PDA

View Full Version : 2010 ISU Congress Agenda is online - discuss!



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

gkelly
05-03-2010, 04:08 PM
Thanks for gathering and summarizing the spin changes.



This proposal also adds to the rules that "A difficult change of position counts as a difficult spin variation."

So what consitutes a difficult change of position?

Possible candidates:

Change from sit position to camel (especially in a forward spin) or upright to camel?

Change from catch-foot camel to catch-foot layback maintaining the catch, possibly other such changes holding catch?

How about something like arms clasped behind back through the change from camel to sit? See final spin here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4onvnPDkiU). The positions in themselves are probably not considered difficult, but I would think that change should be worth a feature.

I guess we'll have to wait and see how the tech panels interpret the feature, should the proposal be passed.


Also added (added part in bold):
If the spinning centers (before and after the change of foot) are too far apart and the criteria of “two spins” is fulfilled (there is a curve of exit after the first part and the curve of entry into the second part), only the part before the change of foot will be called and considered for Levels features.
This change is a part of an overall effort by the technical committees to have "botched" elements no longer be given 0 credit but for the skaters to get credit (base values, levels) for what was done before the error.

So what happens if this happens in a short program where CCoSp is required but it gets called as CoSp (not a legal spin code for a short program; same problem could arise for men getting a call for CSp or SSp instead of the required CCSp or CSSp)?

Or in a long program where the skater has already executed a FCoSp and then botches the change on a FCCoSp so that it also gets called as FCoSp?

Would the skater still get credit for the first part of the spin?


268. Singles Short Program. Slight changes to the specific spins required in certain years for the Junior SP. Specifically requiring that the flying spin be a flying sit or flying camel in certain seasons.

Those have been rotating requirements in junior SPs for many years now. The changes may indicate a shift in the rotation for previously announced years. Or maybe the point is just that they're extending the announced groupings further into the future than they had been already.

made_in_canada
05-03-2010, 04:35 PM
So what consitutes a difficult change of position?


From ISU communication #1557

A difficult variation is a movement of a body part, leg, arm, hand or head, which requires more physical strength or flexibility
and that, has an affect on the balance of the main body core. Only these variations can increase the Level.

Thanks HisWeirness and all the others for your work in summarizing and clarifying! Greatly appreciated!

flyingsit
05-03-2010, 04:43 PM
Let's see...


Pairs

272. Senior Short Program now has 7 instead of 8 required elements. Remove pair combination spin from required elements for 2010-11 season. No solo spin (SBS) combination in 2011-12. Pair combination spin and SBS solo pairs spin alternate seasons as required elements in the Senior Short Program. Similar change for the Junior Short Program as well.


Ugh, I absolutely hate this. Pair spins and sbs spins are two entirely different skills. If they have to remove an element, I'd have them remove one of the jump elements in the pairs LP.

kirkbiggestfan
05-03-2010, 05:06 PM
They want to remove the pair combo spin. Off course, it is a dance move now. :lol:

kwanfan1818
05-03-2010, 05:24 PM
But it is a jump.

And even if you don't see it as a jump, in a jump sequence you perform a number of steps between the two jumps.

This enables you to regain balance, get more momentum, build speed, etc.

This is not the case when you are performing a half-loop in-between.
Plus, with a half loop, the edges are usually under more scrutiny than correct edges on steps.

key65man
05-03-2010, 06:05 PM
Because a 3toe half loop 3sal (9.9 under new rules) gives someone an opportunity to earn similar points to a 3toe3toe2toe (10.23 under new rules) without actually having to do a 3/3.

Rochette, if she returns, will benefit from this rule. She usually has a 3toe 3sal sequence in the second half of her lp which used to be a (rather consistent) 3toe half loop 3sal.

I can totally see Ashley Wagner taking advantage of this rule too:

3flip2toe
3loop
3toe
/
2axel half loop 3sal
3flip
3loop 2axel
3lutz

I was just wondering if there would be any ladies trying half loop 3flips? Maybe Asada could try 2axel half loop 3flip or 3loop half loop 3flip since she has been struggling with rotating 3/3s and the 2loops in her 3 jump combos?

I think a lot of girls without 3-3 should take advantage of this change eventually. As you mentioned, another advatange of 3-half loop-3 is that it can be executed with the time bonus (at least easier to do than 3-3 even when low on stamina, I think). In that case, the skater will get 21% bonus.

In addition ot Joannie, Miki Ando among the podium threats for ladies may benefit from it greatly starting from the next season. I am not sure if either can do it with 3F without under-rotating it. As for Mao, she may not be able to use it with either 3S or 3F in the short run. But who knows by the time for Sochi considering her drive and work ethic? It can be a powerful weapon for Mao.

All in all, since the advantage of 3-3 is relatively reduced by this change, 3A will be a little more important among the podium threats, I assume, especially when more changes favoring 3A are to be made.

I can actually see Mao as one of the favorites into Sochi (if not the favorite assuming that Yuna will not compete).

gkelly
05-03-2010, 06:11 PM
I was just wondering if there would be any ladies trying half loop 3flips? Maybe Asada could try 2axel half loop 3flip or 3loop half loop 3flip since she has been struggling with rotating 3/3s and the 2loops in her 3 jump combos?

Ladies? How about any men? The only skater I've seen do any half loop-3flip combos/sequences (whatever you want to call them) was Plushenko when he was younger and there was no IJS sequence penalty.

Olga Markova used to do 2A-half loop-2F. We might see that from some novices or juniors, or lower seniors who don't have triple flips but want to show they can do some kind of flip. Or just as a change of pace from skaters who might have done 2A+2T+2T instead.

key65man
05-03-2010, 06:17 PM
gkelly, I have a question for you. Is there any precedent that a proposal made by the tech committee was disapproved? Thanks in advance whether or not you have the answer. Always appreciated your info.

gkelly
05-03-2010, 07:10 PM
gkelly, I have a question for you. Is there any precedent that a proposal made by the tech committee was disapproved? Thanks in advance whether or not you have the answer. Always appreciated your info.

I haven't kept track of that over the years, so I can't answer it for you. Maybe someone else can.

I tend to focus more on the skating content than on the politics, for better or for worse.

Celine82
05-03-2010, 07:42 PM
Thanks to all for the summaries (:respec: to HisWeirness) and explanations.

Re. #213, Austria's proposal for Olympic qualification:

Maybe they weren't at the previous year's Worlds because they were too young the year before. ...
Age is definitely an issue, as is the progress that a 16-year-old might achieve in a season, ie. Mirai Nagasu. And what about the skaters who were injured the previous season? D.Takahashi and DelSchoes couldn't have been in Vancouver? (you might even include S.Lambiel since he "retired" because he was injured.) That might prevent comebacks a la Plushenko or Shen/Zhao, but other than that it seems quite ridiculous to me...

Also, with the system of "direct entries" for the SP vs. skaters having to go through the qualifying round:

From the Overall Entry Quota a Member gets as many Direct entries as the number of this Member’s Skaters in the top 18 places for Singles, top 12 places for Pairs and top 15 places for Ice Dance in the corresponding discipline of the preceding season’s same Championships.
Do I get it right that for instance one Japanese man would have to do the QR in Tokyo since Oda didn't place in the top 18 in Torino? But on the other hand all 3 American men would go straight to the SP since Bradley just finished 18th?

barbk
05-03-2010, 08:14 PM
Thanks to all for the summaries (:respec: to HisWeirness) and explanations.


Also, with the system of "direct entries" for the SP vs. skaters having to go through the qualifying round:

Do I get it right that for instance one Japanese man would have to do the QR in Tokyo since Oda didn't place in the top 18 in Torino? But on the other hand all 3 American men would go straight to the SP since Bradley just finished 18th?

Second the thanks to all who have posted the details.

And, your understanding of the QR is how I read it too. Not sure I have any understanding of WHY they would want to do it this way, but ...

(It would seem easier to have a "A" qualifying score -- if your country put you in one of its allocations and you had a "A" score you go straight through to the SP, and if you're nominated instead with a "B" score you go into the QR. I don't see much point in making Oda do a QR.

Artifice
05-03-2010, 08:23 PM
Thank you HisWeirness for the spins informations.

Tony Wheeler
05-03-2010, 08:33 PM
I also read through the Agenda and summarized a bit of it on my website. One of the things that barbk and Celine82 are discussing is something that I don't necessarily agree with, as far as the ISU's proposal.

Example I used was the Canadian ladies situation in 2011. Cynthia Phaneuf's 5th place finish at Worlds is what earned Canada the two spots to the event, but realistically, if Joannie Rochette returns to compete for another year and is Canada's National Champion, then it would be Phaneuf who would have to go in skate in that qualifying round, making an extra day of competition for her even though she was the one that earned the two spots in the first place. This is, of course, assuming that the two are 1-2 at Nationals.

I understand that you have to limit the amount of direct qualifiers or it makes no sense to even hold a qualifying round, but I don't know that this is exactly the fairest way. Maybe it should be that the SKATER earns the exemption by finishing in the top 18 rather than the country. If any skaters who were in the top 18 one year don't return the next, then places 19-24 (19-20 starting next year since the proposal is to only have 20 singles skaters in the long program) are the first alternates to the automatic qualifying spots. If at the end of that list there are less than 18 skaters, then all other skaters maybe should have to do the qualifying round?

sequinsgalore
05-03-2010, 09:48 PM
Sorry if this is a stupid question: hasn't Canada only earned one spot for ladies at Worlds 2011?
(Phaneuf 5th + Samson 29th = 34 = 1 spot)


__________________________________________________ _______
visit the danish figure skating blog www.sequinsgalore.blogspot.com (http://www.sequinsgalore.blogspot.com)

HisWeirness
05-03-2010, 09:57 PM
It would seem easier to have a "A" qualifying score -- if your country put you in one of its allocations and you had a "A" score you go straight through to the SP, and if you're nominated instead with a "B" score you go into the QR. I don't see much point in making Oda do a QR.
This is how I read the QR too. I really like your idea of an "A" score (or ISU ranking) rather than the direct entries based on the previous Worlds placements.

Something like top 18 ranked in the World Standings (attending Worlds) or top 18 on the season's best list (attending Worlds) getting the direct entries would make more sense.

Using the top 18 for seasons best (and this list could include scores from the previous season as well if they want) seems to be the most fair because special returning cases like Lambiel, Takahaski, Plushkenko, and Shen/Zhao could set a very high score during the GP series, etc. and guarantee themselves a direct entry because of their high level.


Sorry if this is a stupid question: hasn't Canada only earned one spot for ladies at Worlds 2011?
(Phaneuf 5th + Samson 29th = 34 = 1 spot)

The math doesn't work like that. Samson's 29th place finish is 18 points in ISU entry math (anyone in singles who does not make the free skate gets 18 points, not the number of points equivalent to their placement).

So, 5 + 18 = 23, which is less than 28, allowing two spots. This rule is set up so that if one of the nation's skaters misses the free skate but the other skater finishes top 10, the two spots are preserved. (similar to if there was only one skater from that nation, a top 10 finish would allow two skaters the following year)

With the proposed rules, not making the SP will result in a skater getting 20 points, and not making the free skate will result in 18 points. This is similar to the old point system in ice dance where not getting to the OD was 20 points and not getting to the FD was 18 points.