PDA

View Full Version : 2011-12 Season ISU Technical Requirements and Changes



Pages : 1 2 3 [4] 5 6

Coco
05-06-2011, 05:52 AM
Only 1 flying spin now? Am I reading that right, or can a skater still do a 2nd flying entrance to a spin w/o invalidating the spin. They just wouldn't get credit in the base value of the spin. Maybe it could be viewed as a transition, lol.


Backward and flying entry, change of edge and any type of difficult spin variation count as features that can increase the Level only once per program (in the first spin they are
attempted).

Regarding steps into the solo jump, I would like to see them go farther and let the caller award levels. It could either be an addition to the base value, or a factor to multiply with the base value of the solo jump

Ziggy
05-06-2011, 07:42 PM
I can't decide if I like it or not. I like seeing laybacks and back cross spins from men, so I'm kind of falling on the side of keeping it.

I don't mind flying laybacks, they are unusual and not very easy to do. But flying upright is just a joke. It's so much easier to perform than both flying sit and camel.


Regarding steps into the solo jump, I would like to see them go farther and let the caller award levels. It could either be an addition to the base value, or a factor to multiply with the base value of the solo jump

Sounds great! Points added depending on how complex the entry is and the caller flagging total lack of steps for a deduction like with an "e." :)

5Ali3
05-06-2011, 08:52 PM
I think it's gonna be a dead rule. Same as that rule saying that a sit position means buttocks not higher than the skating knee. A few skaters at 2011 Worlds were higher and none of them ended up having those positions called as upright ones...

In my experience, the "sit=butt not higher than knee" is still being applied. Do you have any specific examples from Worlds? I'd love to look at the video. (Not being sarcastic - genuinely curious how it's being applied internationally.)


Has anything changed with pair lifts? I hate that some pairs seem to have the same lift 3 times in their LP w/ minor variations getting in or out.

One of the requirements for the pairs LP is that all three lifts must be of a different nature and that one of them must be a Group 3 or 4. From the perspective of a pairs skater, needing to perform three different entries is not a "minor variation."


Only 1 flying spin now? Am I reading that right, or can a skater still do a 2nd flying entrance to a spin w/o invalidating the spin. They just wouldn't get credit in the base value of the spin.

Difficult flying entry/landing on same foot as takeoff is a feature for spins. I think what this is saying is that the "flying bullet" only counts once per program, just like the backward entry only counts once per program. A skater can fly into more than one spin, but they only get credit for the flying feature once. It's also not quite accurate to say that they "wouldn't get credit in the base value of the spin." If - for example - a skater does a difficult entry into a flying camel as part of the combo spin, and then does another flying camel as the flying spin, they would still receive the base value of a "FCSp," but the flying entry would not increase the level.

The ISU uses "base value" in two different ways, which is confusing... but what's new? :slinkaway

Ziggy
05-06-2011, 09:10 PM
In my experience, the "sit=butt not higher than knee" is still being applied. Do you have any specific examples from Worlds? I'd love to look at the video. (Not being sarcastic - genuinely curious how it's being applied internationally.)

Phaneuf always lands her flying sit in the upright position. But maybe, because she doesn't complete a full revolution in it, it doesn't count? Should't it be called as a flying upright? Or at least deducted for the wrong landing position?

I don't think there is anything in the rules about situations like this.

Joubert, on the other hand, lands his flying upright in the sit position.

Two examples of bum over knee from 2011 Worlds:

- Asada's flying sit (the variation at the end)
- Ando's flying sit (the pancake variation at the end)

gkelly
05-06-2011, 09:58 PM
Two examples of bum over knee from 2011 Worlds:

- Asada's flying sit (the variation at the end)
- Ando's flying sit (the pancake variation at the end)

It's allowed to have part of the spin in an "intermediate position," especially for difficult variations, as long as a certain number of revolutions in the spin as a whole meet the standard for the basic position.

nro
05-06-2011, 10:02 PM
If during the Death Spiral Lady’s head never reaches the level of her skating knee, the Death Spiral will have no value. :judge:

Wow, the lady's position is important but why so draconian? In that case, why not also completely nullify lifts if the lady's position is sloppy, or spins/jumps that are out of synch.

Ziggy
05-06-2011, 10:08 PM
It's allowed to have part of the spin in an "intermediate position," especially for difficult variations, as long as a certain number of revolutions in the spin as a whole meet the standard for the basic position.

Thanks, I didn't realise that.

aster
05-07-2011, 02:19 AM
It's allowed to have part of the spin in an "intermediate position," especially for difficult variations, as long as a certain number of revolutions in the spin as a whole meet the standard for the basic position.

They will still get credit for the spin, but if it is not a combo spin, the tech. specialist should not be giving the skater credit for any feature that doesn't meet the definition of a sit spin (if it's a flying/solo sit of course). Intermediate positions are only allowed in combo spins.

Marco
05-07-2011, 06:04 AM
Great, even less values for GOEs, because you know, who cares about quality? :drama:

Ziggy
05-07-2011, 02:09 PM
They will still get credit for the spin, but if it is not a combo spin, the tech. specialist should not be giving the skater credit for any feature that doesn't meet the definition of a sit spin (if it's a flying/solo sit of course). Intermediate positions are only allowed in combo spins.

So those variations shouldn't count (thus lowering the level), right?

Or should they count as an upright position, thus changing the flying sit into flying change combination spin?


Great, even less values for GOEs, because you know, who cares about quality? :drama:

Tell me about it. :(

npavel
05-07-2011, 08:34 PM
Level 2 step sequence increased from 2.3 to 2.6.
Positive GOE (+3,+2,+1) for Level 4 regular step sequences and Choreo Spirals and Choreo Step Sequences decreased from 3, 2, 1 points to 2.1, 1.4, 0.7 points.


I hate this. Why should they not award the few skaters who put their energy in the Level 4 step sequences. There aren't that many and it needed great basics to reach them

aster
05-07-2011, 09:15 PM
So those variations shouldn't count (thus lowering the level), right?

Or should they count as an upright position, thus changing the flying sit into flying change combination spin?

Depends on the spin:

In a combination spin, an imperfect difficult variation (usually, a sit spin that is too high) would theoretically count as an intermediate position. When it's obvious, though, that the skater is going for a sit spin and just doesn't do it correctly, often the technical specialist doesn't count the DV at all. As well, for CCoSp (combo spins which change feet), a skater must have all 3 basic positions (sit, camel, upright) with one on each foot, so if the DV is too high to count as a sit spin and there isn't another sit spin in there, the spin is automatically a level 1.

In a one position spin (with or without change of foot or flying entry), they wouldn't count unless it looks like the skater actually intended to do a combination spin. Usually, in the case of a too high sit spin, it's pretty obvious that it's just a too high sit spin and not an upright spin or intermediate position, so the tech. specialist just ignores that DV and considers the rest of the spin. They can also used the planned program content sheet to figure out what the intended spin is. These are often inaccurate, though, since coaches and skaters change programs and don't update them.

YoenNL
05-08-2011, 10:39 AM
I am very dissapointed that flying upright (which is just :rolleyes:) hasn't been banned in the SP.



I am too. I had proposed to take it out of the list of elements in one of the TC reports. That could have been a solution not having it to pass through Congress as a rule change.

YoenNL
05-08-2011, 10:43 AM
Sounds great! Points added depending on how complex the entry is and the caller flagging total lack of steps for a deduction like with an "e." :)

Let's bring on an "s" - button for the Tech panel?

5Ali3
05-08-2011, 04:31 PM
Phaneuf always lands her flying sit in the upright position. But maybe, because she doesn't complete a full revolution in it, it doesn't count? Should't it be called as a flying upright? Or at least deducted for the wrong landing position?

I watched Phaneuf's SP from Worlds 2011. In that program, I think the "time" that it takes her to obtain the sit position after the fly is a GOE issue, not a technical panel concern. It's clearly not a flying upright, because she's clearly trying to obtain a sit position - which she certainly does.

This stuff used to be written down in the 100 page version of First Aid. I confess that I have no idea where to find it now that First Aid has gone on a major diet.


Two examples of bum over knee from 2011 Worlds:

- Asada's flying sit (the variation at the end)
- Ando's flying sit (the pancake variation at the end)

Long or short? Gkelly's response captures what I was thinking might have happened, though...