What I am trying to convey is that I think there is too much praise for completing the rotations and not enough for staying upright (with good outflow) on the landing.
Obviously completing the rotations and staying upright with good outflow is the ideal and should earn the most points.
Then there are several ways that the skater can fail to reach the ideal. E.g.,
*fail to complete the rotation (by a small, moderate, or large amount)
*fall on the landing
*step out of the landing
*double three on landing
*break at waist, hand down
*land on two feet and/or on the wrong foot first because of failure to center the weight over the landing side
*remain upright on one foot but without much or any flow or a clear back outside edge
Of course, some really bad attempts may have three of those errors and lose all point value, with negative points for falls on downgraded triples or lower under the current rules.
For attempts that only have one the errors listed above, which is the worst?
Based on the rules and practices under 6.0, severe underrotation, severe two-foot landing, and fall seemed to be considered equally bad.
The early IJS rules skewed that a bit by overpenalizing moderately underrotated jumps even if they achieved a reasonably good flowing edge (albeit on a smaller circle) after the final bit of rotation on the ice. The addition of the fall deduction a year or two later and the more recent 70% base value rule for moderate underrotations have put those two kinds of errors in better balance.
Back 10 or 12 years ago when watching intermediate skaters attempting triples, I quickly invented an abbreviation for a common combination of errors: u2f meaning underrotated, landed on two feet, then fall. Those attempts weren't even close and under 6.0 mindset were worth less than a fall on a fully rotated attempt with a clear running edge before the fall. I think we can all agree that that degree of failure should be worth the least -- even negative points.
The IJS rules attempt to preserve that distinction between multiple errors vs. fall as the only error.
The Mathman rules would erase that distinction. Well, maybe you'd keep downgrades to take care of part of it. But you'd still lose the difference between a jump that lands on an edge with good speed and then falls vs. a jump that never had a landing edge to begin with.
In fact, it seems you would give more reward to a popped or otherwise severely underrotated jump landed at a standstill on two feet than to a fully rotated jump with a running edge and then a fall.
Which means you're rewarding staying upright more than you're rewarding landing on one foot on an edge with good outflow. So you can't really argue that you're promoting landing on edges and flow if you give credit for landing upright without edges and flow.
^ Now see, that's all wrong. That's 6.0 thinking creeping into the equation. In the CoP there should not be any penalties at all, not for falling or anything else. Instead, as in all sports, you get points for what you do, and you don't get points for what you fail to do.
So how many points, if any, would you give for
this not-a-triple-lutz vs.
this not?-a-triple-(f)lip?
How about
this one or
this one?
I might have to go to a different event to find other kinds of errors.
So the question comes down to: if you leap into the air, rotate four times, but fall on the landing, then yes or no, have you done a quad toe?[/QUOTE]
The purpose of the fall deduction -- which also applies to falls not on elements -- is to penalize the break in remaining upright. But there is still room to reward elements with falls for any positive aspects of technique that they demonstrate and to distinguish between attempts with many positive aspects vs. those with few. If there are no positive aspects, then the result will be negative points.
I agree that rotating 4 times is not by itself a skating skill. However, I don't know of anyone who can stand on the floor, jump up, and rotate 4 times. I have seen 3 1/2 from a few male skaters who can do triple axels on the ice. As far as I'm aware 4 rotations is only done in sports performed in media that produce speed and/or extra jump height. To do a quadruple jump on ice requires using the speed and control of the curve going into the jump as well as the ability to convert the large curving rotation of the edge into the tight rotation in the air. A skater who doesn't have both those approach/takeoff-related skills (the first two phases of the jump according to the GOE guidelines) is not going to be able to achieve the multiple rotations that make up the third phase in the air.
Even a skater like Surya Bonaly who brought off-ice rotational skill to the ice needed speed and enough control of on-ice curves to attempt her quads.
So giving positive credit for rotated quads (or harder triples) with falls is giving credit for the skating skills demonstrated in those first two phases of the jump, and for successful completion of the third phase.
Then there's also the question of how badly failed the fourth (landing) phase was, as noted above. Not all failures on phase 4 are falls, and not all falls are equally bad.
Well, for the first comparison Viktor Petrenko's effort at least made me smile. Kurt, beside the fall, had a very obvious lip. How do we know he was even trying for a flip and not a Lutz? The three-turn entrance?
