PDA

View Full Version : If you could have a rule created, what would it be.



Pages : 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10

barbk
07-14-2011, 08:24 PM
So, serious question (I'll make another thread if appropriate)...

Suppose we want to encourage and reward skaters for
1) step sequences that cover the ice with good speed
2) step sequences that demonstrate good edge quality
3) step sequences that fit the musical phrasing and choreographic theme of the program
4) ability to demonstrate variety and difficulty of turns, steps, and other skating skills, in both directions

If requiring 4) in the step sequences seems to work against also achieving 1) and 3), would it make more sense to make all step sequences "choreo step sequences" and then to reward the skills under 4) with GOE when demonstrated with the choreo sequence, or to reward them with more specific incentives than the current Skating Skills component when demonstrated throughout the program, or to reward them in their own separate part of the competition outside the program by reviving school figures or introducing some other purely skating skill segment of the competition?

Or should advanced skating skills not be officially rewarded?

I'd rather reward a skater's use of variety and difficulty of turns in SS marks rather than ruining step sequences, which is what has happened. Good step sequences in the past reflected power and musicality and variation in speed. Today's skaters too often look like birds incompetently searching for worms.

Vagabond
07-14-2011, 08:39 PM
What rule would you like created, and what would the penalty be.

I would propose three (with corollaries), in descending order of likelihood of their being adopted:

1. End anonymous judging.

I don't believe it accomplishes its ostensible goal of preventing judges from being bribed or otherwise influenced by their respective federations (or others).

2. Treat multi-rotation walleys and toe walleys as distinct jumps and award them their own base value.

Call it Zayak's Revenge. This would probably mean lengthening Men's and Ladies' Free Skates. So be it.

3. Reinstitute school figures.

This would require the ISU to set up a system for scoring them according to CoP.

I would also have the judges be sequestered before and while each skater skates so that the marks of for what is actually out there on the ice, not for a skater's reputation.

With modern filming techniques, including overhead cameras, this could draw a television audience and also be shown on big screen at the arena during the competition.


This is a very good idea for a topic. I just hope it isn't overtaken by facetious replies.

:lynch:

maggylyn
07-14-2011, 08:53 PM
No more tights over the boots unless you are a synchro team.

Absolutely agree with this!

(I hate the tights over the boots. :P )

MikiAndoFan#1
07-14-2011, 09:00 PM
I would ban this death spiral position (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WObpiMgQ6A&feature=player_detailpage#t=118s).

DORISPULASKI
07-14-2011, 09:03 PM
I love the Zayak's revenge toe walley rule!!!

I also would like a rule for what amounts to a TKO:

-3 falls in any program, and you are assumed to be too injured to continue to skate; leave the ice.

Having watched several skaters fall many times in the LP, I would really have appreciated it if the ref had escorted them off after the 3rd fall. In hindsight, I bet they would appreciate it too.

gkelly
07-14-2011, 09:07 PM
Changing underrotations to a GOE deduction instead of a downgrade. This would change so many results for the better, such as Nakano's 2008 Worlds placing.


In an ideal world, this would work. I would have no problem with this rule in the case of a skater who normally full rotates the jump but happens to make a mistake in competition.

However, this rule could encourage skaters (and coaches!) to not learn the proper jump technique. With this rule, skaters could actually PLAN to only do a 2.5 Lutz because they would then get the points for a triple with -GOE, which would still likely yield more points than a double jump. I don't see how this could change ANYTHING for the better!

I have a problem with it because there are several possible scenarios.

To simplify, let's look at three:

1) Severely underrotated jump landed on two feet with potentially other errors as well.

2) Moderately underrotated jump landed on one foot with good flow and perhaps extra enhancements.

3) Fully rotated jump with step out, hand down, incorrect takeoff, or other errors.

I.e., don't worry about falls, which currently do get an additional penalty.

Remember that there are only three available grades of negative GOE.

I would want scenario 1) to be punished the most severely and 2) the least severely.

1) should get -3 GOE and also a reduction in the base mark.

3) should get -3 GOE off the full base mark

What about 2)? If you penalize it only in the GOE, then that doesn't allow you to distinguish between a moderately cheated but otherwise beautiful jump and a moderately cheated jump with multiple and/or severe other errors.

I hated the complete downgrade for jumps that looked clean or close to clean to the naked eye. In that sense I think that the new-last-year 70% base mark for jumps underrotated more than 90 and less than 180 degrees is a great compromise. (< symbol as opposed to << for full downgrade)

I would go a little further and say that the GOE for a jump with a < call needs to be reduced by -1 to -3 depending on how severe the cheat looks to each individual judge, but I would want to say that the final GOE does not need to be negative. Therefore, if it looks great in real time and has extra enhancements, a judge could start out thinking it deserves +1 or +2. Then if the tech panel calls the < for underrotation, the judge could think "Well, I didn't see the cheat, so it must have been minor. I'll take off -1." And then end up with 0 or even +1 for the overall quality of the jump, but the base mark would be slightly reduced for the underrotation.

On the other hand, if the jump is horribly flawed and obviously cheated but not quite by 180 degrees, it could also receive the 70% base mark and -3 GOE, which is a lot less than 0 or +1.

Look at, e.g., Nakano's triple axel at 2008 Worlds or some of Nagasu's jumps at 2010 US Nationals. If they had received 70% of the base mark and 0 or +1 GOE, wouldn't that seem a lot fairer than base mark of a double jump and negative GOE?

Kasey
07-14-2011, 09:11 PM
I would institute a rule that there must be one "classic" move per long program, no levels, just GOE points. Such classic moves being a "classic" layback or cross-foot spin, a single axel in tuck or straight-legged form, etc....some of those beautiful "simple" moves that aren't so simple to actually do right and in good form.

gkelly
07-14-2011, 09:26 PM
2. Treat multi-rotation walleys and toe walleys as distinct jumps and award them their own base value.

Call it Zayak's Revenge. This would probably mean lengthening Men's and Ladies' Free Skates. So be it.

And inside axels!

I want to see the ladies' free skate lengthened so they can do the same number of jumps as men (probably not the same number of revolutions, but showing other kinds of jumping skills) and still have time for everything else.


3. Reinstitute school figures.

This would require the ISU to set up a system for scoring them according to CoP.

I would also have the judges be sequestered before and while each skater skates so that the marks of for what is actually out there on the ice, not for a skater's reputation.

Heh. So judge them only on the prints and not the speed, flow, body line, etc.?

Well, it would certainly be more objective.


Anyway, my changes -- not sure they can be boiled down into one "gkelly rule":

Replace the short program with a jump contest and spin contest each judged on base marks and GOEs only, and skating skills contest to music judged only on PCS.

(Although I could be talked into also including Vagabond's school figures contest.)

Give separate medals for each of the above, and also use them as qualifiers for the all-around event (free program).

Ladies and men have the same rules for freeskating:
Same length of time (4:15 +/- 0:15?)
Maximum of 8 jump passes, 5 spins, 2 step sequences, 1 each of spiral sequence, field moves sequence, school figures variation
Minimum of 5 jump passes, 3 spins, 1 step sequence, with certain requirements; no minimum for the other kinds of elements
Maximum of 13 or 14 elements total

Make definitions and rules for the new kinds of elements

And a few changes to the level definitions for existing kinds of elements.

I'd go back to making spiral sequences leveled, in addition to field moves sequences, but there would be more options for how to achieve the levels so everyone could choose their own kind of level 4 sequence to show off their own best skills

I'd change the definitions of the features for step sequences so Variety of steps is one feature and Variety of turns is a separate feature. It would be possible to earn level 2 and maybe level 3 by getting credit for variety in only one or the other of steps and turns, as long as there was also credit for another feature or two. For level 4 both would be required. Then maybe the upper body movement feature could be eliminated or modified to discourage excessive body movement just for the sake of earning a level.



Obviously different changes would be made for pairs and dance. I haven't given those much thought.

LilJen
07-14-2011, 09:35 PM
Revising the step sequence rule (levels), so that they don't have to last forever (and at the speed of a tortoise with a bad foot) and do not have to use every turn ever invented. I preferred the pre-COP step sequences.

Already done for the men's LPs--they now have a "choreographic step sequence." No levels called, just GOE.

triple_toe
07-14-2011, 10:03 PM
I think the problem isn't the code. It's the fact that skaters aren't trying to do fast step sequences anymore. Remember in 2006 when Sasha and Irina were doing level 3 steps with good speed?
I think that the slow sequences should result in lower PC's in composition and skating skills (since part of skating skills has to do with speed across ice)

The requirements for footwork were completely different and much simpler back in 2006. They are way too convoluted now.

I find it interesting that people are still advocating for a removal of the downgrades/underrotations. I'm just curious for those of you that support this: have you ever tried triples? Because a cheated triple is NOT the same as a clean one. A clean fall is actually harder than a cheated landing for most people. In fact, that was one of the complaints about 6.0, that cheated jumps were ignored as long as you didn't fall. Anyone remember a skater called Sarah Hughes, whose "triple-triples" won her the OGM? What about some of the "triple-triples" Irina used to do? Do you really think those combinations are equal to say, those that Yu na or Carolina (when she's on) do?

A case could be made for Yukari Nakano placing third, but not on the basis that she landed a triple axel. She didn't. She had a fantastic attempt at it, but a triple axel it was not, and it rightfully didn't get full credit.

I agree with whoever said that if you get rid of the downgrades, coaches and skaters won't put in the effort to get clean jumps. I'm not a huge fan of COP, but one thing it gets right is it forces skaters to actually work on rotating their jumps and taking off from the right edges, two things that were basically ignored under 6.0. Yes, sometimes the judges go overboard, but generally I think they get it right, and the attention to correct rotation and technique is a good step for the sport. Remember, we haven't really seen any skaters raised under COP yet, it will be interesting to see what skating will look like in 5-10 years.

Lanna
07-14-2011, 10:18 PM
Once you compete at a senior ISU international event (GP, ISU champs, whatever), you cannot then compete at a junior ISU international event (JGP, Junior Worlds). I'd call it the No Backsies rule. ;)

Vagabond
07-14-2011, 10:22 PM
And inside axels!

Absolutely.

Maybe boechels too.


Heh. So judge them only on the prints and not the speed, flow, body line, etc.?

Well, it would certainly be more objective.

Exactly.

A possible alternative would be not to sequester judges but to have Element Scores for the prints and Components Scores for speed, flow, body line, etc.

gkelly
07-14-2011, 10:36 PM
Anyone remember a skater called Sarah Hughes, whose "triple-triples" won her the OGM? What about some of the "triple-triples" Irina used to do? Do you really think those combinations are equal to say, those that Yu na or Carolina (when she's on) do?

I don't think you can make a meaningful comparison between Hughes's and Slutskaya's triple-triples on the one hand and Kim's and Kostner's on the other. The former two almost always did triple loop as the second jump, which by nature is going to have less flow and cover less ice on the landings combinations than triple toe as the second jump.

(Slutskaya's 3T-3t here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rG1VhaDnUhQ) is the best she achieved with a toe loop as the second jump, not up to Kim's and Kostner's best but less to complain about than her loop combinations.)

It would make more sense to compare to triple loop combinations by Ando or Asada.

figurefan
07-15-2011, 12:09 AM
Falls are disruptive to programs, and since judges don't seem to think so when they judge PCS (well, for certain skaters :shuffle:), then the automatic deductions for falls should be increased.

Ex.
-1 deduction for first fall
-2 deduction for second fall
-3 deduction for third fall
-4 deduction for fourth fall

There should be a bonus for including each type of jump in one's program.

I like this, I have always thought falls do not receive enough deductions...even under the old system.

Ziggy
07-15-2011, 12:55 AM
1. Flying Upright banned from the SP

Honestly...

2. Spin values varied much more.

Camel is much more difficult than sit, which is much more difficult than upright.

3. Loop combos valued more.

A small factor should have been introduced to the combos featuring a loop jump, as they are much harder to perform than those featuring a toe-loop.

4. Technical panel calling "s" on SP jumps with no steps

Because otherwise, we'll NEVER get the judges deducting for that (look how it was with flutzes and lips until we got "e"). :rolleyes:

5. Doing both Junior and Senior GP in Pairs as well as doing 3 GP events NOT allowed

There are few spots available as it is.

6. Judges told they need to vary their components or they will get slowly tortured to death.

:P

Factoring combos

As pointed out already, 2toe/3toe is harder than 3toe/2toe.

But I can't imagine how that could be balanced. I don't think that could really work.


Once you compete at a senior ISU international event (GP, ISU champs, whatever), you cannot then compete at a junior ISU international event (JGP, Junior Worlds). I'd call it the No Backsies rule. ;)

I think that should be taken into consideration.

Junior-eligible skaters can take advantage of much more opportunities to get ISU ranking points.

And doing both Junior and Senior events (having that many competitions in one season) increases the risk of injury.


Falls are disruptive to programs, and since judges don't seem to think so when they judge PCS (well, for certain skaters :shuffle:), then the automatic deductions for falls should be increased.

Ex.
-1 deduction for first fall
-2 deduction for second fall
-3 deduction for third fall
-4 deduction for fourth fall

You would end up with skaters taking much fewer risks and skating much safer programs. Programs would probably get even more front-loaded too.

Which is the last thing skating needs.

And falls don't necessarily have to be disruptive. If a skater returns to his program immediately and doesn't let the fall affect it, then they certainly shouldn't be penalised any more because it's an extremely difficult feat to accomplish.