Collecting info for Clarificiation with the ISU

[Xen]

Hi guys, asking on behalf of a friend on twitter. 

 

My friend will attend a seminar with ISU, and she wants to collect opinions and questions from people regarding the new set of rules. Which parts of the new rules do people find most difficult to understand and which parts you want to ask for clarification?

 

She's not a member here, but will browse and check, so please feel free to leave comments in this thread. This is a good chance for us to also voice our opinions and probably have them heard by the ISU. 

 

@mods and admins: if you think this is better moved elsewhere, please feel free. Just send me the link so I can tell her where to check. Thanks!

[MajaHled]

One thing that's unclear to me (and maybe I'm just stupid and it's obvious, I don't know ) is what exactly new GOE bullet 5) very good body position from take-off to landing means. Does that include varied air position and/or delay like the old bullet used to? Or is it just generally good basic air position (like no leg wrap)? Or a combitnation of both?

[hoodie axel]

When will they stop being corrupt?

[Xen]

5 minutes ago, hoodie axel said:

When will they stop being corrupt?

I don't know if that's a proper way to greet the ISU guys at a seminar, might make the situation too awkward. 

[Xen]

Okay, what is considered a serious error? Is it a single fall, or multiple falls? This is pretty important, because it's not always true that a single fall alone could fully disrupt the program that would justify say, a 0.5 reduction in PCS points of PE/CO/IN. On the other hand, would a serious error be one that only disrupts 1 or 2 scores? For example, if SS is a measure of skater's general skating skills, when a skater already receives a deduction in the GOE and TES base, would a deduction in SS be a bit overkill? Especially since SS seems more geared to measure footwork and not jump technique. Similar vein, would CO be so affected by a fall? I mean, choreography is choreography, and skaters usually plan out alt layouts that could work as well with the music. So if a skater does fall, but still manages to impromptu make the choreography feel seamless and balanced, should the deduction still occur, or should it be reduced? 

 

Second, ChSq sometimes gets treated as a throwaway element. And the complexity level of the chSq will differ from skater to skater-some may opt to use a lone spread eagle sequence, others might do more elaborate spiral+Ina bauer plus even more intricate footwork, using twizzles/counters/rockers etc as part of the ChSq. How would the differences be evaluated? Will it be reliant fully on just the first GOE bullet "Creativity and Originality"? 

 

Third, layouts. Now, with the back bonus limit introduced for jumps,  a lot of skaters are doing just 3 jumps in the second half of the LP, and just 1 jump in the second half of the SP. There is no advantage to doing more, and naturally it's possible that skaters teams will edit music to match that. However, should a skater do more in the second half, and it does work for the music, is there a methodology to reward the skater, either in PCS or even GOEs? 

[hoodie axel]

Leaving aside the snark: What is "something special" for a perfect 10 in PCS components?

[WinForPooh]

Do they have any example of a fully rotated and okay landed quad that would NOT check that bullet about height and distance and all that?

 

Do quads by definition tick that box?

[Neenah]

I second @Xen question about what is considered a serious error and how the severity of errors is qualified and judged.

 

But most importantly, are the 3 required positive GOE bullets guidelines or a definitive must?

[MajaHled]

Oh one other thing: the wording on the last page of that file strikes me as odd. Does 

Quote

In a program containing Falls or Serious errors the score nine-fifty (9.5) or higher should not be awarded for Skating Skills, Transitions and Composition, etc.

mean strictly not giving those PCS on programs with serious errors (whatever that means, as was pointed out above), or is it just another "guideline" which is not expected to be stirctly followed, but just there to encourage jugdes to consider serious errors when awarding PCS? (Not that I think judges would always follow it even if it was a strict rule, just curious what the intention is )

[EisElle]

• as @Xen said, clearly define what the heck is a 'serious error' that would warrant no 10 in PCS.
• are all jumps with fall going to get -5 even if they hit some of the positive bullets? If yes, please add: 'jump with fall final goe must be -5', so if judges don't do that we know they haven't read the rulebook. If not, then could there be jumps with fall worth -2GOE because it hits e.g. positive bullets 1, 4 and 6?
• what does it mean: 'good take off' for bullet 2? I guess it is not about the correct take off edge in F and Lz (that would be merely 'correct' take off, not 'good'). Is it about minimal degree of prerotation, pure toe-pick technique or what?
• and what is it 'poor take-off'? Toe-hammer and mule kick? Full blade take off on toe jumps? Half a turn prerotation on Lz and F? Slowing down a lot before the jump? A few visual examples would be nice. With explanation, please. And difference between a -2 and a -3.
• Also, visual example of 'long preparation' for a jump please, with difference between -2 and -3
• if a jump has unclear/wrong edge AND poor take off, do the negative goe sum? Meaning it could get -5 even without step out/falls?
• examples of different degrees of 'weak landing'
• examples of 'Poor speed, height, distance, or air position'
• why is it controversial to tell if a jump has preceding steps (and the requirement for the SP solo jump was removed) but judges are supposed to decide without controversy if steps are there to say if a jump checks bullet 4? Or is it supposed to be controversial but no one cares because it's 'only' one bullet?
• is a single move in the field (one spread eagle/spiral...) for the lenght of the rink enough to qualify for a choreo sequence with 'good ice coverage' (bullet 4)? And 'creativity' is one of the mandatory bullets for ChSq, so maybe some practical examples of a 'non creative' ChSq would be nice. Just to have an idea of what is supposed to be creative.
• why StSq lv4 +5GOE gets a lower score than StSq lv4 +3 GOE with the previous rules? And why the same happens for some spins? and why ChSq +5 would be worth more, when technical difficulty of ChSq is probably going to be lower than a StSq4? And there is a much higher degree of subjectivity in what a good ChSq. Visual examples of ChSq of different quality are needed. With detailed explanantion.
• why is the 4Lo considered that much easier than the 4F and 4Lz? If ISU has scientific data to back up that assumption, please make it public, because current data and physics say it's probably wrong. Plus, it's harder to get good GOE on a 4Lo and on a 3Lo rather than on the F and Lz of same number of rotations because it's harder to get the height and lenght without toe-pick assistance. So 4Lo is twice hit, in BV (and GOE are linked to that) and higher difficulty to clear some bullets, one of them one of the mandatory ones, too. Or is bullet 1 also going to be related to the type of jump, too? (Other than the number of rotations, I guess)
• why is 4A BV so close to that of 4Lz, despite having a whole half rotation more? If ISU meant to discourage skaters from trying it, please say so. The current BV of quads doesn't really reflect the comparative difficulty of the different jumps.
• for counter-clockwise jumpers, are jumps (not Euler) landed on left foot valid elements?

 

2 hours ago, hoodie axel said:

When will they stop being corrupt?

LOL that one too (or better, when they'll start having competent people in key roles, making decent webinars, like the one for ice dance, for example? The one for single and pair skating was a huge mess and didn't clarify a thing)

 

 

ETA: I was forgetting the most important one

why the rules say some bullets are mandatory and then speak about 'guidelines'?

In the past seasons judges haven't been able to apply even what were 'mandatory' rules (like: no 10 in a program components for skates with mistakes, 'final GOE of jump not preceded by step must be -3' and so on).

Does ISU think it's wise to declare since the very start that the rules are not real rules? Doesn't this leave too much leeway to subjective judging and bias? As if bullets for GOE weren't already unclear on their own, and PCS hadn't already enough subjectivity themselves....

I'd say, start with a 'must'. Subjectivity will get in the way somehow, no need to allow it any more space than necessary.

 

Also, if someone doesn't follow the guidelines, as ISU tells them  they can, how can ISU decide if their scores are wrong or not? How can ISU search for bias if there is nothing certain in the scoring?

[WinForPooh]

10 hours ago, hoodie axel said:

Leaving aside the snark: What is "something special" for a perfect 10 in PCS components?

 

Artistic arm movements during top quality crossovers.

[hoodie axel]

6 minutes ago, WinForPooh said:

 

Artistic arm movements during top quality crossovers.

Dang I forgot about them sexy ballet arms.

[Murieleirum]

15 hours ago, LadyLou said:

why is it controversial to tell if a jump has preceding steps (and the requirement for the SP solo jump was removed) but judges are supposed to decide without controversy if steps are there to say if a jump checks bullet 4? Or is it supposed to be controversial but no one cares because it's 'only' one bullet?

 

This. 

I would ask it more completely: why do the new rules NOT put emphasis on the importance of Transitions in and out of jumps, especially Transitions before quads, which are harder to integrate smoothly into a program (but it's possible to do so, because we've had plenty of examples from top athletes), when the whole purpose of the change of rules, they said, was putting emphasis on the quality of the elements, instead of the quantity? The quality of a jump depends very much on the ability of the skater to integrate such jump into the choreography, because a well-integrated jump can be unexpected, creative, and can participte in the artistic flow of the program, whereas a jump with a long preparation, with no steps and turns, with no transitions before or after it, interrupts the flow of the program. 
If they think that steps should not be required before a quad because too few skaters can perform them, or too few judges can pay attention to them, then there is a problem. Because sports rules should push the sport forward, not backwards. We've had beautiful examples of jumps and even quads perfectly integrated in the choreography of a program, especially in the SP, so we know it's possible. It just requires more effort, more quality, from the skaters. But, again, more quality is exactly what this new set of rules was said to demand.

In final analisis, there are skaters who put effort into integrating the difficult jumps within the choreography, and skaters who don't bother at all and skate around the whole rink for even 10 seconds to prepare for the jump, dropping the choreography almost completely. The difference between these two type of jumps should be highlighted and not brushed off, because if ISU and the judges know anything about Skating Skills, performing a jump (especially a quad) from steps and turns is many many times harder than performing a jump from long preparations.  

 

[Eclair]

the video examples for element matches/enhances the music were confusing. Some were not on the beat of the music. Some were. Some didn't enhance the music at all. Please further clarification. 

 

Is the bullet point 'good height' relative to body height or absolute? For example Karen Chen is small but jumps big for her height. But she doesn't jump big compared to Kaetlyn. Can she still be considered to have 'very good height'?

 

Why isn't single and pair bullet points applied like in ice dance - building your GOE, instead of being a wishy-washing parts of a bicycle analogy?

 

Can judges give +5 to a spin that travels?

 

and everything ladylou wrote! Thanks!

[Old Cat Lady]

Can you redo the singles webinar to show a range of examples that would and would not qualify for each bullet as well as explanations for why those examples were chosen.  Showing only the gold standard does not explain much of anything.

 

Can you also show/explain examples of deductions and what would get a minimal deduction versus a maximum deduction.  I think the best way would be to show elements that represent each GOE rating and explain the reasoning behind getting those GOE scores.

 

Is there a guideline for PCS deductions for "serious errors" for skaters that DON'T normally get higher than 9's or 9.5's?  If not, then why did you make a guideline that only hurts about 5 skaters per discipline?  What are examples of skating that represent each level of PCS score and why?

 

What are examples of "serious errors"

 

Why are component scores that have nothing to do with jumps affected by the difficulty and success of jumps?  By this, I mean not only for the "serious errors" that result in not getting maximum scores, but in the general trend with components going up with the TES BV?

 

When deciding if an element should get credit for "element matches the music", especially for jumps and spins, do you give skaters credit for just placing the element during a nuance of the music or does there have to be a quality to the element itself that reflects the character of the music?  When deciding this for spins, do they credit if a change of position happens when the music changes or does their have to be a characteristic of the spin itself that reflects the music.

 

The new wording for jump height/distance bullet is "very" good while for spins it is only "good".  Does this mean that a jump's height/distance needs to be superior to get credit while a spin merely needs to be "not slow" to get the credit?

 

When deciding "creativity and originality", do skaters get credit if they, themselves, have done it previously but no one else in the field currently does it?