blander and unrecognisable without the tano/rippon/helicopter arm. (I kid, she just need a game of throne program)
Lil'Bet is really back on Team Eteri, look at her arms!!

 

[chopinskate]

(TBH the particular choice of “body position” for this revised bullet makes me feel like they were targeting Kaetlyn Osmond and her scary weird axis )

At least someone's noting it, instead of just talking about her "ice coverage".

 

[Izabela]

One of the characteristic of post Vancouver changes was the depreciation of 3lz values, by raising other triples, including 3t twice as well as the 3Sal and 3loop. That goes in to why we saw team Russia's Sochi strategy to approach their SP with 3t3t with high GOEs, reduces risk and assures stability, and actually beat the 3lz3t SP through high GOEs. Adelina, Liza have all done this... to great success, and then compete on FS based on quantity.

Not only that. The main problem with overvaluing and undervaluing jumps is the overall devaluation of jump combos. You can have a 4Lz-3T and a 3T in your layout and it will still have the same BV as a 3T-3T and 4Lz, even though it's easily recognizable that the first jump layout is more difficult to execute than the second one, and riskier to lose points in terms of GOEs when not executed well (since in 4Lz-3T, you have to make your Lutz bigger to get better flow out whereas, at least in principle, you don't have to do that in a solo 4Lz). It's still mind blogging for me to see the ISU not recognize that.

 

[Bluediamonds09]

of course it was rejected, every proposal that hint to a transparent judging system was rejected

Yeah, they want to be able to cheat. They want to control the outcome. The judges were probably laughing throughout that silly ISU meeting, knowing full well that they can keep on cheating.

 

[cohen-esque]

Not only that. The main problem with overvaluing and undervaluing jumps is the overall devaluation of jump combos. You can have a 4Lz-3T and a 3T in your layout and it will still have the same BV as a 3T-3T and 4Lz, even though it's easily recognizable that the first jump layout is more difficult to execute than the second one, and riskier to lose points in terms of GOEs when not executed well (since in 4Lz-3T, you have to make your Lutz bigger to get better flow out whereas, at least in principle, you don't have to do that in a solo 4Lz). It's still mind blogging for me to see the ISU not recognize that.

It’s a very simple solution that doesn’t cover everything but I wish the ISU would consider a 1.1 bonus for combinations instead of only adding the values. That way a 4Lz+3T and 3T is worth more than a 3T+3T and 4Lz.

Of course this wouldn’t distinguish between, say, a 3T+3Lo and a 3Lo+3T. So maybe give a different bonus for something like 3T/3S and another for 3Lo/3F as the last jump?

The ISU can’t really be expected to come up with a scale of values for combinations and their own GOE unfortunately... there are something like 160,000 possible combinations once you account for technical calls like “e” “<“ “<<“ and thereotical possibilities like “3T+2S” or “2A+3F” and all of that’s not even including +Lz combinations.

 

[Shayuki]

I hope everyone realizes that if they ban repeating quads, we will never see any quad combos in the FS again.

 

[Izabela]

It’s a very simple solution that doesn’t cover everything but I wish the ISU would consider a 1.1 bonus for combinations instead of only adding the values. That way a 4Lz+3T and 3T is worth more than a 3T+3T and 4Lz.

Of course this wouldn’t distinguish between, say, a 3T+3Lo and a 3Lo+3T. So maybe give a different bonus for something like 3T/3S and another for 3Lo/3F as the last jump?

The ISU can’t really be expected to come up with a scale of values for combinations and their own GOE unfortunately... there are something like 160,000 possible combinations once you account for technical calls like “e” “<“ “<<“ and thereotical possibilities like “3T+2S” or “2A+3F” and all of that’s not even including +Lz combinations.

It doesn't necessarily have to be a BV per every possible combination, but only in terms of what kind of jump is attached. Let say if a lutz is part of a combo but is the connecting jump and not the attached, it can have bonus BV of:

1Lz - 0.25
2Lz - 0.50
3Lz - 0.75
4Lz - 1.00

If it's the attached

1Lz - 0.35
2Lz - 0.70
3Lz - 1.05
4Lz - 1.40

And let say with Toeloops, if it's attached:

1T - 0.1
2T- 0.2
3T - 0.3
4T - 0.4

So if you have a 4Lz-3T, your overall BV bonus is 1.3
Whereas if you did a 3Lz-3T, it will be 1.05

(These numbers are big by the way, I'm just using these numbers as example.)

That way we can also recognize the difficulty within the combo's too. Since, theoretically, a 3T-4Lz is more difficult than a 4Lz-3t. It looks overwhelming in terms of math, but it's not like the tech panel do their maths manually.

Of course, it also doesn't solve < and e calls, but it's a start.

 

[cohen-esque]

^Its a pretty elegant solution except for the tech calls, which was why I discounted it.

But... I guess they could just do something like reduce the bonus by the same percentage. A +3T<< gets the same bonus BV as a +2T. A +3Lo< gets 75% of the bonus for a +3Lo, et cetera.

Still gotta deal with GOE though.

- - - Updated - - -

I hope everyone realizes that if they ban repeating quads, we will never see any quad combos again.

We will if anyone ever wants to do a two-quad short program.

 

[Shayuki]

^Its a pretty elegant solution except for the tech calls, which was why I discounted it.

But... I guess they could just do something like reduce the bonus by the same percentage. A +3T<< gets the same bonus BV as a +2T. A +3Lo< gets 75% of the bonus for a +3Lo, et cetera.

- - - Updated - - -



We will if anyone ever wants to do a two-quad short program.

That's true.... Quad combo's possible in the SP, but won't be happening in the FS. Well, I'll still maintain that it's a terrible idea.

 

[Izabela]

^Its a pretty elegant solution except for the tech calls, which was why I discounted it.

But... I guess they could just do something like reduce the bonus by the same percentage. A +3T<< gets the same bonus BV as a +2T. A +3Lo< gets 75% of the bonus for a +3Lo, et cetera.

There's really no problem with <<, but the < and e is tricky, but I agree they can solve it with percentage devaluation, the way they did right now with the new SOV. But to keep it fair, they should have maintained a flat base SOV for the GOEs. Since it's too much for a skater to be punished both in BV and GOE for <, even when the jump was executed beautifully. The difference should just be in BV, and nothing more.

 

[cohen-esque]

Also, if they reduce the number of jumps to seven, then the rare skater who can try all of (4A)/4Lz/4F/4Lo/4S/4T will need to put one in combination to maximize their points, since there will only be one or two passes left.

A skater who is very good at one kind of quad might prefer to put it in combination over their triples.

But yeah, it will probably reduce the amount of quad combos in the FS.

 

[cohen-esque]

There's really no problem with <<, but the < and e is tricky, but I agree they can solve it with percentage devaluation, the way they did right now with the new SOV. But to keep it fair, they should have maintained a flat base SOV for the GOEs. Since it's too much for a skater to be punished both in BV and GOE for <, even when the jump was executed beautifully. The difference should just be in BV, and nothing more.

I don’t like that < and e are punished twice, and would remove GOE penalties. But I’d still like to see a separate GOE scale: a +5 3Lz<e shouldn’t get the same amount of points in GOE as a +5 3Lz, IMO.

 

[gkelly]

I don’t like that < and e are punished twice, and would remove GOE penalties.

Fair enough.

But I’d still like to see a separate GOE scale: a +5 3Lz<e shouldn’t get the same amount of points in GOE as a +5 3Lz, IMO.

There should never be a +5 3Lz<e because by definition it does not have a "good take-off and landing," which is a mandatory bullet point for +4 or +5.

Is it OK for a +3 3Lz<e to get the same +3 3Lz?

Can you give an example of a 3Lz<e that might deserve +3 under the new GOE guidelines and also with the removal of the GOE penalties? Here is my favorite 3Lze, but 1) it is fully rotated, and 2) I still don't think it would earn more than +2 under these hypothetical rules.

 

[chillgil]

this is OT but it's just funny that when i first got into this sport about a year ago my first few posts on GS were all geared towards defending the judges. In my poor, naive eyes I thought that the rulebook was fairly made and that the judges put their all into making sure the results were fair . . . . . . oh poor, young, child . . . . how wrong you were

 

[cohen-esque]

There should never be a +5 3Lz<e because by definition it does not have a "good take-off and landing," which is a mandatory bullet point for +4 or +5.

I don't agree with this. If the 3Lze< is being evaluated independently, then a judge may very well decide to overlook the "e" as being rather a given, and not affecting how strong the takeoff was otherwise. They may decide to award it if, say, there's not too much pre-rotation on the toepick, or a nice quick snap into rotation, or the takeoff is done competently from a very short setup. A "very good landing" is less likely, due to the "<," but I have seen URed jumps before that were landed with nice flow out and good extension, so it's not impossible. But, others may very well agree with you and never go above a +3.

I would not give a 3Lze credit for "very good takeoff" under the current system. I almost definitely wouldn't give it for "!" either, which is a closer comparison to what I proposed, but some judges might.

Regardless, the point is to make a hypothetical comparison between otherwise solid jumps, so I chose +5% pretty arbitrarily because it instantly implies "good" more than a belief that such a thing could be a common occurrence.

Is it OK for a +3 3Lz<e to get the same +3 3Lz?

Obviously not, since my post is about the GOE *scale.* The increments for a 3Lze< would be of lower point value than for a 3Lz, just as they are in the current proposed SOV.

Can you give an example of a 3Lz<e that might deserve +3 under the new GOE guidelines and also with the removal of the GOE penalties?

No, I cannot. The nicest IJS example that I can think of would probably be this Lutz from Mao, which I think was borderline UR, but probably not +3 worthy.

However, for a 3Lze, I would probably say this deserves a +3. (And this, for a 3Fe, could very well earn at least a +3 as well.) And this is an example of a UR jump (3A<) with very good running edge and extension on the landing.

 

[chopinskate]

(And this, for a 3Fe, could very well earn at least a +3 as well.)

STILL don't see an error there.

But I agree. Errors don't necessary have to mean -GOE or 0 GOE. Make BV deductions as you already are. It's the one good thing with the proposed values!