Proposed CoP Changes for Singles

[Blades of Passion]

On the deduction for falling

It's funny the OP suggests reducing the penalty for falling to 0.5.. I've often thought the exact opposite, that the fall penalty should be increased at least to -2.
Or, if it is to be argued not to increase this penalty when incurred on a jump, (or on an element in general), as other penalties are applicable there through GOE, there should at least be a separate and more severe penalty than -1 for the "random fall in the corner" type of fall. Because let's face it, a fall at any point for any reason is a pretty major error in this sport, showing a lack of mastery of the blade, and is the most recognizeable and disruptive error to the casual viewer.

I believe the penalty for a fall should be decreased because I increased the -GOE value for jumps.

If a skater two-foots a jump, falls out of the landing awkwardly, and puts both of their hands down on the ice...that really isn't much better than falling. -3 GOE on a jump should be a massive penalty.

To lose a mere point for a fall on "nothing in particular" in the corner of the rink, on a long program scoring 80+ or 100+ or 140+, and when the skater in question might have a lead significantly larger than that on their closest rival after the SP, just does not seem weighty enough, by a longshot. Yes PCS is also supposed to take a hit, but who ever knows how much is really coming off there? There are too many overall factors going into that mark.

We have to at least trust the judges to do something right. If a skater falls while just stroking, there should definitely be a drop in the PCS in addition to the formal .5 deduction.

Although, LOL, sometimes an unexpected fall can actually improve the choreography.

Look at the end of Valentina's program:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qlDr-bv-Ko

Incredibly funny. I think it actually added to the program. It went right with the music and the over-the-top presentation style she was selling!

 

[amateur]

Other little pet peeve:

Elements being judged invalid and receiving zero points, particularly in the LP, which was once the "free program"... I think it is absolutely absurd to give any element completed zero points, for any reason, with the possible exception of blatant Zayak rule violations and the like. If too many combinations are attempted (and since this is generally done purely accidentally), why not just not count the extra jump, as the OP suggests? (presuming Zayak rule is still respected in the first jump)? Or else at most take a point penalty, but not to discount the element entriely and say that if one had done something less difficult or something else completely crappy and ugly instead, you would have gotten more credit. Absurd! We sometimes see spins not counted also... if there is a technical glitch in an othewise finely executed spin, which inadvertantly puts it into the wrong category... why not just take a deduction or 1 or 2 points, like you would do for say an extended lift in ice dance. It is still a move performed which (presumably) added some value to the program, and deserves some grade according to its quality.

my last $.02 for the evening!

 

[Blades of Passion]

Thanks a bunch for your input!

I forgot to list a clause about spins being entirely discounted because of some absurd reason. I definitely hate how skaters have been a victim of this when it comes to their jumps (usually from performing too many combinations), but we've seen a couple cases this season where spins have been given no credit as well.

 

[Ladskater]

Wow! Blades of Passion, you must really have a lot of time on your hands. I am afraid the new judging system leaves me cold. I can't even begin to understand it let alone dissect it as you have here. It took me years as a figure skater to understand the old 6.0 system, so I still think in those terms. So, far be it from me to question the new scoring system - I will leave that to the judges and thank Tracy Wilson for her great coverage on the CBC so I can understand what's happening on the ice as I watch....

 

[amateur]

I believe the penalty for a fall should be decreased because I increased the -GOE value for jumps.

If a skater two-foots a jump, falls out of the landing awkwardly, and puts both of their hands down on the ice...that really isn't much better than falling. -3 GOE on a jump should be a massive penalty.



We have to at least trust the judges to do something right. If a skater falls while just stroking, there should definitely be a drop in the PCS in addition to the formal .5 deduction.

Although, LOL, sometimes an unexpected fall can actually improve the choreography.

Look at the end of Valentina's program:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qlDr-bv-Ko

Incredibly funny. I think it actually added to the program. It went right with the music and the over-the-top presentation style she was selling!

If a fall goes with the music, they should take the mandatory deduction, but not drop PCS

I wouldn't be too adamant on increasing the fall penalty incurred on jumps, as you suggest, since there is already a large loss of points there... but 0.5 off an entire program for the non-element types of falls seems extremely little for such a disruptive thing. Yes it should come off in PCS also, but how much? how to prove how much actually came off? what if it happened early in the program, but then the skater in question went on to deliver a nice piece of choreography that gets the crowd going, or had some reputation brownie-points already with the judges going in because they do generally have good skills. Might their fluke fall be more overlooked than that of someone not as much of a crowd or judge favourite and who did it closer to the end of the program? I'm not sure if PCS should be near-exclusively relied upon for this sort of thing (as it would be with such a miniscule mandatory deduction), and I really don't think the system should be afraid of dishing out a very high penalty for falls, even if it's a double-whammy of mandaory deduction and PCS hit. As things are, we see some rather high scores at times of performances for programs with multiple falls (probably best not to name names in this thread, keeping it fan-neutral...).

anyway, PCS marking, as everyone knows, is another thread unto itself, and a much more dificult one to tackle.

 

[gkelly]

Before CoP existed, there was never a performance - EVER - that had more than one level 4 element in it.

It might depend on which year's level rules were in use and how picky the caller was, but I think both layback and the combination spin here could be called as level 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtKaKS0A_lg

It's simply not needed. But, again, skaters CAN do it if they really want to. I didn't suggest any kind of a deduction for skaters who do extra.

Reiterating what I said above - the "requirement" of one Level 4 element, and one Level 1 element, is just a guideline.

I think there are better ways to achieve the goals of more variety and quality and relation to the music and still reward skaters who can do all that with more difficulty.

I disagree. In many cases the positions skaters get themselves in makes the Spiral look uglier. Especially the change-of-edge that literally everyone does in their Spirals now.

In your opinion.
In general, I think the average quality of spiral positions and edges is better now than before IJS.

Compare, say 10 spiral sequences from 1999-2000 season and 10 from 2009-2010 season. I bet you can find 3 or 4 beautiful ones from each of those years. But for the rest, are the sequences from 10 years ago really more attractive than the others you choose from this year? Or are they just more varied in the ways that they're mediocre?

I am tired of everyone doing the same few features, which is why I'd like to give them more choices of features to do in the short program (and alternatives to doing spiral sequences at all in the LP).

But I don't get mad and consider it ugly every time I see a skater grab her foot or change her edge just adequately. If you do, that's your issue. And if the same skater chose not to do those features,

It also forces the Spiral to use up more time in the program.

That's because of the technical requirement to hold the positions long enough to count. We used to see a lot of up-and-down leg positions that weren't held at all once they reached the peak position, especially from skaters. That meant that viewers didn't have to dwell on mediocre positions. But it also meant that the skaters weren't displaying the technical skill to sustain positions.

I think that by limiting the base value skaters will receive for non-jump elements, there will be more incentive to perform moves that actually interpret the music.

If a skater knows they can do a Level 1 Spiral and not lose any points for leaving out "difficult" (ugly) positions, they will do so. Especially since they probably don't want to be doing them anyway.

If they're allowed one level 4 element, I think a majority of skaters who can grab their blades at all would choose to use the spiral sequence for their level 4 because it's the element where they have the best chance of getting it called. So you'd still see those positions that you consider ugly from those skaters.

Why not make it even easier for them to get levels by giving them the option to do one-foot turn and choctaw features, and two transitions, so that it would be possible to earn level 3 or 4 without positions they have to strain for.

Reducing the length of time each position needs to be held to 2 seconds, as you suggested, would also cut down on the time the total sequences take and give more flexibility in how the sequences fit to the music.

And that would be GREAT! I yearn to see more step sequences which actually fly across the ice, without slowing down to incorporate a hundred turns.

1) Flying across the ice in step sequences (and/or relating to the music) can be accomplished by raising the value of positive GOEs and encouraging the judges to award them regardless of level, which they don't know anyway.

2) If we split apart the steps and turns to two separate features, and add features for one-foot skating, toe steps, small jumps, etc., then it should be very possible for a skater to do a level 2 sequence that flies across the ice.

Right now, if a skater wants to wow by flying across the ice in a step sequence, he needs to concede the possibility of earning any level and just hope for good GOEs, which aren't worth very much, on a level 1 sequence. It isn't worth his while to try.

Change the rules so that a skater can earn level 2 or 3 without the "variety of turns" feature, award features for skills that aren't currently rewarded, and raise the value of the +GOEs, and you'll start seeing more quick fast sequences and more variety of sequences in general without requiring a level 1 element. But you'll still be able to reward skaters who do some difficulty better than those who do none.

Consider:

Skater A can do a series of mohawks and cross steps, all in his good direction, very quickly from one end of the ice to the other. The steps themselves are very simple -- a beginner could do them -- so it makes sense to set the base mark as level 1. The way A performs them, however, is flashy and exciting, showing great speed, quickness, control, and energy, the sequence is timed to a quick section of the music, and it only takes 10 seconds to get from one end of the ice to the other. It's a feat of speed, quickness, and energy that really gets the crowd going. Judges can give +3.

Skater B can do a quick straight-line step sequence that takes 15 seconds to get from one end to the other that uses a lot of different kinds of steps including toe steps, a few different kinds of turns but not enough to meet the variety feature, many quick changes of direction and changes between toes and edges, and some difficult half jumps. He performs it almost as quickly as Skater A's sequence, and with a lot more detail to the musical interpretation. So +2 or +3 GOEs are likely. But the actual technical content of the sequence is much more difficult than Skater A's. Shouldn't he be rewarded with a higher level as well as comparable GOEs?

Skater C can do a whole straight-line or possibly a circular step sequence all on one foot. It includes 5 of the 6 different kinds of one-foot turns, several of them in both directions, as well as edge changes and hops to regain speed, and also an inside axel or walley and a pirouette on the toepicks. Beautiful edge quality and relation to the music, but because of the complexity of the sequence it takes 25-30 seconds. Again, much much more difficult than skater A's sequence, and certainly worthy of +2s. Shouldn't he get more points?

Under today's rules B's and C's sequence would also be level 1 just because it didn't have enough variety of turns (B) or steps (C). So there's currently no incentive to do those kinds of sequences at all. But if you allow them to be called as 3 and make the +GOEs worth more than getting to level 4, then we'd start seeing them. Or if you allow a simpler version of B whose only features are quick changes between toes and edges and quick reversals direction, or a simpler version of C whose only features are reversals of direction and all on one foot to be called as level 2, then you'd see sequences more difficult than A's that can also fly across the ice in 10 seconds.

Doing a flying entrance for these kinds of spins just counts as one of the features to gain levels.

Then why not make that the case for spins in one position as well? Combo spins already have more opportunities to earn more features.

And that would mean that even a simple flying camel for 8+ revs would already be level 2, so there's no need to require a level 1 element if you want to see those simple spins done well.

 

[dorispulaski]

There's a lot of reading to be done there.

Actually, though, I think the pairs COP is in need of as much or more work than the singles.

The final indignity was when quad throws and triple axel throws were given higher deductions if they were done poorly, but unlike singles, the base value was not increased. Talk about discouraging those skaters who can do these tricks!

 

[Blades of Passion]

It might depend on which year's level rules were in use and how picky the caller was, but I think both layback and the combination spin here could be called as level 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtKaKS0A_lg

The layback is level 3, I think. But, again, multiple level 4 elements is fine. The added difficulty will just have to be reflected in the +GOE. If the added move improved the quality of the spin, it should show in the scores.

I think there are better ways to achieve the goals of more variety and quality and relation to the music and still reward skaters who can do all that with more difficulty.

How? Skaters who can do it all with more difficulty would still be rewarded under this system. There just wouldn't be a necessity to try and complicate every single element.

In general, I think the average quality of spiral positions and edges is better now than before IJS.

Compare, say 10 spiral sequences from 1999-2000 season and 10 from 2009-2010 season. I bet you can find 3 or 4 beautiful ones from each of those years. But for the rest, are the sequences from 10 years ago really more attractive than the others you choose from this year? Or are they just more varied in the ways that they're mediocre?

People are focusing more on their Spirals now because the Spirals are worth more. I don't think sequences are necessarily better now, though? They are more difficult but not more visually pleasing. If a skater can't do a good Spiral, I'd rather see them do simple positions and get through it quickly, rather than spending a ton of time holding out positions that don't help with the music.

If they're allowed one level 4 element, I think a majority of skaters who can grab their blades at all would choose to use the spiral sequence for their level 4 because it's the element where they have the best chance of getting it called. So you'd still see those positions that you consider ugly from those skaters.

At least we would be spared from a contorted spin or labored footwork sequence, since they would pick one of those to be Level 1.

1) Flying across the ice in step sequences (and/or relating to the music) can be accomplished by raising the value of positive GOEs and encouraging the judges to award them regardless of level, which they don't know anyway.

Yes, that's why I proposed GOE increase for all elements.

Still, there should be a balance. We don't want skaters to think they need to add as much complexity as possible to every single element, but at the same time we don't want to remove the incentive for it either.

By slightly controlling the points skaters receive in terms of the levels they execute, it should provide the best balance.

And that would mean that even a simple flying camel for 8+ revs would already be level 2, so there's no need to require a level 1 element if you want to see those simple spins done well.

It would still be level 1, unless they include a more difficult entrance. Most people do so, you're right, it would generally be level 2.

I think it is a good thing to highlight level 1 elements, though. It's good for programs to have contrast. Classic Layback spins and Spirals shouldn't be lost from the sport. Nor should level 1 footwork sequences that blaze across the ice and look excellent.

 

[Blades of Passion]

Also, thanks for the sticky post! Although now I wonder if people will even see it. Maybe I shouldn't have suggested it be made stick right away, LOL.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

I don't understand the necessity to decrease the jump values.

If we accept the proviso that the Axel and the Lutz are the king and queen of skating's jumps and the loop; toeloop. and the salchow, flip are their subordinates, then a scientific study would show the amout of difficulty there is between all them. Once the various difficulties are arrived at, a better plan of assigning base values would be in order. As it stands now, is the Axel only .5 of a point more difficult than the lutz? Should it be more or less?

and so on down the list. And how many points between number of air rotations should be assigned would also be of paramount importance.

The minus GoEs and Penalties are useful tools for evaluating individual elements, but the penalties vary and are questionable.

The plus GoEs are more the old 6.0 system in that they are opinions of the judges regardless of the guidlnes provided. Assigned Levels, too, are opinions. I would take these out of the Tech scores because they are not quantifiable and I think the Tech scores should be totally free of opinions. I believe Guidelines can be followed or not - a judge's choice.

I don't want to go into the PC scores. Their Guidelines leave so much to be desired, and the bottom line is that they tend towards choosing which guidelines
will justify their opinion before scoring. We just have to accept this.
____e __________________
Thank you Blades of Passion, for initiating this topic. I think we are all in favor of the CoP, and many of us believe it needs a Review.

 

[kate]

OK, here are my responses to specific points. I'm a skater who has skated under COP and one of my coaches is a technical specialist. I'm going to do another post with my general thoughts.

Also, I haven't really looked at the jump values in depth, so no comments on that.

Jump combinations should be receiving a bonus; a 3A + 3T is harder than a 3A and 3T by themselves.

They already receive a "bonus" because doing combinations allow you to do more jumps. This is the reason there's a cap on the number of a jumping passes in the program.

Is it really much worse when someone falls as compared to someone who double-foots a jump, falls out of the landing, and puts both hands down onto the ice (ie. -3 GOE)?

Yes, it takes significantly more skill to save a jump by two-footing or putting a hand down than splatting.

In a three jump combination, the third jump must be of a different type than the second jump and/or have a different arm position in the air. If this requirement is not met, the bonuses incurred by doing the third jump will be cut in half.

Why? A Triple + 2T + 2Lo is actually the easiest 3 jump combination for most skaters to land, much easier than a 3+2L+2L.

If a jump combination uses a half-loop to connect jumps, the half-loop shall not count as one of the jumps in the combination in terms of determining if the jumping passing should be scored as a two-jump combination or a three-jump combination (and in terms of which combination slot it uses up)

This is already a rule. Single rotation jumps are not jumps under COP.

For all jumps, ONE-HALF turn of pre-rotation and ONE-QUARTER turn of underrotation is allowed before the jump is considered an Underrotated jump.

The problem with this is that there is a big difference between a toe-axel (where the knee faces forward on the takeoff) and a properly executed toeloop (where the toepick still faces forward but the body doesn't). The toepick points forward before takeoff on every jump, but toe-axels and other truly pre-rotated and under-rotated jumps should be penalized. Of course, this is an issue with the existing COP language as well.

If there is no pre-rotation at all (as such is the case for some Lutz and Flip jumps)

See my previous response.

If a skater does not perform a repeat Triple jump in combination, that jump will no longer be additionally penalized. The fact that the skater left out the combination, thereby using up one of their slots for a combination without getting the benefit of it, is enough of a penalty.

This isn't a penalty, because they could use the combination slot on another jump. I would still like to see this penalty reduced though -- I think it's a little ridiculous, especially when it results in the jump being called a fourth combination and thus worth 0 points.

If a skater performs too many jumps in combination, the extra jumps will simply be discounted (in whichever manner best benefits the skater’s score) instead of the entire jumping pass being discounted. There is no reason that a perfectly good jump should be worth 0 points just because a skater accidently added a double toeloop onto the end of it.

This is a great idea.

Similarly, if a skater breaks the Zayak rule and performs the same Triple jump more than twice in their program, the extra Triple(s) shall be downgraded to a Double rather than completely discounted. A Double Axel being performed more than 3 times in a program shall also be downgraded to a Single Axel.

I think this is a great idea, and would love to see a similar idea for "accidental" spin combinations, which then result in the actual spin combination receiving 0 points.

For jump combinations and sequences, judges should take both jumps into consideration. Falling on the second jump does not necessarily mean the combination should automatically receive -3 GOE.

This is already the case. Maybe it's not as applied as it should be, but this is technically how it is taught under the rules.

Scratch Spins* - Currently the rules say that spinning for 8 revolutions in a scratch spin does not count as a feature for an extra level because a spin must be held in the same position for 8 revolutions for it to count. This should be changed. For scratch spins, rotation that is achieved while increasing speed (and while performing other variations that can count for a level increase, such as a difficult arm position or a headless position) should still count towards the 8 revolutions needed.

Honestly, no. This is way too easy, and that's the reason it's not considered a legitimate feature for upright spins. I'd love to see another feature added to upright spins, because right now I think they're a little too hard (in comparison to sits), but this would be a little ridiculous.

Footwork sequences at all levels should have a +1 GOE bonus.

Skaters should have to earn GOE. Why make it automatic?

Additionally, doing a footwork sequence that is ALL toepick work or performed ENTIRELY on one foot should be able to replace the mandatory requirement of using a variety (complexity for Level 4) of different turns and steps.

I'd like to see partial one-foot work be a feature like it is in dance (or at least used to be?), but it would be almost impossible to get any of the other features if you did the entire sequence on one foot, so no one would use it.

A Charlotte position should count for a level when it is performed on the flat of the blade. All other difficult positions must still be performed on an inside or outside edge to receive credit.

Good idea, but add that this position (on a flat) can only be used once.

A 2 second hold is enough to create an impact and display command of the move. Holding longer than that can be reflected in the +GOE values.

Yes on the 2 second hold, but please no on official recommendations to increase GOE for holding longer. It will result in everyone (including those with ugly spirals) holding them for as long as possible. If a beautiful spiral is held for the right length of time, GOE increase is natural.

No mandatory -3 GOE penalty for jump elements that are popped or for when there are no steps/movements preceding the solo Triple of the program.

The purpose of the short is to do the required elements. This would simply turn it into a shorter version of the long program.

Only one level 4 element is allowed and one element MUST be level 1.

GOE rewards difficult spins that are preformed with ease. This is an unnecessary requirement and takes the difficulty out of skating. In addition, it rewards skaters that have trouble with one particular spin -- I can't do anything beyond a level 2 layback without it being exceedingly ugly and getting negative GOE (but have no trouble getting L4 on everything else), so this rule would work really well for me, but that'd be incredibly unfair to others who CAN for all level 4 spins.

If the first three technical elements of a skater’s Short Program are all jumps, they shall be deducted half a point.

This is getting into the territory of way too many rules. PCS should be lower when a program is incredibly unbalanced.

6 jumping passes, 3 spins, and 1 footwork sequence or spiral sequence are required. After that, any two elements may be performed (a total of 3 spiral sequences or footwork sequences is not allowed, however. The skater may choose to perform 2 spiral sequences and 1 footwork sequence, or 2 footwork sequences and 1 spiral sequence).

I love this idea (flexibility) but the problem is time -- jumps take far less time than spins/spirals/footwork, and less energy than everything but footwork, so if points are equal (at the senior level they will probably favor jumps anyway), skaters will add jumps so as to have more rest time.

For male skaters that complete at least one of each Triple jump with an adequate score (greater than the equivalent of -1 GOE, taking not only GOE but also Flutzes/Lips and underrotating into consideration) and have GOE better than -1 on ALL technical elements (and no falls in the performance), a 1 point bonus will be awarded to their score (Quads count as a Triple of the same type).

You want to decrease the penalty for falling (GOE), but you're increasing it here, since anyone who falls once -- even if the rest of their jumps are +2 GOE, cannot get this bonus. I honestly don't see the big deal about falls -- it's part of skating, and if there weren't falls, the same person would win every time.

Jumps executed in the final Quarter of the program shall receive a 20% bonus. The last jump element of a program, if placed in the final Tenth of the program, shall receive a 30% bonus if it includes a Triple (or Quad) jump and a 25% bonus if it does not include a Triple (or Quad) jump.

A) this is way too complicated. Technical specialists already go crazy trying to call levels. B) Many skaters find they have more energy at the very end of their program, since this is when you get a second wind.

Currently, a skater is allowed to do one 3-jump combination and two other 2-jump combinations in the Long Program. This is a bit overkill. We don’t need to see this many jumps in combination. Instead, skaters should be allowed to do one 3-jump combination and one 2-jump combination, or three 2-jump combinations.

This would require a revision of the Zayak rule, or no one would do 3-jump combinations. Heck, no one would do 3-jump combos anyway, because they're actually a lot harder -- you do them to get that extra jump. I'd hate to see them go away. Combos also enable a skater without one triple (say, a triple lutz) to make up points.

 

[gkelly]

The layback is level 3, I think.

Which features did you credit? The one I was unsure about was the sideways position at the beginning -- it happened so fast I'd need slow-motion replay to determine whether it was sufficiently sideways to count or held for at least 3 revolutions. But definitely there was acceleration, difficult variation, and 8+ revs in position.

But, again, multiple level 4 elements is fine. The added difficulty will just have to be reflected in the +GOE. If the added move improved the quality of the spin, it should show in the scores.

How about if difficulty was added but the quality stayed the same?

How? Skaters who can do it all with more difficulty would still be rewarded under this system. There just wouldn't be a necessity to try and complicate every single element.

Not every level 4 element has to look complicated. Especially if we add more features, and types of elements, that reward difficulty of simple moves. The 8 revs in position spin feature that was added a couple years ago is a good step in that direction.

And not every level 1 element will look simple. Especially the ones that were trying to earn a higher level but failed. Or that are designed to fit a piece of music that is best expressed by complicated-looking moves even if the ones chosen are easy so that the skater can perform them well.

I'd rather tweak the features than restrict the skaters further.

I think it is a good thing to highlight level 1 elements, though. It's good for programs to have contrast. Classic Layback spins and Spirals shouldn't be lost from the sport. Nor should level 1 footwork sequences that blaze across the ice and look excellent.

That's largely an aesthetic preference on your part, though. Many fans and judges might agree. But ultimately competitive skating is a sport and I don't like the idea of imposing limits on the technical content just to satisfy that preference.

It's kind of like saying "Beautiful single jumps shouldn't be lost from the sport" and bemoaning the messiness of programs where skaters are trying all the hardest jumps they can ever hope to land even though they rarely manage all in the same program. And then trying to enforce that by ruling that a program must include at least one solo single jump and no more than one "level 4" jump pass (any quad, triple axel, or 3-3 combo). The skaters who can consistently execute multiple quads, 3As, and/or 3-3 combos would not thank you for restricting their jump content just because their competitors are falling over themselves trying to keep up.

I'm all for rewriting the rules to give skaters incentives to include beautiful single jumps, or excellent level 1 elements. But I wouldn't require it.

Also, especially at the lower levels, I think there should be some incentive to do elements with exactly one feature. Right now either zero or one feature earns the same base mark as level 1; to raise the base mark at all requires two features. I think it would be better to recognize the difference between "just meets the definition of the element" and "meets the definition of the element plus one area of added difficulty."

 

[kate]

General thoughts: it's too complicated. We demand a lot of technical specialists. Seriously, trying counting steps in a footwork sequence. Adding on "shades" of how cheated a jump can be and extra bonuses for 10%, 30%, etc. before the end of the program, and limits on levels, and more, is just becoming too much. If anything the system is already too complicated. A lot of skaters don't understand it -- and most coaches need to get trained as technical specialists to feel competent telling their skaters what to do.

Also, there's a major point you've missed, that I mentioned in my first post. Judges already take the whole jump into account when assigned GOE. I'd really like to see this encouraged more, since sometimes it seems to be forgotten that this is what they're supposed to be doing. But technically, if a skater preforms a beautiful 'tano triple lutz which would normally have a +2 GOE and falls, the GOE becomes -1. A fall can't have a non-negative GOE, but other than that the GOE is simply taken off of what it would otherwise have been.

In general, I'm not in favor of removing any difficulty (aka, imposing caps on levels). This is a sport. Though it has an artistic side, it's still a sport and should be treated as such.

Figure skating judges should be able to tell the differentce between a well-porformed element and a very well-performed element without the ISU rule book holding their hands.

Yes, but different judges have differing opinions on what's worse -- say, touching a hand down vs. stepping out? How much should a wrap be penalized? That's why there are standards.

If a skater knows they can do a Level 1 Spiral and not lose any points for leaving out "difficult" (ugly) positions, they will do so. Especially since they probably don't want to be doing them anyway.

Are you thinking about catch-foots? Because I hate to break it to you, but most skaters who aren't great at spirals (re: very flexible) would still do them. They often end up looking better than wimpy traditional spirals.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

General thoughts: it's too complicated. We demand a lot of technical specialists. Seriously, trying counting steps in a footwork sequence. Adding on "shades" of how cheated a jump can be and extra bonuses for 10%, 30%, etc. before the end of the program, and limits on levels, and more, is just becoming too much. If anything the system is already too complicated. A lot of skaters don't understand it -- and most coaches need to get trained as technical specialists to feel competent telling their skaters what to do.

Also, there's a major point you've missed, that I mentioned in my first post. Judges already take the whole jump into account when assigned GOE. I'd really like to see this encouraged more, since sometimes it seems to be forgotten that this is what they're supposed to be doing. But technically, if a skater preforms a beautiful 'tano triple lutz which would normally have a +2 GOE and falls, the GOE becomes -1. A fall can't have a non-negative GOE, but other than that the GOE is simply taken off of what it would otherwise have been.

In general, I'm not in favor of removing any difficulty (aka, imposing caps on levels). This is a sport. Though it has an artistic side, it's still a sport and should be treated as such.



Yes, but different judges have differing opinions on what's worse -- say, touching a hand down vs. stepping out? How much should a wrap be penalized? That's why there are standards.



Are you thinking about catch-foots? Because I hate to break it to you, but most skaters who aren't great at spirals (re: very flexible) would still do them. They often end up looking better fthan wimpy traditional spirals.

I agree that plus GoEs are opinions, so how can they be quantified?

I think spirals are overrated at the Senior level. A senior skater should be able to make a serpentine on the ice, or what is the skater doing in seniors? Pracice some school figures, pobrecita. The spiral sequence, for me, is so boring anyway, I wouldn't miss it if it were taken out of the LP.

Contorted body positions can only be given to skaters who are born that way. -Not particularly pretty unless they are comparable to those in Cirque due Soleil.
I prefer muscle power to lift legs - not hands unless the skater is improvising the CanCan.

Jumps, for me, should be judged by their definition.

The Take-off gives us the Name of the Jump. Failing the proper take-off does not give the jump a name.

Losing the counter rotation makes the air rotations more comfortable and should be penalized severely.

Likewise, the comfort is brought to the landings.

If a skater can not do a proper jump, there are so many points in CoP to make up the difference by eliminating the jump. Nothing to be ashamed of.

 

[Mathman]

Yes, but different judges have differing opinions on what's worse -- say, touching a hand down vs. stepping out? How much should a wrap be penalized?

Is this -- the fact that judges have different opinions on these matters -- a good thing or a bad?

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

oi

Is this -- the fact that judges have different opinions on these matters -- a good thing or a bad?

I believe the CoP was supposed to eliminate opinions and quantify the elements especially in the Tech. Obviously, the PC is opined by a choice guideline.

 

[Mathman]

I believe the CoP was supposed to eliminate opinions...

To me, that is the whole ball of wax right there. No judging system can eliminate opinions. If it could, it wouldn't be judging. So the CoP is doomed before it begins.

 

[kate]

To me, that is the whole ball of wax right there. No judging system can eliminate opinions. If it could, it wouldn't be judging. So the CoP is doomed before it begins.

I don't think anyone ever though COP was going to be able to eliminate opinions completely, though. It was intended to give skaters an idea precisely how they were being evaluated, and to give judges an idea exactly how they should evaluate skaters, to make everything more numerical.

 

[Blades of Passion]

Hurray, responses.

Jump combinations should be receiving a bonus; a 3A + 3T is harder than a 3A and 3T by themselves.

They already receive a "bonus" because doing combinations allow you to do more jumps. This is the reason there's a cap on the number of a jumping passes in the program.

There is a bonus in comparison to doing no 3-3 combination...there isn't a bonus in comparison to doing a less difficult 3-3.

Currently, if one skater does a 3Axel-3Toe, plus a solo 3Toe as another jumping pass, the base value of those two jumping passes is the same as a skater who did a solo 3Axel and a 3Toe-3Toe combination.

A 3Axel-3Toe is more difficult and should be rewarded for it.

We don't see as many 3Axel-3Toe combinations these days because there currently isn't much of an incentive to go for it. Skaters can just do a 3Axel-2Toe combination and put the 3Toe on the end of a less difficult jump.

Yes, it takes significantly more skill to save a jump by two-footing or putting a hand down than splatting.

Not or, both.

If a skater two-foots a jump and falls out of the landing and puts both of their hands down on the ice and loses all speed after falling out of the landing...do you really think that is worth a whole point more than if they had fallen? The negative effect on the jump and the program is pretty much the same.

Why? A Triple + 2T + 2Lo is actually the easiest 3 jump combination for most skaters to land, much easier than a 3+2L+2L.

Adding two double Toeloops or double Loops onto the end of a jump is repetitive and doesn't really show anything different. IMO, a 3-jump combination should display different jumps or display different arm positions in the air if the skater is doing to add the same jump twice in row.

Two regular double toeloops is definitely more annoying than two regular double loops, though. It never looks better (often times worse) then if the skater had simply done one double toeloop.

The problem with this is that there is a big difference between a toe-axel (where the knee faces forward on the takeoff) and a properly executed toeloop (where the toepick still faces forward but the body doesn't).

There should still be wording than penalizes toe-axels, definitely. With a toe-axel it's not just the picking foot that is pre-rotating, it's the skating foot as well.

If a skater does not perform a repeat Triple jump in combination, that jump will no longer be additionally penalized. The fact that the skater left out the combination, thereby using up one of their slots for a combination without getting the benefit of it, is enough of a penalty.

This isn't a penalty, because they could use the combination slot on another jump.

No, they wouldn't be able to use the combination slot on another jump. If a skater does two solo Triples, then they have used up a combination slot. If the skater tries to add an additional combination to the program (that goes past the amount allowed), the extra jump in combination will be discounted.

Honestly, no. This is way too easy, and that's the reason it's not considered a legitimate feature for upright spins. I'd love to see another feature added to upright spins, because right now I think they're a little too hard (in comparison to sits), but this would be a little ridiculous.

Footwork sequences at all levels should have a +1 GOE bonus.

Skaters should have to earn GOE. Why make it automatic?

I don't think you understand my wording. I didn't word that the best and should change it.

The +GOE for footwork sequences of all levels should be +1 for each mark.

I'd like to see partial one-foot work be a feature like it is in dance (or at least used to be?), but it would be almost impossible to get any of the other features if you did the entire sequence on one foot, so no one would use it.

That's why a level 1 element should be "required". Skaters should be able to do add simplistic moves to their programs that interpret the music.

Level 4 elements are not always going to be the best choice for interpreting a certain section of music.

Only one level 4 element is allowed and one element MUST be level 1.

GOE rewards difficult spins that are preformed with ease. This is an unnecessary requirement and takes the difficulty out of skating. In addition, it rewards skaters that have trouble with one particular spin -- I can't do anything beyond a level 2 layback without it being exceedingly ugly and getting negative GOE (but have no trouble getting L4 on everything else), so this rule would work really well for me, but that'd be incredibly unfair to others who CAN for all level 4 spins.

It wouldn't be unfair; skaters wouldn't have to do a level 1 spin. That is simply the base value that at least 1 element will receive. If a skater wants to do more and can make it look good (and, hopefully, do it because it fits the music better) then they should be rewarded for it in the GOE and/or Choreography and/or Interpretation marks (let's not forget that every movement a skater makes, includes jumps and spins, are choreography).

If someone has a better Layback than you, they will score higher for it still.

No skater can do everything perfectly. It simply isn't possible. Nobody is ever going to have the best jumps and the best spins and the best footwork and the best spirals and the best artistry.

Skaters should be doing what they are good at, and try to do the best at elements and movements that are within their capabilities, and we should be judging based upon that.

The current system of everyone feeling like they NEED to get maximum levels on everything hinders the skating and the programs.

If skaters are able to get maximum levels and perform everything well with complexity, they certainly should. They will still get rewarded for it.

But skaters who are bad in a certain area shouldn't be trying to do something they simply can't do.

It would be akin to the 3Axel becoming a required element in the SP for Ladies. Sure, a couple Ladies might be able to do it well...but there's no reason that everyone should try to do the exact same thing.

Everyone has strengths and should play to those strengths. We don't want to see programs with skaters performing the exact same elements, and whoever is most clean wins...we want to see different moves and decide which skater is the best based upon their own unique abilities.


You want to decrease the penalty for falling (GOE), but you're increasing it here, since anyone who falls once -- even if the rest of their jumps are +2 GOE, cannot get this bonus. I honestly don't see the big deal about falls -- it's part of skating, and if there weren't falls, the same person would win every time.

[regarding the proposed bonuses for combinations]

this is way too complicated.

No it's not. The computer would automatically calculate it. It doesn't take a computer any additional time.

[regarding the idea of slightly limiting the amount of combo jumps a skater can do in the LP]

This would require a revision of the Zayak rule, or no one would do 3-jump combinations. Heck, no one would do 3-jump combos anyway, because they're actually a lot harder -- you do them to get that extra jump. I'd hate to see them go away.[/QUOTE]

It wouldn't require a Zayak rule revision. Not sure what you mean here.

People would certainly do them as well. With the way I have written the rules, doing a 3-jump combination gives the skater more of a bonus than 2 two-jump combinations.

In other words (for example):

If skater A does a 3Lutz-3Toeloop-2Loop as one jumping pass and a solo 3Toeloop as another jumping pass, they will receive more points for those jumping passes than a skater who did a 3Lutz-3Toeloop as one jumping pass and a 3Toeloop-2Loop as the other one.Cur

 

[Blades of Passion]

Which features did you credit? The one I was unsure about was the sideways position at the beginning -- it happened so fast I'd need slow-motion replay to determine whether it was sufficiently sideways to count or held for at least 3 revolutions. But definitely there was acceleration, difficult variation, and 8+ revs in position.

I counted the sideways position, I actually just forgot that the acceleration is a level too. So it was level 4.

This is a great example, though.

That Layback was level 4 without a Beillmann position and I would have given it a +3 GOE.

What if someone had done it just as good with Beillmann position?

CoP already limits the levels skaters can achieve in spins.

If someone wanted to, they could do a change-of-foot Combination spin where they change edge and have a difficult variation in every single position. This kind of spin might deserve to be called "level 7" but it would still be called as level 4.

ISU in fact limited doing a change-of-edge in spins so that it can only count once now for a level. (I was really happy about that change...I had been vocal about it for awhile)

There always has to be a balance somewhere and restrictions in place. That's why we have the Zayak rule. Repetition is bad after a certain point, no matter how brilliant the element. It leads to predictability.

My proposition is basically just a kind of Zayak limitation in terms of levels.

It isn't really restrictive though because skaters CAN choose to continue doing whatever levels they please on every element they please.

But, just as the skater who tries to do the "level 7" spins knows that it will only be called as level 4, under my proposed system skaters should also know that not all of their elements will be credited as level 4 even if they do all level 4 elements.

If the added complexity of those elements adds to the program, then they will be rewarded for it in terms of the GOE and certain PCS marks.

If the added complexity doesn't add to the program, then they shouldn't have been doing it in the first place (which is the point of the rule I propose).

That's largely an aesthetic preference on your part, though. Many fans and judges might agree. But ultimately competitive skating is a sport and I don't like the idea of imposing limits on the technical content just to satisfy that preference.

It's kind of like saying "Beautiful single jumps shouldn't be lost from the sport" and bemoaning the messiness of programs where skaters are trying all the hardest jumps they can ever hope to land even though they rarely manage all in the same program. And then trying to enforce that by ruling that a program must include at least one solo single jump and no more than one "level 4" jump pass (any quad, triple axel, or 3-3 combo). The skaters who can consistently execute multiple quads, 3As, and/or 3-3 combos would not thank you for restricting their jump content just because their competitors are falling over themselves trying to keep up.

This isn't a valid comparison, though.

Single jumps are not difficult and they never benefit a program...except for perhaps a delayed single axel that highlights a couple beats of music perfectly.

Level 1 spins, spirals, and footwork that are performed brilliantly (+2, +3 GOE) are difficult, and often unique, however.