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

Marco
05-05-2010, 12:09 PM
umronnie,

1. Your first point makes sense but without an express reward/ penalty there is no incentive for Yuna to further work on the 3loop or Mao on the 3sal and 3lutz. They will always just focus on their own big tricks. Yuna only has 4 types of triples but at least she goes all 6 types of takeoffs. Asada also has 4 types of triples but she only does 4 types of takeoffs too. There is little diversity there.

I also don't think it's true that "The bonus for the skaters who already have all takeoffs is that they will also get good GoEs for them..." Diversity in takeoffs and GOEs for individual elements are not related and are not supposed to be.

3. Thanks for clarifying what I said - I don't mind having a solo 3axel in a ladies sp or 2 quads in a mens sp, all I am saying is this is not going to stop all the whining unless they get certain messages across i.e. quality is as important as difficulty and non-jump elements also count (Lysacek vs Plushenko, Kim vs Asada, Lepisto); quality is not just about aethestics or excitment (Kim's spirals); and we will ding your PCS score if you don't do well enough in that component (Plushenko, Joubert, Weir); the system and rules are not perfect but everyone is subject to them and is entitled to exploit them to their advantage (Plushenko, Joubert).

You would think this is straightforward enough but some people are just whiny in nature I guess :shuffle:

I think the proportionality of GOE rewarded should be adjusted but IMO the base values for the quad(s) and the 3axel are right, or as right as they can be. It's stupid to bump it up everytime someone whines. No one can ever accurately quantify difficulty anyway.

4. The judging is the biggest problem of all. If this isn't fixed or looked at, all else is moot.

gkelly
05-05-2010, 01:27 PM
Somewhat off topic, but since there probably won't be any real news about this year's proposals until the votes...


4. No proposals to fix the judging corridor situation. I wish there was at least some written guidance that a judge's PCS and GOE can deviate from those of the rest of the judges, independent of skate order and reputation, as long as he can justify it. Same goes for giving different levels of PCS for the 5 categories to the same skater.


This communication explains the assessment process (http://isu.sportcentric.net/db//files/serve.php?id=453).

Looking at the communication about how the assessments are done, it's interesting that for the PCS, the calculations actually do encourage judges to use a wide range of scores for each skater.

As long as you can anticipate approximately where the PCS average for each skater will fall, there's no advantage to keeping all five marks close to the average compared with having some well above and others well below.

Where you could get in trouble is if your expected average is lower than the rest of the panel's and then you also have one or two drastically lower marks, or higher instead of lower.

On the other hand, if, say, you anticipate higher than the panel and then have one really low mark (e.g., for transitions), your low mark will save you.[/QUOTE]

umronnie
05-05-2010, 03:12 PM
umronnie,

1. Your first point makes sense but without an express reward/ penalty there is no incentive for Yuna to further work on the 3loop or Mao on the 3sal and 3lutz. They will always just focus on their own big tricks. Yuna only has 4 types of triples but at least she goes all 6 types of takeoffs. Asada also has 4 types of triples but she only does 4 types of takeoffs too. There is little diversity there.

I also don't think it's true that "The bonus for the skaters who already have all takeoffs is that they will also get good GoEs for them..." Diversity in takeoffs and GOEs for individual elements are not related and are not supposed to be.



Oh, I didn't mean that they should get good GoEs because they are doing all takeoffs. What I meant was - since they are skilled enough to do those takeoffs in the first place, they would get better GoEs than skaters who are not skilled in all takeoffs and are now forced to do them because of the 2A limit. The net result is a better TES for those who tried all takeoffs anyway, so sort of a bonus.

gkelly
05-05-2010, 03:36 PM
Oh, I didn't mean that they should get good GoEs because they are doing all takeoffs. What I meant was - since they are skilled enough to do those takeoffs in the first place, they would get better GoEs than skaters who are not skilled in all takeoffs and are now forced to do them because of the 2A limit. The net result is a better TES for those who tried all takeoffs anyway, so sort of a bonus.

True.
But it still wouldn't force skaters to do takeoffs they really don't like.

For example, suppose a skater can do 3S and 3T, and on a really good day 3F, but they are nowhere close to 3Lo or 3Lz.

Possible planned jump layouts:

3T+2T
3F
1A+3S+2T
2A
2A+2T
3T
3S

3T+3T
3F
3S+2T
3S
2A+2T+2T
2A
2F

No loops or lutzes at all.
Now, maybe they could choose to replace one of those 2T in combination with a 2Lo instead and earn an extra 0.2. Not much of an incentive if they're not good with loop combinations.

But there's no incentive at all to replace one of those solo double or repeated easier triple jumps with a 3Lo or 3Lz attempt if it's sure to be downgraded. Nor with a planned 2Lz that's likely to get an edge call or have a bad landing; it would surely be wiser to plan a 2F likely to earn positive GOE or a 2A likely to be no worse than the lutz.

umronnie
05-05-2010, 05:31 PM
1A+3S+2T? How do you do that? Wouldn't a "standard" 3S+2T+2T be worth more?

Anyway, the base values for the jump layouts you suggested is about 37-37.5 points. The base value for a simple 6-triple+2A layout, repeating the 3S, is about 41 points - so already a 3-3.5 headstart in base values. If you can do a reasonable triple of every kind (sans Axle) you are assured 41 points plus whatever GoE you stand to get. If you are good enough to make it a 7-triple program you get at least 4 more points. Also, if you are good enough to repeat the Flip and Lutz you also get 3-4 more points in base mark only.

I'm not saying a bonus for a complete set of triples wouldn't be good, but how high do you think this bonus should be? As much as another triple? Because these skaters are already getting several points ahead in base mark alone, which is a good enough reason to go for the whole set.

Marco
05-05-2010, 05:55 PM
1A+3S+2T? How do you do that? Wouldn't a "standard" 3S+2T+2T be worth more?

1foot-axel 3sal2toe. It is worth less than a 3sal2toe2toe but is more difficult.


Because these skaters are already getting several points ahead in base mark alone, which is a good enough reason to go for the whole set.


Not necessarily. Asada's base value is high because she has 2 3axels and 2 3flips, but she is also missing 2 types of triples takeoffs.

gkelly
05-05-2010, 07:35 PM
If you can do a reasonable triple of every kind (sans Axle) you are assured 41 points plus whatever GoE you stand to get. If you are good enough to make it a 7-triple program you get at least 4 more points. Also, if you are good enough to repeat the Flip and Lutz you also get 3-4 more points in base mark only.

Agreed. If you can do all the triples pretty reliably without downgrades or falls, or if you're equally likely to underrotate or fall on any triple irrespective of its takeoff, there's already plenty of incentive to plan them all, moreso if double axels are also capped at two.

The question would be for skaters who have one or more takeoffs from which they are rarely or never able to rotate and land the triples. Would it be good to give an incentive for them to include doubles from those takeoffs and make up part of the base mark difference with GOE? Or to attempt triples that are likely to score less than the good doubles?

Or just let them leave out the takeoff(s) that give them problems? How important is it to show all different takeoffs? The fact that some fans keep complaining about it but no one official proposes an incentive suggests that the powers-that-be don't think it's as important as the fans do.

Doubletoe
05-06-2010, 12:38 AM
I think this proposal will be put into practice as most countries do not have ladies with legit 3-3. I was just venting a little.

Good point. It probably won't be a bad thing for skaters with triple-triple combinations, either, since they will be using up their two 3T's in the first one or two combos and this would give them a different triple jump to use in the 3-jump combo. In any case, it's probably fair to give skaters more ways to use the 3S now that they are only allowed two 2A's.

key65man
05-06-2010, 02:50 AM
Good point. It probably won't be a bad thing for skaters with triple-triple combinations, either, since they will be using up their two 3T's in the first one or two combos and this would give them a different triple jump to use in the 3-jump combo. In any case, it's probably fair to give skaters more ways to use the 3S now that they are only allowed two 2A's.

I see you point. But, the vast majority of skaters doing 3-3 pretty easily exhaust the max number of two (the number of different triples done up to twice) per the Zayak Rule. We don't often see 2 3-3's in a program because with the Zayak Rule, the additional 3-3 tends to assume unjustifiably higher risk to the little rewards it brings. I think the same line of reasoning extends to 3-half loop-3S for those with 3-3.

Just in case, I am not arguing against the entire concept behind the proposal regarding a combo containing a half loop. Rather, I do not think the combo should be given the 10% bonus. I don't mind your disapproval. Just to clear things up.

gkelly
05-06-2010, 07:56 PM
Additional ISU communication with more changes for singles/pairs:

http://www.isu.org/vsite/vnavsite/page/directory/0,10853,4844-130127-131435-nav-list,00.html

Are they a done deal, suggested by the fact that this is a separate ISU communication from the congress proposals?

Or do they need to be voted on, suggested by the phrase "the following language would be recommended"?

Here's the intermediate rotation proposal. Works for me.

Additional feature for step sequences -- half the sequence on one foot. About time!

Removal of some features for spins -- both directions only counts in camel or sit position. Edge change only counts in camel or forward sit.

There go my chances of ever getting level 3 on a spin. Not that I'll probably ever compete under IJS.

HisWeirness
05-06-2010, 08:04 PM
And there is an ice dance communication (#1610) (http://isu.sportcentric.net/db//files/serve.php?id=1861) that outlines the Free Dance requirements for 2010-11 as well as level descriptions. It also contains this important piece of information:


1. GUIDELINES FOR SHORT DANCE SEASON 2010/2011
Detailed guidelines will be published in June after the Congress decision.

So we need to wait until June to find out what the Short Dance is really going to entail.

***************

:eek: Holy moly! Here is a new UR rule in singles/pairs in Communication 1611 (http://isu.sportcentric.net/db//files/serve.php?id=1862)! Thanks gkelly for pointing these out!


A jump or throw identified as under-rotated will receive a reduced base value - 70% of the base value of the intended jump/throw rounded to one decimal place. (i.e., if the base value of a jump is 6.0, then the value of the under-rotated jump is 4.2).

I wonder if these new communications are going to need their own thread or we should discuss them here...

Anyway, they are introducing three rotation classifications for jumps and throw jumps:

1. Accepted Rotation: missing rotation of 1/4 revolution or less - full base value
2. Under-rotated: missing rotation of more than 1/4 but less than 1/2 revolutions - gets "<" symbol and 70% of base value of intended jump
3. Downgraded: missing rotation of 1/2 revolutions or more - gets "<<" symbol and base value for the element of one rotation less (<<3T would get base value of 2T)

Also,
Twist Lifts with lacking intended rotation on the landing can also be downgraded if they have “missing rotation of revolutions or more”.

:lol: after I figured out the points for 3T+halfloop+3S combination they have changed the base values for some of the jumps.

CantALoop
05-06-2010, 08:11 PM
Interesting, the half-loop will be marked as 1Lo and be given the base value of a single loop (0.5). I guess there's less incentive for skaters who do three-jump combinations to do a half loop combo.

Tammi
05-06-2010, 08:47 PM
And there is an ice dance communication (#1610) (http://isu.sportcentric.net/db//files/serve.php?id=1861) that outlines the Free Dance requirements for 2010-11 as well as level descriptions.And here's the dreaded music clarification:

MUSIC: Clarifications to Rule 610, paragraph c)
The music for Free Dance must be suitable for Ice Dance as a sport discipline and must have the following characteristics:

v) The music must be selected so that if there is any story or theme in the routine it has to be clearly understandable to
the audience.
vi) The music must have an uplifting effect.

HisWeirness
05-06-2010, 09:02 PM
deleted: content moved to here (http://www.fsuniverse.net/forum/showthread.php?p=2753940&postcount=2). ;)

Jenna
05-06-2010, 09:07 PM
Wow...lots of changes! When will these changes take place, regarding "under rotations" being different from "downgrades" and the changes regarding the changed base values? My daughter plans to compete next week at Colonial Open in MA, will they be adopted before then?