- Joined
- Aug 24, 2016
Yes, but 90 degrees missing is way more than the necessary amount you need to follow the curve of the runout, as shown by countless examples of (almost)fully-rotated jumps.
Why do "full rotations" matter?
- Thread starter Anna K.
- Start date
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2023
Sure, but Lari Naki Gutmann scored 4.50 for her choreography sequence, and skaters do a lot to increase the value of their program by a couple of points.
q makes no sense in any way. But it's a good crutch to lean on when landing is suspicious but not an obvious <. Basically the rules should say: when in doubt give q, but they can't, so a mathematically insensible euphemism of exactly 90 degree UR is used instead.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2016
Exactly. It's impossible to have exactly 90 degrees missing, it's always above or below. I'd give the q mark to a jump where it's roughly 90 degrees but it's not clear (not even in slow-mo) whether it's a little bit above or below. In a clean jump (with no penalty) it should be obvious (in slow-mo) that less than 90 is missing.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
And in fact, I think that this is just what tech panels do. So all is well. Maybe this whole debate is just fans making a mountain out of a mole hill when in fact the q is being used quite sensibly and as the ISU intended. (?)
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2019
It's contrary to the idea of the ISJ that the technical side is codified, fair, objective and harkens back to the 6.0 era when it was subjective. In my view, protecting objectivity on technical side as much as possible is important, because subjective outweighs objective as is in the judging.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
Well it's more like, you know the jump isn't underrotated so you can't justify a < but the feds paid you to slap on a q to compel the judges to drop their GOE.
As mentioned, a "q" can by definition only be called when the skate is on the quarter, which means if it's more than 90 degrees under it's UR if it's less than 90 degrees under it's sufficiently rotated. So it is really weird to see how often q appears, as though skaters are so accurately able to land their jumps right on 90 degrees - no more, no less.
Well, for edge calls, the ! call is worded as "unclear edge takeoff" which essentially boils down to "there was doubt" (but not certainty of incorrectness).
It has the same penalty as to the base value (none) and similar GOE penalty (-1 to -2, vs. -2 for the q); in both cases (less than a quarter missing, no sign; unclear edge take off F/Z, no sign) the penalty is -1 from judges if they had doubt but the tech panel didn't review or did but didn't make the call.
For rotation, of course "landed on the quarter" can't be determined down to tenths or hundredths of a degree, or even to single degrees, as determined by the human eye. It can be estimated to within 5 degrees or so, based on the viewing angle available, which might be less than ideal. So in essence, what it's saying is "it looked like just a quarter revolution short to our eyes from this angle," which allows for the imprecision of relying on human eyes. Which is why the official definition is "on the quarter" and not "90 degrees" much less "exactly 90 degrees."
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
That is an utterly ridiculous and absurd interpretation of what the phrase "on the quarter" means. It means "somewhere around 90 degrees," as any speaker of a natural language easily understands.
"I took my wrench and gave the pipe a quarter turn." Is there any ambiguity in this sentence? Is someone going to say, "no you didn't, you liar -- it was only 89 degrees. The "feds" must have bribed you to say that it was a quarter turn."
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2019
Any imprecise definition in rules invites controversy when it can be applied to some and not the others. Again, I wish I was tech savvy and could clip out that conversation between Kolyada, Yagudin and Vasiliev last week discussing a jump just as it was replayed in slow motion in high res. Despite the impression that multiple judges judge FS, it falls to only one person to authorize a call on an element and adjudicate. It is expedient, but it leaves a lot of final say to one person in the whole committee. There is also a human side coming to play. When someone points a flaw, it is natural for any professional to look closer and find a flaw (as is natural for opponents to immediately state that there is none without even looking and then find a proof). And we all see how influential these calls are when it comes to a field where technical base values are very close between multiple competitors. If we care who wins and who loses, we must care who calls and how. If we don't care, we are watching a show, not a competition.
I would rather q calls are eliminated, so that when a < call is made, we can see the 'comma' on the ice. I mean, it's one way to bring the figures back, heh.
I would rather q calls are eliminated, so that when a < call is made, we can see the 'comma' on the ice. I mean, it's one way to bring the figures back, heh.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2019
Personally I like the idea of an intermediate underrotation call, but it would have to be defined with a clear interval (I don't completely dislike the idea of "visually on the quarter" but it's clearly not what Technical Panels are doing, as CanadianSkaterGuy pointed out with the number of q called; and I think that it would be even better, should the interval be a bit broader, the determination of which might be assisted by watching a collection of "broadly q" jumps by a number of skaters, with a rather precise measure of the angle of their landing, and viewed from several camera angles, and with the help of biomechanics because it oughtn't be only based on aesthetics but also on the health of skaters).
Also, I would like the cleanliness of the landing, even with a q, to be reflected by a point or so in the Grade of Execution?
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2016
Do you remember which competition and which skater it was when Kolyada, Yagudin and Vasiliev were discussing the jump you mentioned? I'd love to see that.
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2016
I know It's not realistic atm, but I'd be happy if the process of calling jumps for review was ditched completely and rather every jump was put under review automatically. Ideally the tech panel would have camera shots in extremely high fps of every jump.
Oh, I'm dreaming again.
Oh, I'm dreaming again.
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2019
In Yuzuru Hanyu's Degree Thesis, he used only one camera, but I think that it was in order to show that it was possible without raising costs; I think that it was a camera with more pictures per seconds than those used by ISU though. Rather than cameras, I would see a sensor or two on the skater's blade which would analyse the move and perfectly determine when the blade takes off and land, from the ice effect on the moves.I know It's not realistic atm, but I'd be happy if the process of calling jumps for review was ditched completely and rather every jump was put under review automatically. Ideally the tech panel would have camera shots in extremely high fps of every jump.
Oh, I'm dreaming again.
At the moment, what we see of calls show that while there may remain some uncertain zones because of the lack of precision of the present devices, what causes the most glaring scoring inaccuracies doesn't seem to relate to poor equipment though.
Could this be feasible? Something that EVERY skater who competes under IJS at all levels would have built into their blades in such a way that is affordable, not hackable, not going to interfere with the skaters' execution of various moves (i.e., not sticking out from the blades to any degree), and not going to be interfered with by impacts between the blades and the ice, boards, other blades, boots, etc.
If so, such sensors could be useful for a lot more than just jump rotations.
Would it be interesting to look at precise execution of turns in step sequences (and other dance elements), which might affect what levels are called. Or replace the tech panel calling turns with sensors defining and evaluating them?
Could they count/measure not only total number of revolutions but also revolutions per second and revolutions on each edge in spins?
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2008
This discussion is insanity. We don't need censors on blades. Like sure if the technology did work perfectly and was available (who is going to pay for it?), then go ahead and use it, but it's not necessary.
It's not hard, if you are experienced with doing it, to simply review a jump and look at the FULL takeoff and then the landing and eyeball the rotation. Does a jump land at least 1/4 turn past the entry angle AND past the point where it left the ice, yes or no?
Panels are simply not trained to do this and it's pretty clear that most people aren't actually trying to measure rotation, they are just looking for some amount of turn or "jitter" happening on the landing to call the entire jump, which is absolutely NOT the way to do things.
Like for example this Lutz - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXUlwr3G7uQ&t=400s, which the panel called < and where the commentator says "you can see the hand down, that's usually an indication the jump is short". NO, a hand down in itself has NOTHING to do with the rotation of a jump. That jump should've received a 'q' when looking at the rotation, landing pretty much exactly sideways, but with the visible skid they just instantly call it under.
In that same program the 3Lutz+3Toe at the start got called under on the second jump, which I agree with because of the pre-rotation, but it shouldn't be receiving -GOE. It had good flow and decent amplitude. Jumps getting < calls shouldn't mean the GOE should necessarily suffer. The penalty has already been taken for the jump being underrotated. It needs to be judged AS a jump with that amount of rotation. Underrotated jumps can be high quality, the rotation has nothing to do with height, distance, speed, flow, and form.
It's not hard, if you are experienced with doing it, to simply review a jump and look at the FULL takeoff and then the landing and eyeball the rotation. Does a jump land at least 1/4 turn past the entry angle AND past the point where it left the ice, yes or no?
Panels are simply not trained to do this and it's pretty clear that most people aren't actually trying to measure rotation, they are just looking for some amount of turn or "jitter" happening on the landing to call the entire jump, which is absolutely NOT the way to do things.
Like for example this Lutz - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXUlwr3G7uQ&t=400s, which the panel called < and where the commentator says "you can see the hand down, that's usually an indication the jump is short". NO, a hand down in itself has NOTHING to do with the rotation of a jump. That jump should've received a 'q' when looking at the rotation, landing pretty much exactly sideways, but with the visible skid they just instantly call it under.
In that same program the 3Lutz+3Toe at the start got called under on the second jump, which I agree with because of the pre-rotation, but it shouldn't be receiving -GOE. It had good flow and decent amplitude. Jumps getting < calls shouldn't mean the GOE should necessarily suffer. The penalty has already been taken for the jump being underrotated. It needs to be judged AS a jump with that amount of rotation. Underrotated jumps can be high quality, the rotation has nothing to do with height, distance, speed, flow, and form.
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2019
I didn't mean something built in! I just meant something stuck on the blade screwed part before every skate! It can be very affordable, even to stand cold and wet environment, and it can be made non-, or very hardly hackable. In case of any hacking suspicion, one can still resort to cameras to find out. And at first, there would be some skates where they don't work, until their durability graph is established, which would mean that Technical Panels would still have to do the work; and also to assess their reliability at first.
Oh yes, they could do much more than counting jumps (or spins) rotations. In Spins as you wrote, they could measure speed, but also how the speed varies, and by this I don't mean "only" acceleration and deceleration, with very basic inborn calculation capability in the Jury's server. But for instance, to "teach" them to assess steps would need a good deal of study and sampling by a dedicated team? Many, many things are measurable in the Elements as well as in the Components, and a good deal by such sensors on the blades, in an "absolute" or parametrable way, but for some of these abilities, the coding may take time and endeavours, to describe in sensor position language what's a given step, what's a good step, a better step, a less good step... or simply to determine the significant data to be given to the Technical Panel and/or the Judges. There are on social media, some Physicists who are passionate about Figure Skating and give some insights; and while it's far from my own little competence, I saw some "geeks" becoming interested too, at least lately; this, in the case there would be no such side-competence at ISU at the moment.
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2019
I haven't watched her skate, but I fully agree, first that present day's Element scoring biggest discrepancies don't come from a lack of equipment; second, that well trained, independent Technical Specialists and Judges can do a better job with what's there. Yet they're lacking time; third, that a jump called for rotation ought to be evaluated as any jump (I posted about it), but I'm afraid judges are lacking time for this.
For the little I know, each sensor would cost a few Euros, to get high quality, sturdy, codable things? In the longer term there would be only two Technical Specialists (probably only one in smaller competitions), which would be a saving; and judges would have more information available, and less chores in their work at every skate.
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2019
But then, how can you stand such horrid things as... cameras? With slow motion? Artificial ice? Zambonis? No to speak of those skaters, judges and sometimes fans who fly all over the World in those big machines, instead of quietly rowing?
- YouTube
Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.
www.youtube.com
Not this one, too technological.
- YouTube
Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.
www.youtube.com
Oh, this one's too technological too. Even Empacher doesn't furrow theirs with a spoon. And this yellow isn't even lemon curd. Not slippery enough in the water they say. Pfff.
Last edited:
