The Underrotated Jumps of Evgenia Medvedeva

[largeman]

In fact, the Tech Panel does have a clear rule regarding pre-rotation of jumps, which includes the specific penalty to be applied to the offending jump element:

Cheated take-off

• A clear forward (backward for Axel type jump) take-off will be considered as a downgraded jump. The toe loop is the most commonly cheated on take-off jump. The TP may only watch the replay in regular speed to determine the cheat and downgrade on the take off (more often in combinations or sequences).

Source: Technical Panel Handbook — Single Skating — 2016/2017 (version as of 24.07.2016) — see pg 15 of 19.
Link: http://static.isu.org/media/1001/tphb-singles-2016-2017.pdf
​

► Interestingly, while the Technical Panel Handbook says that a jump with cheated take-off should be downgraded, it does not assign a unique symbol to be able to differentiate a "cheated take-off" downgrade versus a jump "missing rotation of ½ revolutions or more".

► So, it would seem that both types of downgrade are indicated by the same "<<" notation.

► This means that many of the GS debates regarding controversial "<<" calls — which tend to almost exclusively be discussed/argued in terms of whether the jump was "missing rotation of ½ revolutions or more" — may have focused on entirely the wrong reason for the downgrade!! In some cases, perhaps the reason was due to a "cheated take-off" assessment by the Tech Panel; which is made all the more difficult since the Tech Panel "may only watch the replay in regular speed" to assess pre-rotation penalties!!

As BoP mentioned above, the "cheated take-off" rule and its reference to "a clear forward take-off" deals with the direction of the skating foot at take-off, not the picking foot. A toeloop jump with the skating foot taking off forwards is commonly referred to as a "toe axel," which we don't see from top skaters these days.

What we are focusing on here is the picking foot's excessive spinning on the toe pick before leaving the ice, reducing the amount of actual in-air rotations, making the jump easier and creating an unfair advantage versus a jump that leaves the ice much earlier but is marked UR under the current rules. Unfortunately, the Handbook does not have a rule addressing this issue.

 

[sowcow]

Nah, that rule doesn't come anywhere close to clearly explaining and measuring pre-rotation (and also overall rotation).

► I agree that much more detail should be provided.
► However, I'd argue there is (just) enough there for Tech Panels to be able to make competent calls on pre-rotation (i.e. 180° or more before the skater becomes airborne). Remember, Tech Panels already must determine the angle/direction/trajectory of each jump when assessing whether a landing is "missing rotation of ½ revolutions or more". Any pre-rotation on take-off should similarly be assessed against that same jump angle/direction/trajectory.

Tech panels never give << for cheated take-offs.

► "Never"? Do we really know this to be the case since "both types of downgrade are indicated by the same "<<" notation" ??

That rule was created mainly for toeloops where the skating foot turns to forward on the takeoff

► That might be true, but as currently written, the rule clearly applies to ALL jumps.

...[cheated toe-loop take-offs] which nobody ever does anymore.

► Well, not "nobody"; but certainly it is seen less frequently than in the past.

Pre-rotations are being paid more attention to, but not enough.

► If your claim that "Tech panels never give << for cheated take-offs" is true, then how would you know that"Pre-rotations are being paid more attention to"??
► I do agree with you that much greater attention should be paid to the problem of pre-rotations!

Better rules and training is needed.

► Absolutely concur!

Stop the cheated swingy toepick entrances and stop punishing big jumps, especially when they have very little pre-rotation!!!

► Hear, hear! :agree: I completely agree!

 

[Blades of Passion]

► However, I'd argue there is (just) enough there for Tech Panels to be able to make competent calls on pre-rotation (i.e. 180° or more before the skater becomes airborne). Remember, Tech Panels already must determine the angle/direction/trajectory of each jump when assessing whether a landing is "missing rotation of ½ revolutions or more". Any pre-rotation on take-off should similarly be assessed against that same jump angle/direction/trajectory.

Sorry but this isn't how it goes. Many jumps regularly have 1/2 turn of pre-rotation and it's acceptable technique. The rule in the book doesn't mean anything (except for punishing toe-axels) and is certainly not enforced, otherwise nearly every toeloop and salchow and loop in existence would be downgraded, since these jumps all regularly pre-rotate 1/2 turn (and thus take off forward) as the normal technique.

As for the last sentence you wrote here, yes that is how pre-rotation should be judged, but too often it's not what happens. As we can see with how Shoma's 4F in the Long Program at TCC was called last season, or the jumps of Miyahara and others for a long time now. But the ISU is definitely cracking down on it more this season. The calls are just too hit-and-miss still, largely because the rules are so unclear and looking at the takeoffs and total rotation is not something that is taught to callers.

 

[sowcow]

As BoP mentioned above, the "cheated take-off" rule and its reference to "a clear forward take-off" deals with the direction of the skating foot at take-off, not the picking foot.

► I also understood the Cheated take-off rule ("Rule") to be in reference to the "direction of the skating foot at take-off". But, you raise an interesting issue:

• Where does it state that the Rule doesn't also apply to the "picking foot"??

► In fact, the Rule specifies only that "a clear forward (backward for Axel type jump) take-off" is to be the determining factor/measure as to whether a jump was cheated on take-off (and deserves to be downgraded). So, as written, I'd argue:

• That "take-off" means to become airborne;
• That "clear forward (backward for Axel type jump)" translates to 180°+ from the jump angle/direction/trajectory; and
• Since no reference is made to the either the "skating foot" or "picking foot", that it therefore applies to both.

A toeloop jump with the skating foot taking off forwards is commonly referred to as a "toe axel," which we don't see from top skaters these days.

► I'd concede that it certainly is seen less frequently than in the past (...but, it's still seen on occasion)!

What we are focusing on here is the picking foot's excessive spinning on the toe pick before leaving the ice, reducing the amount of actual in-air rotations, making the jump easier and creating an unfair advantage versus a jump that leaves the ice much earlier but is marked UR under the current rules.

► Understood.

Unfortunately, the Handbook does not have a rule addressing this issue.

► Well, it does IF the Rule applies to both the "direction of the skating foot at take-off" AND the "picking foot". And, since the Rule does not specifically mention either, it therefore must apply to both; and I circle back to the argument above:

__________________________________________
​

► The Cheated take-off rule specifies only that "a clear forward (backward for Axel type jump) take-off" is to be the determining factor/measure as to whether a jump was cheated on take-off (and deserves to be downgraded). So, as written, I'd argue:

• That "take-off" means to become airborne;
• That "clear forward (backward for Axel type jump)" translates to 180°+ from the jump angle/direction/trajectory; and
• Since no reference is made to the either the "skating foot" or "picking foot", that it therefore applies to both.

__________________________________________
​

 

[sowcow]

My responses below assume the following...

​

► The Cheated take-off rule specifies only that "a clear forward (backward for Axel type jump) take-off" is to be the determining factor/measure as to whether a jump was cheated on take-off (and deserves to be downgraded). So, as written, I'd argue:

• That "take-off" means to become airborne;
• That "clear forward (backward for Axel type jump)" translates to 180°+ from the jump angle/direction/trajectory; and
• Since no reference is made to the either the "skating foot" or "picking foot", that it therefore applies to both.

---

Sorry but this isn't how it goes. Many jumps regularly have 1/2 turn of pre-rotation and it's acceptable technique.

► Applying the Cheated take-off rule ("Rule") as written:

• Any take-off with pre-rotation of up to 179° from the jump angle/direction/trajectory is acceptable (...only pre-rotations of 180°+ should be downgraded)

The rule in the book doesn't mean anything (except for punishing toe-axels)

► The Rule as written clearly applies to ALL jumps

...and is certainly not enforced,

► Absolutely agree!

...otherwise nearly every toeloop and salchow and loop in existence would be downgraded,

► Disagree (see my 1st response above re: 179°).

...since these jumps all regularly pre-rotate 1/2 turn (and thus take off forward) as the normal technique.

► Yes, most jumps (especially edge jumps) require pre-rotation.
► However, those with the best (proper) jumping technique rarely approach the 180° mark in terms of pre-rotation (i.e. 'big' jumpers, who are universally admired for their jump speed, height, flow etc.).

As for the last sentence you wrote here, yes that is how pre-rotation should be judged, but too often it's not what happens. As we can see with how Shoma's 4F in the Long Program at TCC was called last season, or the jumps of Miyahara and others for a long time now. But the ISU is definitely cracking down on it more this season.

► No real disagreement with you here; however, please note:

• I was only arguing that the Rule, as it exists, contains (just) enough information/measurement definition to enable Tech Panels to make competent calls on pre-rotation.
• I am NOT suggesting the Rule is being applied consistently!

The calls are just too hit-and-miss still, largely because the rules are so unclear

► [As mentioned above]: I am NOT suggesting the Rule is currently being applied consistently!
► [As mentioned in my previous reply to you]: "I agree that much more detail should be provided"; "However, I'd argue there is (just) enough there for Tech Panels to be able to make competent calls on pre-rotation..."

...and looking at the takeoffs and total rotation is not something that is taught to callers.

► I agree.
► Interestingly, I am also an advocate for the use of a more holistic concept of "total rotation" (a combined measure of pre-rotation + under-rotation) to determine whether a jump deserves to be downgraded.

• In fact, in a post-Olympics video I made on the related topic of the inconsistent application of downgrades, the conclusion drawn is based on an concept of 'total rotation':
  • Not applying 'under-rotated' & 'downgraded' jump deductions (ANALYSIS) | Mao Asada, JPN | Olympics

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

After seeing some of the looooong awkward waits at COC for underrotation, I would dread how long the skaters and audience would have to wait were pre-rotation being scrutinized too. I know it's most important to get it right, but it's also important to keep events timely and moving along.

 

[solani]

After seeing some of the looooong awkward waits at COC for underrotation, I would dread how long the skaters and audience would have to wait were pre-rotation being scrutinized too. I know it's most important to get it right, but it's also important to keep events timely and moving along.

I agree and the audience has to understand what's going on. We've reached a point where not even the commentators really know what's going on, I think that's a major problem.
There are only two options in my opinion (after the next Olympics, changes before the nex Olympics would be unfair imho):
- measure everything, height, distance, rotation, take-off edge, landing. Technical support is necessary. Show it to the audience, TV audience should see it in realtime, audience in the arena should see a summary on a display.
- change the criteria how GOE's are awarded. Example: cleanly landed jump with poor height/distance can't get more than 0 GOE. The audience in the arena will understand very easily that a big jump is well rewarded.

 

[lappo]

I agree and the audience has to understand what's going on. We've reached a point where not even the commentators really know what's going on, I think that's a major problem.
There are only two options in my opinion (after the next Olympics, changes before the nex Olympics would be unfair imho):
- measure everything, height, distance, rotation, take-off edge, landing. Technical support is necessary. Show it to the audience, TV audience should see it in realtime, audience in the arena should see a summary on a display.
- change the criteria how GOE's are awarded. Example: cleanly landed jump with poor height/distance can't get more than 0 GOE. The audience in the arena will understand very easily that a big jump is well rewarded.

I agree with you so much!! Bring in technical stuff and "measure" every jump component, this will be an incentive to teach skaters proper technique. Also, make a clear distinction with combos (it is stupid to think that 3Lo 3Lo is worth like two individual 3Lo, in this way you don't encourage people to try different combinations). Last but not least, entrances and exits to jumps should be valued a fixed number based on their difficulties (of course when properly done).

 

[sowcow]

After seeing some of the looooong awkward waits at COC for underrotation, I would dread how long the skaters and audience would have to wait were pre-rotation being scrutinized too. I know it's most important to get it right, but it's also important to keep events timely and moving along.

I agree, the wait time is often waaaaaay too long (and a good example is the recent CoC as you mention).

The only thing I'd add is that we really have no way to know IF (or how often) pre-rotation is currently being scrutinized — as there's no way to definitively know if a "<<" notation refers to a cheated take-off OR an under-rotated landing (...although, generally it is assumed to be the latter).

In fact, the Tech Panel does have a clear rule regarding pre-rotation of jumps, which includes the specific penalty to be applied to the offending jump element:

Cheated take-off

• A clear forward (backward for Axel type jump) take-off will be considered as a downgraded jump. The toe loop is the most commonly cheated on take-off jump. The TP may only watch the replay in regular speed to determine the cheat and downgrade on the take off (more often in combinations or sequences).

Source: Technical Panel Handbook — Single Skating — 2016/2017 (version as of 24.07.2016) — see pg 15 of 19.
Link: http://static.isu.org/media/1001/tph...-2016-2017.pdf​

► Interestingly, while the Technical Panel Handbook says that a jump with cheated take-off should be downgraded, it does not assign a unique symbol to be able to differentiate a "cheated take-off" downgrade versus a jump "missing rotation of ½ revolutions or more".

► So, it would seem that both types of downgrade are indicated by the same "<<" notation.

► This means that many of the GS debates regarding controversial "<<" calls — which tend to almost exclusively be discussed/argued in terms of whether the jump was "missing rotation of ½ revolutions or more" — may have focused on entirely the wrong reason for the downgrade!! In some cases, perhaps the reason was due to a "cheated take-off" assessment by the Tech Panel; which is made all the more difficult since the Tech Panel "may only watch the replay in regular speed" to assess pre-rotation penalties!!

 

[Ares]

As long as Shoma gets his 4F validated I can't see an issue with Evgenia's 3T's. Pre-rotated jumps won't get called anytime soon. And some of the tv commentators don't have a clue - I watched German Eurosport yesterday and I was a little horrified. They obviously didn't have a clue why any of those jumps that were clearly UR on the landing got called. I can't see them ever have an opinion on pre-rotation and obviously the audience doesn't care if even the commentators don't. It isn't fair, the good jumpers are getting robbed imho. My opinion is that the ISU has to change the criteria for GOE, height and easiness should be valued above anything else.

I am not for downgrading pre-rotated jumps as long as there is no toe-axel technique getting involved or up from 180 prerotation (Miyahara-like technique should be discouraged albeit she seems to have improved little bit but now she starts getting more URs than before) but I'd like if judges were awarding those fuller jumps more and less those with "cheated" take so those would be advantaged and more skaters would aim to learn that technique. More scrutiny on pre-rotation would make competitions even messier though so I don't think there is easy solution here.

 

[Sam-Skwantch]

I don't really see the big deal TBH?

https://youtu.be/d7trtu3Kj6g

I can see why some people saying her technique isn't worthy of +3 GOE. That's reasonable IMO but the combo jump is as a whole deserves some GOE I'd say and I'd rather just see the TP step in occasionally and make these calls which should have little to do with GOE from a judges point of view. I'd even be in favor of a one or two point deduction based on severity but I think lopping two points off of this jump is harsh.

I'd give this combo a +2 (overall) with full BV but wouldn't complain if it lost a pt for excessive PR.

I see a lot of complaining and explaining but no one seems to say what they think the jumps should actually score.

 

[sowcow]

I don't really see the big deal TBH?

https://youtu.be/d7trtu3Kj6g

What software do you use to edit your videos?
I really like (...envy) the smooth transitions to/from slo-mo, and the smooth 'reverse' features you incorporate! :agree:

 

[begin]

I don't really see the big deal TBH?

https://youtu.be/d7trtu3Kj6g

I can see why some people saying her technique isn't worthy of +3 GOE. That's reasonable IMO but the combo jump is as a whole deserves some GOE I'd say and I'd rather just see the TP step in occasionally and make these calls which should have little to do with GOE from a judges point of view. I'd even be in favor of a one or two point deduction based on severity but I think lopping two points off of this jump is harsh.

I'd give this combo a +2 (overall) with full BV but wouldn't complain if it lost a pt for excessive PR.

I see a lot of complaining and explaining but no one seems to say what they think the jumps should actually score.

Wow, great job editing these clips!

Yeah I don't get the fuss about her prerotations (or any prerotations tbh). My only problem with Evgenia's jumps is how stagnate they are. She muscles herself into the air and lands straight down. Very little speed, and any flow she gets comes from the kicking of her free leg.

 

[largeman]

• Where does it state that the Rule doesn't also apply to the "picking foot"??

► In fact, the Rule specifies only that "a clear forward (backward for Axel type jump) take-off" is to be the determining factor/measure as to whether a jump was cheated on take-off (and deserves to be downgraded). So, as written, I'd argue:

• That "take-off" means to become airborne;
• That "clear forward (backward for Axel type jump)" translates to 180°+ from the jump angle/direction/trajectory; and
• Since no reference is made to the either the "skating foot" or "picking foot", that it therefore applies to both.

• I was only arguing that the Rule, as it exists, contains (just) enough information/measurement definition to enable Tech Panels to make competent calls on pre-rotation.
• I am NOT suggesting the Rule is being applied consistently!

I do like your thinking and there's nothing wrong with your read of this rule as it is written

I don't believe the tech panels are enforcing the rule as you interpret it, because I have not seen a << call ever given for an over-180-degree-prerotation (excluding toe axels) yet.

► Interestingly, I am also an advocate for the use of a more holistic concept of "total rotation" (a combined measure of pre-rotation + under-rotation) to determine whether a jump deserves to be downgraded.

So am I. I think measuring total rotation is the way to go. To be honest, I think limiting the allowable prerotation to under 180 degrees may still be too harsh and difficult to implement, since a significant proportion of skaters regularly go over 180 degrees on edge jumps as well as toe jumps (Satoko/Zhenya get singled out because they take it to another level by often going as much as 270 degrees). Focusing on total rotation provides a bit more leeway to the skaters.

Measuring total rotation to determine if a jump receives full BV, and rewarding proper technique by giving appropriate GOEs that reflect takeoff technique, air position, height and distance among other features of the jump will really improve the fairness of scoring compared to what we see now.

 

[Sam-Skwantch]

What software do you use to edit your videos?
I really like (...envy) the smooth transitions to/from slo-mo, and the smooth 'reverse' features you incorporate! :agree:

Sony Vegas 14 I think it's the Studio Edition

 

[skateluvr]

I must assume we have many skating coaches or skaters or judges here because the discussions are so technical that the average skate fan who watches for enjoyment is totally stymied.

Yes it is really nice to see pristine jumps but it is so rare and it seems the sport is obsessed with edge calls and rotations and pre- rotations. And most people don't pour over the scores which change at every event. Some tech callers are strict and some are not. And the judges still have favorites and national bias and home court advantage plays a role in every last competition. So we are not better off under IJS because it killed the audience. I just scrolled through.

I know stick to the general threads but these debates were non existent under 6.0. The audience could easily see the scoring and the bias if it happened was there for all to see. I wish there were a move to vastly simplify the judging. Young people push their bodies. We have had triple axel ladies since the 80s and once one guy pushes a new quad the other top guys start trying.

I marvel at how much time goes into these technical debates and wonder who the posters really are? Not the average fan in the stands. It would be nice if posters disclosed who they were, in terms of skating experience etc. Just curious and impressed at how much some posters know about the most technical aspects of skating and judging. Just wow.

 

[TGee]

I must assume we have many skating coaches or skaters or judges here because the discussions are so technical that the average skate fan who watches for enjoyment is totally stymied.

So we are not better off under IJS because it killed the audience. I just scrolled through.

I know stick to the general threads but these debates were non existent under 6.0. The audience could easily see the scoring and the bias if it happened was there for all to see. I wish there were a move to vastly simplify the judging. Young people push their bodies. We have had triple axel ladies since the 80s and once one guy pushes a new quad the other top guys start trying.

I marvel at how much time goes into these technical debates and wonder who the posters really are? Not the average fan in the stands. It would be nice if posters disclosed who they were, in terms of skating experience etc. Just curious and impressed at how much some posters know about the most technical aspects of skating and judging. Just wow.

Uhm, I'm someone so skated recreationally as a kid and as a student, and my kids are skaters now....

I would not have been willing to support my kids in skating if 6.0 were still in use. It's too costly a sport for that kind of untransparent judging. I'm totally supportive of the concept of IJS and that that Skate Canada uses absolute scoring and not ordinals from the lowest levels up.

Have to absolutely disagree that the scoring was evident in any way in 6.0 or that it made it better for fans in general. And while there seem to be a large proportion of American posters on GS that are nostalgic for 6.0, I find it interesting that I don't hear it much from posters outside the US....

In fact, my entire experience as a fan was utterly ruined by 6.0. I could see that there was rampant inconsistencies and unfairness, but no justification at all for how judges came up with their rankings.

And TV coverage was constantly made toxic by judging controversies right from my earliest childhood memories of watching skating in the 1970s...

For me the Salt Lake City Judging scandal in 2002 was the last straw. I stopped watching skating at all from that point until my kids were in basic skating and wanted to try figure skating. With the new IJS, I was willing to give skating another chance as a fan and as a skating parent.

IJS may be flawed, but I would look to Salt Lake City and the disrespect for skating as a sport that 6.0 established in the public mind, as the reason that the fan base has decreased in some countries, not the loss of 6.0...

I see these technical debates as very important because IJS is such a huge innovation in an approach to a judged sport.

Yes, it's got flaws:

it's complicated....but no more so than say baseball, or American football...

it's provided incentives no one expected or understood,

it's discouraging classic and defining elements like spirals

it's encouraging skaters to do lots of different things, even if they don't do them well, but not consistently penalizing them when they don't meet the basic criteria that defines what that thing/element is. ...flip vs lutz. Triple jump vs double...

So, for my part I really appreciate that fans, including many who have never skated beyond the basics as far as I can tell, are really invested in one of the many global discussions that can in the end only help strengthen IJS.

And even when I'm just following these debates, I find them some of the best things on GS....