General Skating Chat

[JanMary]

41 minutes ago, shanshani said:

He definitely held it for two revolutions. He didn't hit 3, however, which is what the technical manual says is required. I don't necessarily think invalidating the sit spin is wrong on its own--except no one else's sit spins are held to this standard at the senior elite level. Honestly, they probably should be. 

 

OT: omg people on reddit are so annoying. asked some clarification questions about the SP spin rules, got something that a) didn't answer my question b) assumed I knew nothing about spins, which is just ridiculous if you read what I wrote. I can identify an illusion entry and sit spin variations, thanks, that was not my question.

 

In reality, the person doesn't sound like they know anything more than I do about the questions I had

I think it’s not about that 3 revolution requirement. He definetely spinned for more than 3 revolutions after change of foot.

 

The rule says you need to hold at least 2 revolutions in each variation to establish the variation. Yuzu tried sit sideways and sit behind variations after change of foot, and TP thinks neither hit 2 revolutions, so there is no valid sit variation after change of foot, which resulted in no value for the CSSp.

[Veveco]

23 minutes ago, shanshani said:

OT: omg people on reddit are so annoying. asked some clarification questions about the SP spin rules, got something that a) didn't answer my question b) assumed I knew nothing about spins, which is just ridiculous if you read what I wrote. I can identify an illusion entry and sit spin variations, thanks, that was not my question.

I know kaley on Twt spent a lot of time discussing the spin at JNats vs the rule book and she's usually pretty knowledgeable about the technical aspect, so maybe she'd be a good person to ask if it's related to that?

 

 

(She's also been pretty vocal lately about the double standards in how rules are applied)

[JanMary]

4 minutes ago, Veveco said:

I know kaley on Twt spent a lot of time discussing the spin at JNats vs the rule book and she's usually pretty knowledgeable about the technical aspect, so maybe she'd be a good person to ask if it's related to that?

 

 

(She's also been pretty vocal lately about the double standards in how rules are applied)

JSF is quoting “spin in one position with change of foot”, “no basic position on one foot for at least 2 revolutions”.

[shanshani]

1 hour ago, JanMary said:

I think it’s not about that 3 revolution requirement. He definetely spinned for more than 3 revolutions after change of foot.

 

The rule says you need to hold at least 2 revolutions in each variation to establish the variation. Yuzu tried sit sideways and sit back variations after change of foot, and TP thinks neither hit 2 revolutions, so there is no valid sit variation after change of foot, which resulted in no value for the CSSp.

That doesn't make sense though, because he definitely did hit 2 revolutions on his sit sideways, and also his sit behind unless you're being really, really strict. I was pretty strict about what counted as being in position, and I counted at least 2 revolutions for each of those.

 

He spun for more than 3 revolutions, but the question is how it's counted. Because what he didn't do was stay in sit position for 3 revolutions after the change of foot. My reading of what happened after the change of foot was

• 1.5ish revolutions to get into sit sideways position
• 2.5ish revolutions in sit sideways (2 if we're being really, really strict)
• rise out of sit position to reposition free leg, which took 1.5ish revolutions
• go back down into sit behind which was held for 2 revolutions (1.5 if we're being really strict--but this would have only resulted in losing a level, not invalidation)

My theory is that rising out of sit position early to reposition his free leg broke the 3 after change of foot rule because it has to be 3 revolutions in position. Alternatively, there is another rule that the spin has be held for 6-revolutions (yes, it's very confusingly written because it literally says 3 in one place and 6 in another). But Yuzu did hold his spin for 6+ revolutions in total--but not in position. So it's possible his spin broke that one as well. (Edit: apparently this 6 revolution rule may only affect GOE. The technical manual doesn't give that impression, but the GOE/PCS manual says that 1 to 3 marks should be deducted for "less than the required number of revolutions")

 

The problem is, the rules don't explicitly say that the revolutions have to be in position. But if any kind of position counts, then on what basis could Yuzu's spin be invalidated? Plus, since it's supposed to be a single position spin, it would make sense that revolutions out of position don't count.

 

So the only way I can make sense of this is:

• You have to stay in position for 3 revolutions immediately before and after the change of foot
• You may do something that breaks the position after that (repositioning free leg, jump on one leg level element, whatever)
• Possibility A: You have to do 6 revolutions in total in position before and after the change in foot, but these may be spread across different variations, which you can break position to transition to. Possibility B: This rule is more lenient and all it demands is 6 revolutions regardless of whether you're in position. apparently this is just GOE?

So Yuzu's JNats spin fails on the first bullet, and possibly the 3rd bullet depending on how you interpret the 6 revolution requirement.

 

Under this interpretation of the rules, Nathan's SP sit spin is definitely not valid, because he does not manage to get into sit position after his change of foot. 

 

Alternatively, this is all wrong, and the JNats tech panel did invalidate Yuzu's spin because they mistook the sit-twizzle for the spin and just made something up to cover it up afterwards. 

[shanshani]

...does anyone have the judging handbook for singles and pairs skating? it seems to have disappeared from the ISU's website

 

edit: found it. it hasn't disappeared, it's only become hard to find 

[sallycinnamon]

Just now, shanshani said:

...does anyone have the judging handbook for singles and pairs skating? it seems to have disappeared from the ISU's website

 

The technical panel handbook? It's there: https://isu.org/figure-skating/rules/sandp-handbooks-faq/24781-tphb-single-skating-2020-21-final/file

[shanshani]

7 minutes ago, sallycinnamon said:

 

The technical panel handbook? It's there: https://isu.org/figure-skating/rules/sandp-handbooks-faq/24781-tphb-single-skating-2020-21-final/file

no, the GOE/PCS handbook. don't worry, I found it. it was just hidden in the depths of the ISU's website, mysteriously missing from the rest of the collection of rules documents

[sallycinnamon]

4 minutes ago, shanshani said:

no, the GOE/PCS handbook. don't worry, I found it. it was just hidden in the depths of the ISU's website, mysteriously missing from the collection of rules documents

 

Yeah because they publish in in form of communication which aren't listed where the other documents about rules are, it takes time to find them...

[shanshani]

34 minutes ago, shanshani said:

That doesn't make sense though, because he definitely did hit 2 revolutions on his sit sideways, and also his sit behind unless you're being really, really strict. I was pretty strict about what counted as being in position, and I counted at least 2 revolutions for each of those.

 

He spun for more than 3 revolutions, but the question is how it's counted. Because what he didn't do was stay in sit position for 3 revolutions after the change of foot. My reading of what happened after the change of foot was

• 1.5ish revolutions to get into sit sideways position
• 2.5ish revolutions in sit sideways (2 if we're being really, really strict)
• rise out of sit position to reposition free leg, which took 1.5ish revolutions
• go back down into sit behind which was held for 2 revolutions (1.5 if we're being really strict--but this would have only resulted in losing a level, not invalidation)

My theory is that rising out of sit position early to reposition his free leg broke the 3 after change of foot rule because it has to be 3 revolutions in position. Alternatively, there is another rule that the spin has be held for 6-revolutions (yes, it's very confusingly written because it literally says 3 in one place and 6 in another). But Yuzu did hold his spin for 6+ revolutions in total--but not in position. So it's possible his spin broke that one as well. (Edit: apparently this 6 revolution rule may only affect GOE. The technical manual doesn't give that impression, but the GOE/PCS manual says that 1 to 3 marks should be deducted for "less than the required number of revolutions")

 

The problem is, the rules don't explicitly say that the revolutions have to be in position. But if any kind of position counts, then on what basis could Yuzu's spin be invalidated? Plus, since it's supposed to be a single position spin, it would make sense that revolutions out of position don't count.

 

So the only way I can make sense of this is:

• You have to stay in position for 3 revolutions immediately before and after the change of foot
• You may do something that breaks the position after that (repositioning free leg, jump on one leg level element, whatever)
• Possibility A: You have to do 6 revolutions in total in position before and after the change in foot, but these may be spread across different variations, which you can break position to transition to. Possibility B: This rule is more lenient and all it demands is 6 revolutions regardless of whether you're in position. apparently this is just GOE?

So Yuzu's JNats spin fails on the first bullet, and possibly the 3rd bullet depending on how you interpret the 6 revolution requirement.

 

Under this interpretation of the rules, Nathan's SP sit spin is definitely not valid, because he does not manage to get into sit position after his change of foot. 

 

Alternatively, this is all wrong, and the JNats tech panel did invalidate Yuzu's spin because they mistook the sit-twizzle for the spin and just made something up to cover it up afterwards. 

Ok, well, the GOE/PCS book says:

Quote

 

3. All spins with change of foot must have 3 revolutions on each foot. In Short Program, if this requirement is not fulfilled, the spin will get “No Value”. In Free Skating the sign “V” indicates that this requirement is not fulfilled. The base values of spins with the sign “V“ are listed in the SOV table.

  

4. Spin in one position with change of foot must have 2 revolutions in basic position on each foot. In Short Program, if this

requirement is not fulfilled, the spin will get “No Value”. In Free Skating the sign “V” indicates that this requirement is not

fulfilled. The base values of spins with the sign “V“ are listed in the SOV table.

 

 

which really seems to imply that what I wrote is wrong, because it specifies the there must be "2 revolutions in basic position on each foot" for spins in one position with a change of foot, but only 3 revolutions (doesn't say basic) for "all spins with change of foot" 

 

...but then I'm at a complete loss for why Yuzu's spin was invalidated. There is no way he didn't do 2 revolutions of sit sideways even on the strictest standards possible, and he definitely did more than 3 revolutions in total. The theory that the tech panel messed up and lied to cover their butts is starting to look really plausible.

[JanMary]

10 hours ago, shanshani said:

Ok, well, the GOE/PCS book says:

 

which really seems to imply that what I wrote is wrong, because it specifies the there must be "2 revolutions in basic position on each foot" for spins in one position with a change of foot, but only 3 revolutions (doesn't say basic) for "all spins with change of foot" 

 

...but then I'm at a complete loss for why Yuzu's spin was invalidated. There is no way he didn't do 2 revolutions of sit sideways even on the strictest standards possible, and he definitely did more than 3 revolutions in total. The theory that the tech panel messed up and lied to cover their butts is starting to look really plausible.

you know, it's not what he didn't do, but what JSF thinks he didn't do...

[SitTwizzle]

5 hours ago, JanMary said:

you know, it's not what he didn't do, but what JSF thinks he didn't do...

Here, I wouldn't even accuse the JSF of anything else than a cover-up of one person, then head of the tech panel, who took this decision out of the blue. This person seems to be a fierce anti-Hanyu, maybe because he's still "guilty" of having supplanted Daisuke Takahashi.

 

 

[EternalSpin]

 

[Whoopiewoop]

3 minutes ago, EternalSpin said:

 

 

 

Thank you!

 

So does that mean that Mexico got a spot in the end after all the fiasco? 

[yuzuangel]

27 minutes ago, Whoopiewoop said:

 

 

Thank you!

 

So does that mean that Mexico got a spot in the end after all the fiasco? 

Yes!

[sallycinnamon]

44 minutes ago, EternalSpin said:

 

 

I'm very happy for all the small fed skaters who worked hard to to get a spot for the Olympics and who'll most likely compete in Beijing.  Yay for Donovan especially! Big success for Mark & Ioulia in pairs as well, it was their no1 dream to qualify for Olympics.

 

At the same time it makes me sad China will only have 1 spot in the men's, so won't see Han Yan in Beijing. Heartbreak