The Underrotated Jumps of Evgenia Medvedeva

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

1) Hardly anyone wants to put the effort into these things, though. It is boring.

2) Think for a moment why a person would want to be friends with someone who openly called their work out as being faulty (or at least potentially did, since they were on the technical panel). It's not hard to see the implication: they find merit in the opinion, whether it be from personal realization that something went wrong or because they already disagreed with the actions of the other 2 people on the panel to begin with.

1) Condescending much? Maybe not everyone is as... um... meticulous as you are when it comes to scrutinizing and describing every footwork edge and every replay frame and pixel, and delving into the painstaking minutia of the sport. Most are here to watch, not dissect.

2) An ISU higher-up entertaining your opinion, who otherwise wouldn't (and there are indeed ISU folks who don't entertain it... #SotnikovaLetter), doesn't make you correct. Just like somebody out of your league actually responding to you on an online dating app doesn't mean they're infatuated with you. We all occasionally swipe right out of curiosity, henny. But, hey, congrats on making a friend in high places who validates (or at least doesn't outright dismiss) your opinion! I'm sure they will be most enthralled by your imminent email diatribe painstakingly outlining all your prerotation protestations -which no doubt you will certainly put a most "unboring" amount of effort into, unlike the rest of us would. :sarcasm:

 

[Blades of Passion]

What are you talking about "condescending"? I myself find it boring. I'm not saying it's bad that pretty much everyone in the world, including those actually involved in figure skating, find it boring. Almost nobody wants to sit there and count every type of turn and step in a sequence. We all want to watch it and enjoy it as dance. This is one of the problems with the footwork rules to begin with - everyone now has to include all of the same types of turns. So not only does it look less interesting to a casual observer, but if you are "in the know" you're also just sitting there and waiting for when the twizzle will come, waiting for when the loop will come, waiting for when the counter will come...it's not as exciting.

and there are indeed ISU folks who don't entertain it... #SotnikovaLetter

But they did respond? And we got the person we wanted elected onto the ISU technical committee. Now to get enough ISU voting bodies on the same page and push through those improvements.

 

[cl2]

It's definitely an important question. What's allowable/acceptable needs to be defined and has to be reasonable.

Why is 180 degrees acceptable? Not being a skater myself, when I started looking into jump mechanics and specifically the topic of pre-rotation, I found these posts quite helpful (posts by Components). In the end, various resources helped me reach the view that 180 degree turn on the ice during takeoff is standard for loop/salchow/toeloop (as BoP described) and is acceptable/normal for lutz/flip.

If we look at the top 20 ladies at 2016 Worlds, all of them took off forwards on their 3Lz/3F, with the lone exception of Alaine Chartrand (who is in the league of Carolina Kostner with her backwards "power takeoff"). Caro/Yuna/Liza/Alaine may be the gold standard but I'm not advocating applying a penalty to anything less than gold standard, but just drawing a reasonable line somewhere.

I understand that. Like I said I have bee on this board for many years. My point was if 180 degrees is ok, Why not 181 degrees? also who are you to say 180 degrees are fine but 190 degrees are not? I am assuming you are a figure skater. I am not.

Thanks largeman for the link to a nice explanation by Components of the jump mechanics.

IIRC, IJS rule explicitly states that half revolution pre-rotation on take-off is acceptable, as is quarter revolution under on landing.

I am pretty sure that when creating the pre-rotation rules, the creators of IJS considered many different skaters whose jumps looked acceptable under 6.0, and analyzed their jump techniques, before deciding on the corresponding IJS rule.

So, this business about half turn pre-rotation is not a fan creation. (OTOH, the idea of summing up the total airtime revolution is a fan creation.)

 

[Daniel1998]

I am the farthest thing from a technical expert, and frankly I can't even deduce what prerotation even means.
If it means turning your body before your blade has completely left the ice, I see about half a revolution of prerotation on backend toeloops from at least half the ladies in slow motion, including Liza whose jumps are said to be spectacular.

I don't really know how you would justify a claim that a skater has prerotated more than half a revolution- to me, anyway, the line is very blurry and subjective, unlike the obvious detection of underrotations related to landings, which the tech panel STILL gets wrong on occasion. I can only see the implementation of this prerotation business fuelling even more talk about judges and their biases, considering how subjective this seems to me.

I consider myself more than a casual fan of figure skating, and I can't even figure this out. Imagine how confusing it would be for casual fans who can barely detect landing underrotations (or not at all) to think they saw a great performance and see a low score for a reason they can't comprehend.

 

[gotoschool]

I am the farthest thing from a technical expert, and frankly I can't even deduce what prerotation even means.
If it means turning your body before your blade has completely left the ice, I see about half a revolution of prerotation on backend toeloops from at least half the ladies in slow motion, including Liza whose jumps are said to be spectacular.

I don't really know how you would justify a claim that a skater has prerotated more than half a revolution- to me, anyway, the line is very blurry and subjective, unlike the obvious detection of underrotations related to landings, which the tech panel STILL gets wrong on occasion. I can only see the implementation of this prerotation business fuelling even more talk about judges and their biases, considering how subjective this seems to me.

I consider myself more than a casual fan of figure skating, and I can't even figure this out. Imagine how confusing it would be for casual fans who can barely detect landing underrotations (or not at all) to think they saw a great performance and see a low score for a reason they can't comprehend.

In my view, the very concept of under-rotation necessitates a starting point for the measurement of that rotation, otherwise the terms make no sense like calculating the length of a day based only upon where the sun sets. Will it be sunset for an Arctic day in winter or summer, or is it based on twilight at the equator? And I don't understand how figuring out the take off point is any more difficult than the landing position. If instant replay is used to scrutinize under a fine tooth comb the landing position for those carefully selected for close inspection, then in the name of accurately measuring the actual rotation that is punished so severely with decreased base value and negative GOE, the take off point should be, unless the goal is to give an obvious benefit to those who pre-rotate more than 180 degrees, which can be seen easily in slow motion replay. As other posters have mentioned, besides the fact that only measuring the landing is erroneous under the laws of physics, the curling of the tip of the skate with over 180- 270 degrees of rotation results in less sudden vaulting into the air and decreases the height, distance and rotation of the jump which makes the jump less risky, falling more difficult; and in my opinion and those I have showed such jumps to, such jumps are less athletic and aesthetically pleasing because of the missing height, distance and sudden propulsion into the air characteristic of less pre-rotation.

I have also noticed that there is sometimes deep bending of the knees and back accompanied with a curling of the skate blade on landing that helps disguise the lack of rotation which accompanies well over 180 degrees of pre-rotation. Beyond not being picked up by the tech crew, it often results in relatively high GOE, even though landing with an erect back and straight legs is far more aesthetically pleasing and, thus, should lead to a lot higher GOE. I consider erect posture to be a very worthy sacrifice for the beauty of a program even though it is riskier since rotation seems to be slightly less, the skater isn't able to absorb as much impact from the landing, which results in shakes and hooks in the blade being more obvious, and because it is easier to fall since the skater isn't as braced for the impact of landing. Furthermore, erect posture through a series of combos creates less opportunity for spring in the jumps because of the lack of deep knee bends.

So, a skater having 180 degrees of rotation or less on a jump coupled with erect posture and keeping the legs straight on landing carries a high risk of ur calls erroneously based strictly on the landing position and "undisguised" shakes or wobbles in the boot, especially if the skater is mature, and thus weighs a bit more, but it greatly enhances the aesthetic appeal of a program, which I feel makes the sacrifice well worthwhile under a system that is currently bewildering and contradictory to me.

 

[jenaj]

In my view, the very concept of under-rotation necessitates a starting point for the measurement of that rotation otherwise the terms make no sense like calculating the length of a day based upon where the sun sets. Will it be sunset for an arctic day in winter or summer or twilight at the equator? And I don't understand how figuring out the take off point is any more difficult than the landing point? If instant replay is used to scrutinize under a fine tooth comb the landing position then in the name of accurately measuring the actual rotation that is punished so severely with decreased base value and negative GOE the take off point should be unless the goal is to give an obvious benefit to those who pre-rotate more than 180 degrees which can be seen easily in slow motion replay. As other posters have mentioned beside the fact that only measuring the landing is erroneous under the laws of physics, the curling of the tip of the skate on pre-rotation of over 180- 270 degrees or more allows there to be less sudden vaulting into the air and decreases the height, distance and rotation of the jump which makes the jump less risky, falling more difficult, and in my opinion and those I have showed such jumps to less aesthetically pleasing because they can sense that something is missing in the jump without the sudden spring into the air characteristic of less pre-rotation.

To address the other point--that most viewers can't detect URs, let alone PRs and see a great performance that gets a low score--I think if judges are going to scrutinize jumps to the exact degree of pre and under rotation, more weight has to be given to the second mark. Skating still has an artistic/performance component. If it didn't, skaters would just do the technical elements without music or special costumes. Right now, the performance/artistic aspect is under-valued, in my opinion. Nearly half of the PCS is actually technical--skating skills and transitions. There is no mark for artistry or presentation. I think transitions, meaning in-between artistic elements, not the same steps into jumps that are judged as part of GOE, should be judged as part of choreography, not a separate mark. Performance/execution/interpretation should be one mark--call it presentation or artistic impression or just performance or whatever--the mark would judge the overall artistic impression of the program. And get rid of the .8/1.6 PCS factors for the ladies.

 

[topaz emerald]

Doesn't matter how much rules change as long as you have existing corrupt members. Sochi scandal is a good example. The pic with sotnikova hugging that judge is as clear as day. Yuna kims laugh after her scores were announced was gold. You can tell she was done with competition after this.

 

[skatelikewind1966]

I had the opportunity to attend a FS seminar years ago with many senior ISU reps and the discussion was quite interesting. There were differences of opinion as to how a spin was scored based upon the interpretation of when the "actual spin" started versus the actual "set-up" of the spin and how this "interpretation" by the judges led to +/- GOE.

The discussion then progressed to jumps and this was even more interesting. It was very technical but again slightly different opinions between country members as to what a "clean" jump is (toe pick, rotation, body, etc) and what warrants a +/- GOE. Afterwards, I talked to a high level competitor who thought the system needed improvement (I think this is a unanimous thought) to eliminate the subjectivity that is clearly destroying the sport. I don't know if it is corruption but it certainly needs to be fixed because having 9 arbitrary individuals looking and judging the same thing yet giving significantly different points does not make sense, i.e., scoring a 7.75 for SS from one judge and a 5.75 from another or +2GOE on a jump from one and a 0GOE from another.

 

[temadd]

I am the farthest thing from a technical expert, and frankly I can't even deduce what prerotation even means.
If it means turning your body before your blade has completely left the ice, I see about half a revolution of prerotation on backend toeloops from at least half the ladies in slow motion, including Liza whose jumps are said to be spectacular.

I don't really know how you would justify a claim that a skater has prerotated more than half a revolution- to me, anyway, the line is very blurry and subjective, unlike the obvious detection of underrotations related to landings, which the tech panel STILL gets wrong on occasion. I can only see the implementation of this prerotation business fuelling even more talk about judges and their biases, considering how subjective this seems to me.

I consider myself more than a casual fan of figure skating, and I can't even figure this out. Imagine how confusing it would be for casual fans who can barely detect landing underrotations (or not at all) to think they saw a great performance and see a low score for a reason they can't comprehend.

Pre-rotation and under-rotation refer to the the skater's blade on the ice. 1/2 rotation (of one circle) of the blade on the ice is permissible on take off. Skater is permitted to do 1/4 (of one circle) rotation of blade on the ice upon landing. This is quite visible in slow motion and often at full speed. So essentially, for a triple jump, a skater could get full credit for a jump that only completes 2 1/4 rotations in the air.

If you watch Tara and Johnny in the US they often talk about the skater needing to complete the rotations "before the blade hits the ice." This is a pretty good explanation that I think is helpful and clear for viewers.

 

[TGee]

I had the opportunity to attend a FS seminar years ago with many senior ISU reps and the discussion was quite interesting. There were differences of opinion as to how a spin was scored based upon the interpretation of when the "actual spin" started versus the actual "set-up" of the spin and how this "interpretation" by the judges led to +/- GOE.

The discussion then progressed to jumps and this was even more interesting. It was very technical but again slightly different opinions between country members as to what a "clean" jump is (toe pick, rotation, body, etc) and what warrants a +/- GOE. Afterwards, I talked to a high level competitor who thought the system needed improvement (I think this is a unanimous thought) to eliminate the subjectivity that is clearly destroying the sport. I don't know if it is corruption but it certainly needs to be fixed because having 9 arbitrary individuals looking and judging the same thing yet giving significantly different points does not make sense, i.e., scoring a 7.75 for SS from one judge and a 5.75 from another or +2GOE on a jump from one and a 0GOE from another.

Super thanks for this input into the discussion!!! :2thumbs:

I think that there are a number of us on GS that have a sense from reading enough protocols that there is a problem..

Many of us believe that the ISU hasn't been successful in establishing a clear consensus on how to judge these jumps and spins.

There will always be some subjectivity, but when there is no common standard that the subjective judgement is being applied against, the outcomes will be all over the place.

And I agree that it can both lead to suspicion and could create the opportunity for unethical behaviour.

For judging to not only be well done but appear to be fair, it seems that he ISU and he federation need to invest the time and resources in the technical meetings that are needed to get to consensus, refine the rules and educate the judges.

Here's a thought.....

The ISU's focus for its upcoming conference is marketing and social media. Perhaps those of us using social media as fans should let them know that resolving he murkiness in the judging system would be a key way to improve the reputation of figure skating across social media...

 

[temadd]

Here's a thought.....

The ISU's focus for its upcoming conference is marketing and social media. Perhaps those of us using social media as fans should let them know that resolving he murkiness in the judging system would be a key way to improve the reputation of figure skating across social media...

Great idea. And taking it further maybe the ISU should throw in tweets and posts that say did you know that?. . . rules allow . . . . skaters must do xyz to get points

If ISU members in charge of social media perused golden skate forums and similar forums they would see what fans are discussing, what would be of interest, what confuses us
and how they could clarify the IJS rules.

 

[drivingmissdaisy]

Nearly half of the PCS is actually technical--skating skills and transitions. There is no mark for artistry or presentation. I think transitions, meaning in-between artistic elements, not the same steps into jumps that are judged as part of GOE, should be judged as part of choreography, not a separate mark. Performance/execution/interpretation should be one mark--call it presentation or artistic impression or just performance or whatever--the mark would judge the overall artistic impression of the program. And get rid of the .8/1.6 PCS factors for the ladies.

Although TR and SS are probably more technical measures, they do reward good skaters. Surya Bonaly, who was a fine jumper and would be capable of strong TES scores, would actually struggle on those aspects. For me, much of what makes competitive skating enjoyable is watching how the athletes are able to weave all these elements and good skating into compelling programs. Any sort of deemphasizing the technical aspects would result in a greater focus on artistry rather than difficulty, which I don't think is ideal for a sport. Furthermore, since probably more than half the program is spent either setting up or executing technical elements (especially footwork sequences), IMO it doesn't make sense to make the program quality count as much as the technical score because skaters don't spend much time performing between elements.

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

Look at ANY of Murakami's 3Toe+3Toe combinations from start to finish and they have equal or better rotation than any of Medvedeva's +3Toe combinations. Not to mention having more height too.

 

[Khoai]

Oh where is the OP when Mr. Uno does not perform good technique in his jumps?

 

[mrrice]

Look, I'm over skaters getting excused for not rotating their jumps. Even if the skater doesn't realize they're doing it, you can HEAR it and the coach should do what ever they can to break that habit when skaters are young. Especially a skater like Mirai, who can still land them even if they don't fully rotate. Most skaters would fall on some of the jumps that I've seen Mirai land. She needs to spend every waking moment of training time on getting her jumps around. She's kind of like Gracie, in that she doesn't perform until her jumps are over and she when doesn't land them, like Gracie, she doesn't perform at all. Skater's need to address this problem. Especially now, as it's clear that the judges are on the look out for skaters who chronically UR.

 

[Osmiumnitrate]

This isn't even about the pre-rotations in the first place. During 2016 Worlds some judges gave Evgenia's obvious Flutz a +3 GOE which is ridiculous. (She got an overall +1.50 GOE which is on par with a Yuna Kim Lutz) It is as though they have never judged Lutzes properly before. If judges can point out Mao's Flutz, they should be able to see Evgenia's Flutz since the way they Flutz is almost identical. Moreover, the fact that the technical specialist did not bother to give the obvious flutz the edge call is also outrageous. If a casual viewer looking at a Youtube video can see it immediately, I don't see why experienced judges can't.

Judges simply see a 'tano' jump and zone out and hit the '+2' or '+3' GOE button. Then in Skate Canada Evgenia Flutzed again and she got the '!' edge call but she still received GOE which is absurd because you can't give a positive GOE to a jump that isn't even the correct jump in the first place, even in the presence of a tano. IMO Tanos should only provide bonus marks if a jump is executed properly since it is a feature that increases difficulty. Some skaters do the Lutz properly and yet they received the same or even lower GOE (See So Youn Park for example).

Then here comes the problem of pre-rotations. I have been against pre-rotations since forever but thankfully in the past few seasons over the last decade there has never been so much skaters who pre-rotate unlike the recent seasons. We had the pleasure of having spectacular gold standard skaters like Mao, Kostner and Yuna who seem to have impeccable jump technique (overlooking the Lutz for Mao, lol) and they absolutely do very little pre-rotation, have great height, distance, speed and flow. Now we see skaters who pre-rotate, have questionable edges, slower speed and still gets higher or equal GOE than those skaters should have got. Have judges lowered their quality standards? Or do they see a 'tano' jump, give a minimum +2 and overlook everything else? Because that is precisely whats happening currently. Right now, I guess coaches must be training young skaters from the very beginning on how to put their arms above their head when they learn a single revolution jump- because its becoming the next essential must have feature.

I am looking forward to the expanded GOE range introduced by the ISU recently, and I hope it actually incorporates more features for a jump to rightfully get a higher GOE (+4, +5). Perhaps one reason why tano jumps get a very high GOE is because of the limited GOE range but they could have clearly worked around it.

 

[Blades of Passion]

LOL, obviously we were talking about when she was in her prime. Why do you always have go the straw-man route? Not to mention that even in her current state, Murakami still pre-rotates her 3Toe less than half a turn AND had better rotation on that combo at Cup of Russia than Medvedeva did on her 3S+3T at Skate Canada. Murakami still has better technique here than Medvedeva, her physical condition and competitive drive just isn't there anymore.

 

[skatelikewind1966]

Look, I'm over skaters getting excused for not rotating their jumps. Even if the skater doesn't realize they're doing it, you can HEAR it and the coach should do what ever they can to break that habit when skaters are young. Especially a skater like Mirai, who can still land them even if they don't fully rotate. Most skaters would fall on some of the jumps that I've seen Mirai land. She needs to spend every waking moment of training time on getting her jumps around. She's kind of like Gracie, in that she doesn't perform until her jumps are over and she when doesn't land them, like Gracie, she doesn't perform at all. Skater's need to address this problem. Especially now, as it's clear that the judges are on the look out for skaters who chronically UR.

So true, wonderful point. I've thought about this alot since the USFS implemented its "bonus point" system for Juv/Int/Nov skaters a couple of years ago. It seems as though there is even more latitude by the judges now than before, at least at these lower levels.

I do understand it's intent and I think we have seen some improvements, but I have also seen a trend at the lower levels of UR jumps year after year that simply are not being corrected. Bad habits are hard to break! This is when proper coaching is MOST IMPORTANT and without proper coaching, which seems to be widespread, this new system seems to have created a catch-22.

 

[sowcow]

.
Below is a copy/paste of a reply from the 2016 Cup of China Ladies FS thread on the topic of pre-rotation; which was left in response to a comment that specifically referred to this "The Underrotated Jumps of Evgenia Medvedeva" thread:

You might have missed the recent thread where the prerotation issue was discussed at length.

After (quickly) scanning the current 16-pages of replies herein, I thought it would be helpful/relevant to re-post...

---

So do the rules instruct judges to mark pre-rotations with, I guess, a >? You write that some ladies have ALMOST no pre-rotation? So they still are pre-rotating. Seemingly it is so prevalent, as Carroll suggest, that there is really little point in judging them.

You might have missed the recent thread where the prerotation issue was discussed at length. What a lot of posters (including myself) believe is that prerotation is perfectly acceptable up to a certain amount. I recognize that no edge jumps ever leave the ice backwards and hardly any ladies' toe jumps do either, and I also cited what Frank Carroll said in the above link.

What a lot of us take issue with is that there's no clear standard or rule set regarding how much prerotation is allowed at takeoff, unlike the clear rule regarding underrotation at landing.

...

To many of us, this a major flaw of the current system.

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!!

 

[Blades of Passion]

Nah, that rule doesn't come anywhere close to clearly explaining and measuring pre-rotation (and also overall rotation). Tech panels never give << for cheated take-offs. That rule was created mainly for toeloops where the skating foot turns to forward on the takeoff, which nobody ever does anymore. Pre-rotations are being paid more attention to, but not enough. Better rules and training is needed. Stop the cheated swingy toepick entrances and stop punishing big jumps, especially when they have very little pre-rotation!!!