gkelly
11-08-2011, 05:04 PM
I guess the spin Nazi in me wants to say that an attempt to get the higher level and executing it badly should either cost more in GOE, or should not count for the level.
If it's done really badly, both will be the case. I've seen some attempts at Biellmanns that don't achieve the difficult position and/or don't rotate for two revolutions, so they don't get the feature. And then if the spin grinds to a complete halt, that's got to knock down the GOE.
Just slowing down a little in a less than beautiful position for 2-3 revolutions probably makes the difference between +1 (if the rest of the spin was good) and 0. Occasionally between +2 and +1.
Perhaps it would be too harsh a penalty, but maybe if the attempt at the higher level ends up compromising that section of the spin enough (like the really slow Bielmann) then the spin has to have a mandatory -GOE.
How would you define compromising the spin "enough"?
It's probably going to remain a judgment call, and some judges will be harsher than others.
Ok I have now gone and read the GOE guidelines for spins and I think they are just quite difficult to interpret, a lot of the + guidelines are subjective:
acceleration,
balanced rotations in all positions (does that mean equal number of rotations or actually well balanced as in not wobbling?)
I think it means approximately equal numbers of rotations on each foot or in each position.
Not wobbling should be taken for granted even for base value. If there is significant wobbling, that would be a reason for negative GOE.
clearly more than required rotations (does that mean doing not just two for levels and doing say four or five, or does that mean doing 15 rotations on each foot?)
I think both, as applicable. Four revolutions in a difficult position is probably not "clearly" more than the required two, and eight is a feature in its own right, but six or seven might be a reason to reward that position in GOE, regardless of whether the position itself qualifies as a feature. E.g., the opening camel position of a combination spin.
Good positions (really subjective - does the butt spin ever make a good position, or in fact any of the difficult variations)
Rarely, but some skaters can make them look attractive to me. As you say, it's subjective.
The mandatory negative GOE is basically a fall or both hand down on the ice. The rest of the negative GOE is also things like hand or foot touch down, poor/awkward positions.
I think wobbling and scratching/slowing down on the toepicks will also inspire lower GOE. And too few total revolutions especially in the short program. Not usually a problem at the elite levels.
:rofl:Whenever possible? That would be never then! By the very definition of those steps they can't be done on one foot, saying that I'd love to see someone at the ISU (preferably the person who wrote that part of the rules) try to execute chasses, mohawks, choctaws or running steps (actually anything that is in the list under steps) on one foot to demonstrate what they mean :rofl:
Ha! Actually I think edge changes count as steps, so those can be done on one foot, but you can't make a whole step sequence out of them. I guess a hop on one foot would also qualify. I agree that is badly worded.
If it's done really badly, both will be the case. I've seen some attempts at Biellmanns that don't achieve the difficult position and/or don't rotate for two revolutions, so they don't get the feature. And then if the spin grinds to a complete halt, that's got to knock down the GOE.
Just slowing down a little in a less than beautiful position for 2-3 revolutions probably makes the difference between +1 (if the rest of the spin was good) and 0. Occasionally between +2 and +1.
Perhaps it would be too harsh a penalty, but maybe if the attempt at the higher level ends up compromising that section of the spin enough (like the really slow Bielmann) then the spin has to have a mandatory -GOE.
How would you define compromising the spin "enough"?
It's probably going to remain a judgment call, and some judges will be harsher than others.
Ok I have now gone and read the GOE guidelines for spins and I think they are just quite difficult to interpret, a lot of the + guidelines are subjective:
acceleration,
balanced rotations in all positions (does that mean equal number of rotations or actually well balanced as in not wobbling?)
I think it means approximately equal numbers of rotations on each foot or in each position.
Not wobbling should be taken for granted even for base value. If there is significant wobbling, that would be a reason for negative GOE.
clearly more than required rotations (does that mean doing not just two for levels and doing say four or five, or does that mean doing 15 rotations on each foot?)
I think both, as applicable. Four revolutions in a difficult position is probably not "clearly" more than the required two, and eight is a feature in its own right, but six or seven might be a reason to reward that position in GOE, regardless of whether the position itself qualifies as a feature. E.g., the opening camel position of a combination spin.
Good positions (really subjective - does the butt spin ever make a good position, or in fact any of the difficult variations)
Rarely, but some skaters can make them look attractive to me. As you say, it's subjective.
The mandatory negative GOE is basically a fall or both hand down on the ice. The rest of the negative GOE is also things like hand or foot touch down, poor/awkward positions.
I think wobbling and scratching/slowing down on the toepicks will also inspire lower GOE. And too few total revolutions especially in the short program. Not usually a problem at the elite levels.
:rofl:Whenever possible? That would be never then! By the very definition of those steps they can't be done on one foot, saying that I'd love to see someone at the ISU (preferably the person who wrote that part of the rules) try to execute chasses, mohawks, choctaws or running steps (actually anything that is in the list under steps) on one foot to demonstrate what they mean :rofl:
Ha! Actually I think edge changes count as steps, so those can be done on one foot, but you can't make a whole step sequence out of them. I guess a hop on one foot would also qualify. I agree that is badly worded.