The "wrong edge" call in JGP events

[Joesitz (RIP)]

But the thing is that.. how does one define a flutz or lip? Respectively a lutz and flip with last-second changes of edge, or changes of edge over 3 feet preceeding take-off? Although, as someone pointed out, they could be considered as (respectively) a flip and lutz with difficult entries... at least in the flutz's case, it would be a flip with a difficult entry due to the fact the entrance curve would be against the rotation of the jump. But then it would have to be clear the skater intended to do a flip, not a lutz.
I think this is a matter that wil never be satisfyingly solved for everyone. Different opinions stem from this subject and I think the ISU has taken a step in the right direction with the 'e' designation and the 1 point deduction.

Kypma

You have to remember any change of edge whether it is last minute or not would put the skater in a new position. Nothing wrong with that if it intentional, but the Flutz is an easier way to jump rotations. That's why the base score for a Flip is lower than that of a Lutz, and in essence, the skater is now in a Flip position.

You know the skaters who constantly do Flutsing. It's not an accident, it is an intent to make the rotations easier. I'm not clear on the 'e' deduction as to whether it is like a full one point (like a Fall) or a - 1 in the GoE.

If it's the former, then I agree with you, it's a step in the right direction. Now we must put full faith and trust in the Callers.

Joe

 

[Mathman]

You have to remember any change of edge whether it is last minute or not would put the skater in a new position. Nothing wrong with that if it intentional, but the Flutz is an easier way to jump rotations. That's why the base score for a Flip is lower than that of a Lutz, and in essence, the skater is now in a Flip position.

You know the skaters who constantly do Flutzing. It's not an accident, it is an intent to make the rotations easier.

I agree. This is the issue that must be addressed, not the problem of the skater who does her best but has a wobbly edge once in a while.

I'm not clear on the 'e' deduction as to whether it is like a full one point (like a Fall) or a - 1 in the GoE.

It's in the GOE. However, it is mandatory that the judges take the deduction off the GOE once the caller calls it. But sometimes they don't, so now I am not sure what "mandatory" means after all.

If the technical panel calls "wrong edge" and the judges say, "screw you, I'll give this a positive GOE anyway, I don't care what the new rule says" -- it seems from the protocols that the judges' score stands in spite of being in violation of the rule (?)

If it's the former, then I agree with you, it's a step in the right direction. Now we must put full faith and trust in the Callers.

To me, that is becoming the catch 22 of the whole CoP. With every refinement of the system, the tech specialist becomes more powerful and the judges more irrelevant. I guess that could go either way, toward better or toward worse judging.

 

[hockeyfan228]

I don't understand why they don't just program the software -- if the callers put an "e" against the jump, the computer should adjust to -1 if the judge's scores is > -1. If the score is <= -1, then the software does nothing.

Mandatory should be mandatory, and they have the tools to do it.

In a local competition where slips are used, then the referee (or official scorer) can take a red pen and adjust the scores as needed.

 

[Mafke]

Either jumps are defined by:

edge at take off - in which case Sarah Hughes never once did a lutz AFAIK as her sweeping change of edge looked completely deliberate and was far enough ahead of the jump to completely negate any idea of 'counter-rotation'.

approach - in which case edge at take off isn't so important (definitely the direction things are headed)

some combination of the two - in which case there's no rational reason to not recognize the flutz and lip as separate jumps (and the toe-wally too).

Big deal, there are now 9 possible triple jumps (8 for most ladies) if the number of jumping passes isn't increased and the zayak rule isn't radically changed then there'll be less pressure on any particular skater to get the 'full' repetoire of jumps and more emphasis on doing the ones they can do well (and labelling them appropriately).

I'd have just four levels of difficulty:

axel

lutz, flip

loop, flutz, lip

toe-loop, toe walley, salchow

Works for me.

 

[antmanb]

That simply defies all logic.

If skater B has demonstrated everything that skater A has, PLUS something extra, they are obviously ahead.

No it does not defy logic in the slightest - just becuas eyou don't agree it doesn't mean it defies logic!

Say that the skater also falls on the extra element - does she still deserve to win because she attempted something even though she didn't complete it becuase of the fall? To my mind not at all - and the fall to me has marred both the technical and presentation aspects. I feel the same for a jump that is badly flutzed - it wasn't done well or correctly so what really has it added to the technical side of that skaters performance?

Ant

 

[antmanb]

No senior competitor has a planned solo double jump, aside from the axel.

For that matter, no Junior does either?

You may be aware that there are other countries in the world other than the one you live in! Take the UK as a prime example. Most senior competitors at our national championships include planned doubles. In the junior ladies the majority of the field has planned doubles with very few having more than one or two attempts at triples planned.

Ant

 

[antmanb]

I have this distinct feeling you must be afraid to say anthing that may call you a whistle blower. Have you ever gone against the grain?

Joe

ZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzz

Do you never get tired of making this same lame argument whenever you have nothing else to argue??

Ant

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

ZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzz

Do you never get tired of making this same lame argument whenever you have nothing else to argue??

Ant

Examples, por favor.

 

[antmanb]

Examples, por favor.

You made exactly the same accusation of me phrased in exactly the same way on another thread regarding COP rules. I would guess that was also about flutzing, though it did raise a discussion about 2002 Olys and Stapleford et al so it might have been more generally about the judging the system.

Ant

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

You made exactly the same accusation of me phrased in exactly the same way on another thread regarding COP rules. I would guess that was also about flutzing, though it did raise a discussion about 2002 Olys and Stapleford et al so it might have been more generally about the judging the system.

Ant

ok. No problem for me to praise whistle blowers whenever.

Joe

 

[antmanb]

ok. No problem for me to praise whistle blowers whenever.

Joe

Praise away, i think most fans of figure skating do, but why throw accusations at poeple of them being affraid to be a whistle-blower or blindly following the powers that be, or the rules simply becuase you don't agree with someone's opinion?

Ant

 

[GoldMedalist]

Double posting should be banned when you are replying to the exact same poster. It's not hard to copy + paste quotes and reply to people in one single post, Antman, Joe, and anyone else that commits this deadly sin.

So if I do a LFI bracket, ending up on LBO, and jump off that back outside edge without ever getting near the back inside, you're going to call it a flip? Darn, I thought that was a cool way to make my lutz even more difficult and get extra credit for the entry phase, but if you're going to give it a lower base value than if I'd done it from a simpler entrance, why should I bother?

If you do a bracket like that you're not turning into the blade. So it would be a Lutz.

Say that the skater also falls on the extra element - does she still deserve to win because she attempted something even though she didn't complete it becuase of the fall? To my mind not at all - and the fall to me has marred both the technical and presentation aspects. I feel the same for a jump that is badly flutzed - it wasn't done well or correctly so what really has it added to the technical side of that skaters performance?

What do you mean by the "extra element"? ANY element a skater does is in direct comparison to whatever another skater did. Everyone gets to do the same number of elements. It totally depends on what the other skaters did to determine if the Flutz was worthwhile. If one skater can do a clean Triple Flutz and another skater can't do the Lutz jump at all, opting for a double axel instead, then the person with the Flutz has certainly shown a greater technical ability (just in terms of base marks anyway). A flutz is still a relatively difficult jump.

You may be aware that there are other countries in the world other than the one you live in! Take the UK as a prime example. Most senior competitors at our national championships include planned doubles. In the junior ladies the majority of the field has planned doubles with very few having more than one or two attempts at triples planned.

Yeah, and that's fine, but at the World level (which is what I was talking about) it's standard that you have at least two Triple jumps. In which case there is no point in ever doing a solo double jump outside of the axel.

 

[gsrossano]

I think the argument is that this gives an unfair advantage, say, to Mao Asada, who can flip all day long but can't do a Salchow. Whereas someone else, who is good at the Salchow but can't do a flip is behind the eight ball.

As they should be. The Salchow has a lower base value, and if the skater did three of them compared to the skater who does three flips, they still lose. No way by doing more Salchows, can one make up for the lack of ability to do a flip since each skater is limited to the same number of total jumps.

If I am not mistaken, the rule limiting a skater to no more than three double Axels was just put in this year (and no more than 2 in sequence)

True but does not answer my question. If it is now ok to do three 2A in a program why not three of any triple? Why do we need to keep the old limit of 2 in the Zayak rule? Is not the Zayak rule somewhat like saying in basketball a team can score only so many three point shots?

I don't think GoldMedalist wanted to forbid anyone from doing anything, just that a skater who was capable of doing triple jumps would gain more points (and properly so) if she did a program along the lines he suggested.

That is not how I read GM's original post that doubles in a Junior and Senior program were an absolute flaw. I took the comments to mean they should not be allowed to do individual doubles, and thus, that doubles in a Junior or Senior program should get no points except in combo or sequence. But I may have that totally wrong.

If GM's point is that putting individual doubles in a Junior and Senior program is a huge strategic error when the skater has 2-3 triples, I agree. The sample program GM offered is the way to get the most points if the skater can land 2 triples for the ladies and 3 for the men.

IMHO the judging system is too micro-managed, in trying to decide by just how many tenths of a point a double Salchow excedes a double toeloop in difficulty.

But is that not unavoidable in a point based system with so many different ways of earning points?

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

Praise away, i think most fans of figure skating do, but why throw accusations at poeple of them being affraid to be a whistle-blower or blindly following the powers that be, or the rules simply becuase you don't agree with someone's opinion?

Ant

Preaching, preaching, preaching. You who never have anything to say but will posts retorts to what others say. Be brave and say something original yourself. I would appreciate it. Don't be nervous. I don't bite.

Joe

 

[Mafke]

ant, joe,

you're both being tiresome, take it offline.

 

[gsrossano]

From what I've read of the inception of CoP, I wouldn't even argue that SoV was meant to specify the relative difficulty of things, but started with the premise of what the ISU wanted to reward.

On the contrary, when the ISU first rolled out CoP, the analogy was that just like the time in a speed skate race was an absolute measure of accomplishment of the racer, the points would be an absolute measure of what the skater accomplished in terms of difficulty and quality in a figure skating performance. It was not introduced as simply an arbitrary collection of ways of earning points. In addition, the marking scale of the PCs is most definitely set up to measure various criteria on an absolute scale of ability and quality.

 

[Mathman]

As they should be. The Salchow has a lower base value, and if the skater did three of them compared to the skater who does three flips, they still lose. No way by doing more Salchows, can one make up for the lack of ability to do a flip since each skater is limited to the same number of total jumps.

And the difference in point value should be enough. It seems absurd on its face to say it's OK to do 4 flips but it's not OK to do 4 Salchows. What could possibly be the justification for such a rule?

True but does not answer my question. If it is now ok to do three 2A in a program why not three of any triple?

That would be OK with me, but there is no logical necessity to treat a double Axel the same way as a triple jump.

Actually, I wouldn't mind if they limited double Axels to two, just like triple jumps. I have a sneaking suspicion that the reasoning of the ISU is that allowing an extra double Axel (especially for men) would let them at least have something to do in their last few passes. If they loaded up on triple/triples at the beginning, they could go 2A+2A seq and 2A at the end, rather than just skate around.aimlessly.

They could also limit double Axels to two if they wanted to. Why do we need to keep the old limit of 2 in the Zayak rule?

I don't see what changed. The old Zayak rule was put into place to prevent a skater from racking up the points by doing the same jump over and over. If the idea of a "balanced program" is still desirable, the Zayak rules serve the same function as they always have.

Is not the Zayak rule somewhat like saying in basketball a team can score only so many three point shots?

I would say it is more like saying that if you want to score a lot of three pointers you have to do them from different spots on the floor, not just shoot from the same spot over and over. (Or maybe that at least one must be done from a Biellmann position.)

 

[capcomop]

On the contrary, when the ISU first rolled out CoP, the analogy was that just like the time in a speed skate race was an absolute measure of accomplishment of the racer, the points would be an absolute measure of what the skater accomplished in terms of difficulty and quality in a figure skating performance. It was not introduced as simply an arbitrary collection of ways of earning points. In addition, the marking scale of the PCs is most definitely set up to measure various criteria on an absolute scale of ability and quality.

I would have to agree. After all if it was not meant as an absolute measure of accomplishment, why would you compare "personal bests?" Doesn't being able to compare a score from SA with one at World's imply that the system is capable of making an absolute measurment?
The system was also touted as being so precise that a skater could improve his/her performance by simply stuyding the protocol from his/her last skate. The protocol was supposed to tell him/her exactly what to improve upon and how. That implies that if skater does X in the same way next time, the same score should be achieved, but if skater does X better, a better score should be achieved and figuring out what better is is a matter of looking at the protocol.
I never heard that these concepts only applied to the technical side of things.

 

[Mathman]

On the contrary, when the ISU first rolled out CoP, the analogy was that just like the time in a speed skate race was an absolute measure of accomplishment of the racer, the points would be an absolute measure of what the skater accomplished in terms of difficulty and quality in a figure skating performance. It was not introduced as simply an arbitrary collection of ways of earning points. In addition, the marking scale of the PCs is most definitely set up to measure various criteria on an absolute scale of ability and quality.

Even Speedy himself should be able to see why that's a pipe dream.

Apolo Ono, 41.184 seconds.
The other guy, 41.185 seconds.

Shizuka Arakawa's Ina Bauer, (?)
Sasha Cohen's Charlotte, (?)

(priceless )

 

[gsrossano]

Even Speedy himself should be able to see why that's a pipe dream.

Depends on what he's smoking.

It seems absurd on its face to say it's OK to do 4 flips but it's not OK to do 4 Salchows.

But since a flutz in a Lutz with an error and not a flip, I am not actually saying it is OK to do four flips.