2014 Governining Council proposed changes

Discussion in 'Moves In The Field' started by ioana, Apr 7, 2014.

  1. ioana

    ioana Well-Known Member

    5,133
    751
    113
    Not sure if this works as a link but the file is listed once you sign in under the Members Only section General Information ->Governing Council->2014 Meeting Book

    https://www.usfsaonline.org/Utiliti...GoverningCouncil\gc2014\2014 Meeting Book.pdf

    I am :cheer2: about forward paragraph loops (potentially) being taken off the Novice MITF. I just started working on the test again, but forward loops were :EVILLE: and it would have taken me years and years and years to get them anywhere near passing level.
     
    gkelly and (deleted member) like this.
  2. GarrAarghHrumph

    GarrAarghHrumph I can kill you with my brain

    16,417
    2,338
    113
    Interesting - they are proposing that any USFS member under age 18 must have a parent also be a USFS member, in order to be considered in good standing.
     
  3. Skittl1321

    Skittl1321 Well-Known Member

    12,026
    1,380
    113
    Well, that's just a money grab.

    I need to figure out what my login is.
     
  4. gkelly

    gkelly Well-Known Member

    10,821
    2,413
    113
    They're not "paragraph" loops (two whole circles on one foot connected by a change of edge), but yeah, I understand that those half circle patterns are harder than than the full circles.

    I can only do the counterclockwise ones inconsistently, clockwise not at all. I'll never take novice test anyway.

    I'm working on adult gold moves now. Don't know if I'll ever test it because the backward brackets are so far about as nonexistent as clockwise forward loops, and the double threes are bad. And those moves aren't proposed to change.

    I will miss the back inside circles in the circle eight if they remove it. Yes, it's more difficult and that push isn't used elsewhere, but it's the right level of challenge for me after that year I spent training back outside circle eight for the first figure test, thirty-mumble years ago. I should be able to pass that move now if the ice is clean enough to get a good glide.

    Not sure what I think about the changes to the power circles. I guess I'll find out if the proposal passes. I anticipate the counterclockwise ones being fine and the clockwise change of direction to trip me up -- probably literally.
     
  5. GarrAarghHrumph

    GarrAarghHrumph I can kill you with my brain

    16,417
    2,338
    113
    I can't wait to hear people's reactions to that particular change.
     
  6. ioana

    ioana Well-Known Member

    5,133
    751
    113
    :facepalm: I've been corrected on that plenty of times and I still keep calling them paragraph loops to somehow distinguish them from the jump. Should stop doing it.

    I was far from a big fan of that move, but the change from outside to inside edge circles -and especially the second inside circle- were a good exercise in body awareness. Or lack thereof, in my case :shuffle:
     
  7. ioana

    ioana Well-Known Member

    5,133
    751
    113
    The pdf made it sound like the additional membership would be $20 per year? I wouldn't think that would be a deal breaker for most families, but I do agree it sounds like an attempt to get more membership $$.
     
  8. Clarice

    Clarice Active Member

    668
    129
    43
    My club has always had a parent join with their minor skater. It's necessary in order for them to have voting rights. I thought that was pretty standard procedure. Do any of you belong to clubs that allow minors to join without an adult?
     
  9. RFOS

    RFOS Well-Known Member

    2,437
    624
    113
    My club allows minors to join without parents, and a parent or guardian gets voting rights through that membership.
     
  10. GarrAarghHrumph

    GarrAarghHrumph I can kill you with my brain

    16,417
    2,338
    113
    The $20 is the USFS membership. They'd also need to pay for the club membership.
     
  11. zaphyre14

    zaphyre14 Well-Known Member

    4,800
    1,176
    113
    My club too has always required minors to have a parent join, for insurance reasons. It was a requirement of USFSA Way Back In The Day and the club bylaws haven't changed. In fact, I wasn't aware that USFS allowed minors to join without a parent, except as a Basic Skills member. We register the parent as "additional Family Member" which is already $20 I think. So that's not really a change for us.

    Changing the age levels for adults (AGAIN) is ridiculous. I've already contacted my delagate and as many delgates for other clubs as I could find to express my displeasure. The thing I find most annoying is that the proposal doesn't seem to have gone through the Adult Committee but came from the Competition Committee without input from the adult community at all. So the adults need to speak up and make themselves heard!!!!!
     
  12. Clarice

    Clarice Active Member

    668
    129
    43
    Yeah, zaphyre14, that's exactly what my club does. I'd forgotten about the insurance thing - that was the major reason, I think. So it's not a change for us at all, either.

    I am also not thrilled with the adult age level changes, and will be contacting our delegates. I'm also making a point to talk to the other adults at the rink, to make sure that they are aware. Folks, if you are USFS members, you need to read the Meeting Book and be informed about what is going on in your sport. It's in the Members Only section; click on General Info, then Governing Council, like ioana said above. Most items are just fine and should pass with no trouble, but every once in a while there's something that really warrants further discussion. If your club is not sending delegates, they should be sending proxies with instructions on how to vote. If they're not doing that, you need to know why they're giving up the right to influence how our sport is run.
     
  13. Skittl1321

    Skittl1321 Well-Known Member

    12,026
    1,380
    113
    They are just changing the age levels for adults (I- IV)? Right, not the classifications for skills?
    I don't agree with it, because I think a 35 year old competing against a 21 year old is just not fair- they are totally different life stages; but hasn't class III gotten really crowded? I can understand wanting to distribute them; I would have added another class though (IIIa, IIIb maybe), not messed up the other ones.
     
  14. Clarice

    Clarice Active Member

    668
    129
    43
    They're condensing from 5 age groups to 4: I is ages 21 - 35, II is 36 - 45, III is 46 - 55, and IV is 56 and over. So they're increasing the spread for the youngest and oldest groups. It's not only a matter of wanting to even out the population of the groups; they also want to decrease the total number of events if possible. Adult Nationals is a monster competition that really needs to be streamlined as much as possible, but this particular proposal is getting a lot of opposition.
     
  15. Debbie S

    Debbie S Well-Known Member

    6,435
    874
    113
    There is a big difference in skill level between a 21-year-old and a 35-year-old, so I imagine there is a lot of opposition. This basically goes back to the divisions of 10 years ago, with the 21-24 ages lumped in with Class I. It's sort of funny to me, since I started out as a I, then got moved into II when they lowered the age to 21 and basically split the old Class I into 2 classes. Then I aged up into III, for a year (I think), then became a II again when they adjusted the groups into their current form, then aged into III, and would now be a II again.

    I think the current age divisions (equal spread of ages in each) make more sense and would prefer to keep them. There is a note about age classes often needing to be combined but that's rarely the case in Bronze and Silver, at least for the younger groups. I do see that they are also trying to streamline AN by only allowing one Interp entry, which I think makes sense.

    I'm not thrilled about the changes to Gold MIF. I've slaved away for 3 years on that O to I push, lol, and I think I've finally got it. And my inside 8 is better than my outside 8. My coach has a kid on Pre-Juv whose outside is much stronger than inside; I joked that she should combine the 2 of us into 1 skater.

    But I really don't like the changes to the power circles. I don't like the change of direction and not sure how that reduces time for the test - you're still doing 4 crossover sets. And it sounds like 16 crossovers per circle instead of 13-14. And not sure I understand how one will transition at "fully accelerated" to the different direction and "start with a slower tempo". Are you supposed to glide along until you lose speed?

    It looks like the Singles Committee proposed the MIF changes - can someone on the Adult Committee remind them that "power" is no longer used as a focus on the power circles or other adult moves - it's "continuous flow and strength".

    And that requirement for a parent to join is likely going to get some opposition at my club (I think I can predict who the complainers are going to be). And the more members a club has, the higher the club's membership fee to USFS. Our club had a big increase in our USFS dues when we went over 100 members last year. I think the next increase comes at 200 members...I suspect quite a few clubs will be bumped into a higher category and may end up having to raise their club membership fees to account for that. :(
     
  16. gkelly

    gkelly Well-Known Member

    10,821
    2,413
    113
    On the gold test, yes.
    Two of them will be on juvenile and two on intermediate. It's weird how they break them up: CCW forward to backward and CW backward to forward on juvenile and CCW backward to forward, CW forward to backward on intermediate.
    I don't know if there will be a consistent pattern in whether skaters find the backward or forward turn in the bad direction more difficult at speed, and of course not all skaters have the same bad direction.

    I tried the backward to forward circles as my warmup this morning. I was able to step forward in the bad direction, feeling a little awkward on the FO edge before starting the crossovers. But I deliberately held myself back from gaining speed. The requirement to make that turn in the middle of the move, and the way the pattern is drawn in the appendix, makes it seem like they don't really want this move to be about gaining power and increasing the circle size. So what is the point of it?

    I think you're just supposed to keep skating on whatever-sized circles at whatever ice speed you have already attained from the first 8 crossovers, but just slow down the rhythm to begin the second half.

    They'll have to educate the coaches and judges as to what the expectations are before this could go into effect.
     
  17. jenlyon60

    jenlyon60 Member

    132
    9
    18
    I would also expect that if it passes, when the Adult Gold version of the move is written, that the "continuous flow" focus will be substituted for power. As you know, often the specific fine details of wording are worked out by the Rules committee after Governing Council is over, for publication in the Rulebook and on the website.
     
  18. gkelly

    gkelly Well-Known Member

    10,821
    2,413
    113
    No doubt.

    Speaking only for myself, I don't have any trouble achieving juvenile-worthy power from back crossovers. What I do have trouble with is stepping from back outside to forward outside in my bad direction at high speed.
     
  19. Debbie S

    Debbie S Well-Known Member

    6,435
    874
    113
    Yes, I hope they'll clarify what "fully accelerated" on this move means. If you only have 8 crossovers, how many slow, how many medium, how many fast, how much ice coverage/circumference of the circle, etc.

    I hope so.


    I really need to pass this test (or give up) by Sept 1, b/c there is no way I'll be able to make a LBO-RFO transition in the power circles at high speed. My left ankle just doesn't bend like that.
     
  20. Stormy

    Stormy Well-Known Member

    3,752
    844
    113
    That's not the case. I'm on the ASC and it was thoroughly discussed and voted on within the Adult committee before it went to the RFA for Governing Council, and before it was even brought up within the ASC, it was well researched to make sure the numbers proposed made sense from a logistical standpoint.

    I'm definitely curious whether that will actually pass at GC or not.
     
  21. zaphyre14

    zaphyre14 Well-Known Member

    4,800
    1,176
    113
    If that's so, then I'm surprised that the news came as such a big shock to the general adult community (i.e. - the people that the change actually affects).
     
  22. purple skates

    purple skates Shadow dancing

    16,859
    4,751
    113
    I think the problem with the proposed age categories (and the rationale given in the GC packet) is that they appear to have been looked at from a numbers standpoint as opposed to a human standpoint. From my personal experience, I can say that the 38 year old skater I was is far different than the 49 year old skater that I am, and I can bet dollar to donuts that the 60 year old skater I hope to be will be far different than I am now. The physical changes accelerate much faster in your 40's and I am sure even faster in your 50's and 60's, and the proposal doesn't acknowledge that.

    I already know skaters in their 60s who used to compete (mainly solo dance) and have given it up because those events aren't separated by age.

    If it were me and there had to be only four groups, then I'd combine 21-40 and break things out in decade chunks from there. However, I see nothing wrong with it as it currently is -- maybe if the numbers at AN are too big they should look at further restricting the number of events someone can enter. Or limit people to only one type of interp. Or don't let people compete in an open event if they are also in the championship event at that same level. There's a whole bunch of options that maybe having a focus group could address better than just the adult committee.

    Also, Stormy, that Facebook post by M. on the competitive adult skaters group was the first I'd heard of it. Was it discussed at last year's AN meeting? (I wasn't at that AN). I'm not in any way trying to slam the work of the committee. Lord knows I've served on enough thankless volunteer jobs. It's just with this one it seems like people are both blindsided and upset.
     
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2014
  23. overedge

    overedge Well-Known Member

    18,189
    2,768
    113
    Canada uses the same age ranges as the US. Speaking as someone who just finished a competitive year at the upper end of an age bracket, I think broadening the age ranges even further would be a terrible idea. The unexpected side effect IMHO would be that even more people would drop out in frustration at being in unevenly matched groups of competitors. I agree with sk8er1964 that if the numbers at US adult nationals are the problem that this proposal is trying to address, there are other ways to do it.

    FWIW we only have one kind of interp at Cdn adult nationals. The same interp group can contain programs that are :cheer2: and others that are :drama:, which may be a little challenging for the judges, but I haven't heard anyone complaining that there should be different categories because of that. I also like sk8er1964's idea of making people choose one kind, if numbers in interp are getting too big.
     
  24. LilJen

    LilJen Well-Known Member

    9,915
    1,671
    113
    The changes to power circles sound very odd. I was liking those, for the short time I had been practicing them before I broke my ankle 2 years ago. I fail to see what is accomplished other than a Speedy-style "we need to cut down on expenses [time] and who cares if we destroy the sport in the process?"
     
  25. Skittl1321

    Skittl1321 Well-Known Member

    12,026
    1,380
    113
    What is the largest age range at ANs? Does it make sense to have 21-40 together and then 50s, 60s, 70s? Are there really enough people in those upper decades? (50s, I'm sure- but to have 4 groups- do you really need a 70s group?)

    I think 21-40 sounds INSANE. At 21 I was 100 pounds and could pull my legs over my head with no stretching required. By 30, that weight wasn't even close and I have almost no flexibility left because of injuries. Not to mention, at 21-25 I had very few responsibilities, could train as much as I want. 30-40 people are trying their best to sneak a few hours of training in between work and family commitments. Of course, these are generalizations, but that range represents vastly different life stages; which effect skating.

    I guess I don't see how changing the age groups will change the length of the event, unless the purpose is to scare people away. Unless the main savings is in on ice medal ceremonies? (I don't know if AN does those). If the same number of people are doing the same number of programs, how much does it matter how you group them? Does it really take that much time to announce a new event? Are warm ups not combined if number of skaters are low?
     
  26. zaphyre14

    zaphyre14 Well-Known Member

    4,800
    1,176
    113
    If the rationale is to have evenly divided flights, why not just eliminate the age categories altogether. Then divide the total entries into even flights, sort the skaters by date of birth and count off the first x number into Group 1, the next x into group 2, etc. That's the way some Opens divide the kids (which seems to be another goal of the committees - making Adults as much like the kids as they can; *sigh* Doesn't anyone remember that the Adult Levels came into being because Adult Skaters aren't the same as kids?)

    And no, I'm not advocating the elimination of age groups; it's one of the few things I like about US Adult competitions.
     
  27. jenlyon60

    jenlyon60 Member

    132
    9
    18
    If you have the opportunity to be a delegate, please isolate the items with which you have issues. If not, please find one or more of your club's delegates and let them know your concerns, so that they can try and address these issues at Governing Council. Without knowing specific concerns, it becomes more difficult for delegates to talk to various issues (such as these) at the meeting.
     
  28. Debbie S

    Debbie S Well-Known Member

    6,435
    874
    113
    And if the new AN groups get bigger, then they'll need to have a QR, which just creates more groups anyway. I believe AN does medal ceremonies off-ice, like at club comps, Regionals, and Sectionals.

    There is already a proposal to restrict skaters to only 1 Interp event/1 category, and I agree with sk8er1964's other suggestions. As long as you have the same number of people doing the same number of events as before, you'll need the same amount of time for the comp.

    Switching gears, I read the rationale for requiring parents to join a club along with their kids and I found it rather amusing. Does USFS really think that by making parents pay an extra $20, they'll be more likely to volunteer? And how will increasing every club's membership increase their influence at GC? If every club has an increase in members, each club's relative representation basically stays the same. Unless there are a bunch of large clubs with mostly adult members, which I doubt. This smacks of USFS sitting down with their consultants brainstorming ways to increase their numbers (and dues income) back to 90s levels.
     
  29. Skittl1321

    Skittl1321 Well-Known Member

    12,026
    1,380
    113
    Thanks for clarifying. I know on-ice medal ceremonies add a lot of time, and area a reason to want to cut groups. I was surprised when ISI synchro nats did those- because off ice ceremonies saves a lot of ice time/money!
     
  30. Clarice

    Clarice Active Member

    668
    129
    43
    I have always felt that if only 3 skaters showed up in the oldest age category, they all deserved medals for still being out there! And, no, I'm not quite in that group yet, and yes, I have envied the edge quality some of those folks have!