Communication No. 1861 - Scales of values

Discussion in 'Great Skate Debate' started by morqet, Apr 28, 2014.

1. morqetrising like a phoenix

1,884
2,614
113
The updated Scale of Values, Levels of Difficulty and Guidelines for marking Grade of Execution for 2014 has been published. http://static.isu.org/media/143595/1861-sandp_sov_levels-of-difficulty_goe_2014-15.pdf

The biggest change is that an edge call now means the base value of the jump is reduced to 70%. If a skater has an underrotation and edge call on the same jump, its bv is reduced to 50%, and for juniors and seniors jumps with less than 1.5 rotations have no value.

2. elifWell-Known Member

695
397
63
Could be good news for Lipnitskaia. Her edge is not that bad (not severe wrong, mostly unclear), probably judges only going to give ''!'' sign. Almost all skaters will got ''e'' for either lutz or flip so this could be a advantage for her.

3. RFOSWell-Known Member

2,771
1,155
113
Thanks for posting. I don't have time to read through absolutely everything or post a lot of thoughts right now, but I see they at least did FINALLY make it so getting -3 on a level 2 step sequence doesn't get more points than getting -3 on a level 3. It only took how many years?

It also states that jumps with lower than required revolutions get no value in the short program, but I'm not totally clear what happens in the case of a combination. "In Short Program jumps which do not satisfy the requirements (wrong number of revolutions) will have no value; if a combination of two double jumps is not allowed (senior men and ladies, junior men), jump with a lesser value will not be counted." So jumps with a lesser value than a double jump don't count in base value in the combination? So in a 4T+1T in Senior Men the skater wouldn't get any base value for the single? That would be fine with me but is already implied by jumps with under 1.5 rotations not having a base value in either SP or FS for Junior and Senior. As long as the whole combination isn't thrown out. Much more common than a single as a second jump is falling on or having an error that breaks the rhythm after the first jump in combination so that the second jump is not counted at all, which shouldn't be considered WORSE than executing a single jump that does count as a second jump.

I'm OK with single jumps having no base value in the Junior and Senior SP because they would never meet the stated requirements that are specific to those levels, but I don't like the idea of them having no base value in the FS and essentially creating a separate system of valuing things differently at different levels, which just complicates things significantly. The base value of a single jump is so negligible compared to the point value of even a weak Junior or Senior Free Skate it won't make much practical difference at all.

I do like the idea of the return of "!" in addition to "e." I was glad when the introduced it and not sure why the eliminated it in the first place. But applying BOTH a significant base value reduction AND a required negative GOE for an "e" with neither being required for a "!" I think is bound to result in controversy at some point when a skater gets a "!" that really maybe should've been an "e" on a 3Lz and loses maybe 1 GOE (or 0.7 total points) and another skater gets an "e" and loses 1.8 in base value and 2 GOEs (1.4), or 3.2 total points.

Last edited: Apr 28, 2014
4. antmanbWell-Known Member

5,930
7,185
113
The biggest change that I read was that jumps in the SP with less rotations than they should have will get no value at all! That seems a little bit closer to do or die for the SP which I like.

I'm not sure about going back to ! and e again - they scrapped it last time, seemingly because of inconsistencies as to the way it was applied. You can't help but think that it will be easy to see people wuzrubbing about the way it is used and applied to different skaters.

5. allezfredVirtue/Cruz 2018Staff Member

49,265
25,284
113
For senior ladies and men and junior men, it seems that if a skater doesn't perform the required number of rotations for a jump that jump will have no value. That's really going to put the cat among the pigeons!

6. gkellyWell-Known Member

12,471
5,135
113
Looks like lots of new details for the tech panels and skaters/coaches to learn, not much change for the judges.

How will this work?

*If a skater pops a jump, they currently get base value for a single with whatever GOE the judges award. With this new rule, it will fill a jump box but get no points, same as is already the case for a waltz jump/downgraded axel attempt?

I.e., the intention is to be more punitive of singled jumps at junior and senior level?

*What about the half-loop combinations, currently called as three-jump combinations? Will those still count as combos with full base value for the first and last jump, the only difference being that there isn't an additional 0.5 for the half loop? (And no << calls with required -GOE for the half loop if applicable?) Will it still fill the three-jump combo box, so skaters can't also do triple-double-double etc.?

*What about intentional single jumps such as split-flip? It would be great if this rule would allow junior and senior skaters to do such single jumps as transitions anywhere in the program that don't count toward the number of jump slots, but I'm afraid they may be worse off if such elements fill jump boxes but get no credit, so instead of filling a box with a potential of 1.1 points for a 1F with +3 GOE, instead it will fill a box but get 0 points.

This will affect anyone who singled the required double axel in the short program (1.1 minus 0.6 for -3 GOE = 0.5 that those skaters will no longer received), and double-double combos or solo double jumps for seniors (e.g., 2Lz+2T with -3 GOE used to be worth 2.5, now it will be worth 0 in a SP).

This will be most costly for those senior ladies who didn't even bother attempting triples and just accepted the mandatory -3 GOE for clean doubles.

What will happen with downgraded triples? E.g., 3Lz<<+2T with -3 GOE would still get that 2.5?

7. allezfredVirtue/Cruz 2018Staff Member

49,265
25,284
113
I guess those senior ladies will have to start attempting triples if they are going to continue competing next season.

You would think so, but the wording is very vague.

8. RFOSWell-Known Member

2,771
1,155
113
Good questions to ask and issues to think about. I wish they would allow something like an intentional split flip to count as a transition, ESPECIALLY if it would get no points when it does fill a jump box, regardless of its execution, but there's nothing written thus far that changes the method of calling jumps (except the reintroduction of "!") so I assume the split flip would be called. U.S. Figure Skating's instructions are to call it regardless of where it occurs in the program, though the calling of the split flip was inconsistent internationally throughout the last season (Courtney Hicks, Daisuke Takahashi, and Richard Dornbush all did them). I wish the ISU would issue a clarification on that so there's at least consistency.

Since there's nothing that indicates otherwise, I assume that a half loop would still be called the same way and could be downgraded, and would affect the GOE of the combination (as I think it should since it is part of the combination whether it earns points in itself or not).

Now this one definitely needs clarification.

12,098
1,270
113
nm

10. euterpeWell-Known Member

12,098
1,270
113
All this means we will be seeing lower scores overall when the caller is strict. Few skaters never flutz or lip or slightly UR jumps.

11. kwanfan1818I <3 Kozuka

25,669
10,918
113
I think the rule about not counting the lower-valued jump in a combo that doesn't meet the requirements is clear in one way -- where 3/2 or 2/3 minimum is required, the 2T in a 2Lz/2T combo would be dropped, as would the 1T in a 4T/1T combo -- but not in another, ie, do they become 2Lz+combo and 4T+combo, with an 80% reduction in base plus -3GOE?

Not counting the 1T is already covered in the "no revs under 1.5 count" rule in Juniors and Seniors, but does << on a double mean no credit for the jump, and if in combo, turn it into a + combo (80% base), even if there's no repeat on the other jump (double - quad)?

Does it mean that jumps under 1.5 revs won't take up a jump box, and a skater can include a low-rev jump sequence to the program without penalty?

Does the half loop between jumps still enable the sequence to be scored as a combo, even if the half loop, currently given credit as a 1Lo, doesn't get added to the base?

12. 5Ali3Active Member

442
233
43
Not quite - if a skater is required to do a combination of a triple jump and a double jump and executes a combination of two double jumps, they lose credit for the jump that is less than required revolutions. Let's say the skater does 2Lo+2T. How do we know which jump is "wrong number of revolutions" since one of them is the "wrong" number and the other is the "right" (allowed) number? The skater could have completed 3Lo+2T or 2Lo+3T, so which one loses credit? ISU says the jump with the lower base value will be the jump that is considered "wrong number of revolutions" and loses credit. So the skater who does 2Lo+2T will lose credit for the 2T; the skater who does 2Lz+2Lo will lose credit for the 2Lo, etc. This is only relevant if a skater executes a double/double since singles no longer receive any base value at all.

I agree with you 100%. The "short program"/"technical program" has traditionally emphasized the execution of specific elements, with specified punishments for failure to execute those elements, but the "free program"/"long program" used to allow a skater to show off whatever the skater chose to demonstrate. Single jumps have so little base value that they rarely make a difference in placement at the Junior/Senior level, but this rule essentially rewrites the well-balanced program requirements to disallow single jumps.

Just to clarify: we're saying that "singles" will no longer receive any value in Junior/Senior, but I believe that clean single Axels will continue to receive base value in a Junior/Senior long program since a single Axel is 1.5 revolutions and the rule is "jumps with less than 1.5 revolutions will have no value."

It was eliminated because it was an easy way to manipulate results. That makes its reintroduction with a reduction in base value very , IMHO. The difference between ! and e is very gray and difficult to standardize across panels in a way that eliminates/reduces the potential for political .

Rule vetting is going to be a nightmare until ISUCalc is updated.

Yes and I believe so.

I believe that your final example isn't the intention of the rule. A 2Lz+2T combination in a Senior Ladies/Men/Junior Men short program would be worth 1.5 (base value of the 2Lz (2.1), -3GOE (-0.9), no base value for the 2T).

A downgraded triple is not "less than required revolutions" (as you know). It's "less than required rotations," to use the old terminology. In terms of rule vetting, the ISU has treated downgraded triples like triples, not doubles, since the 2006-2007 season. I believe that the intention of this new rule is to increase the punishment for not trying the required element (i.e., executing a double when a triple is required), not to increase the punishment for trying but failing to clean execute the required element (a downgraded triple attempt).

One thing that hasn't been pointed out: some requirements have been shifted to punishments. For example, skaters have been required to achieve all three basic positions in a combination spin to receive Levels 2-4 in both the short program and long program. It appears that is no longer a requirement. Instead, if a skater doesn't obtain all three basic positions, the level of the spin is not restricted, but the base value of the spin is reduced. This is a larger penalty to the skater. Presuming that "downgraded" spins must be called on review like downgraded jumps, this will dramatically increase the number of reviews on spins, especially domestically. (A number of this year's changes work well internationally, but they are going to be at the average local non-qual.)

Summary of the pair changes:
Twist: to achieve the split feature, the lady's legs must be straight/nearly straight; knee bend is no longer allowed. There is an enormous advantage here to the Chinese/Russian twist technique versus the traditional North American technique.
Lifts: Variations of entries/exits and changes of hold/position cannot be repeated. For example, if a team does a spread eagle into a star (3Li) and later does a spread eagle into an Axel lasso (5Ali), they only receive credit for the first one. This is consistent with the other variation rules, but creates a significant gray area that will take a season to iron out. (Is a flip-out with 1/2 rotation different from a cartwheel with 1/2 rotation? Is a flip-out with horizontal rotation different from a flip-out with vertical rotation?) Change of hold/position immediately after a carry no longer counts as a feature. "One arm" hold by the man must include only one point of contact from the lady (i.e., the lady can only touch the man with one arm, not both arms).
Steps: Teams can receive either crossing or not-separating, but not both. "Clusters" (two combinations of three difficult turns") is new for pairs. Twizzles are no longer considered a type of turn for pairs and receive no credit towards the compulsory "variety" feature. (Dance teams do twizzles and we must distinguish between pairs and dance. Because twizzles in a leveled step sequences are one of the ways that the viewing public gets confused between pairs and dance. )
Death spirals: Change of pivot is no longer allowed. Change of hand is allowed, but no longer a feature. Rotation in low position for one revolution is now a feature (rather than two revolutions in low position = 1 feature) and can be repeated until we all fall down. I mean, counts as many times as performed. Difficult entry has become grayer: instead of last season's criteria of "continuous," the new criteria is "moving... directly and without delay" to the death spiral position.
Pair spins: All three basic positions are now required. (Remember that a traditional pair sit is considered a "basic position" if the girl's skating knee is bent at least 90 degree, even if her rear end is above her skating knee.) Three changes of basic position are now one feature instead of two changes being one feature and an additional change being two features. Functionally, this means that a team can no longer achieve PCoSp4 by doing three changes of position and four variations: we're going to see a lot more back entries, six revolutions in one position, and both directions.
Solo spins: standardized with singles, essentially. Back entry, normal flying camel, six revolutions in a basic sit, all three positions on the first foot are no longer features. This is probably the single biggest change for pairs: everyone is going to need a new solo spin and many of the features are difficult for pairs to execute while maintaining unison and equal separation.

orientalplane, barbk, gkelly and 3 others like this.
13. peibeckNeeding some Chi-pie!!!

20,724
11,982
113
Oh goodie, because pairs spins are always their strongest elements anyway.

14. ZiggyWell-Known Member

20,569
1,610
113
I'm going to look through the rules in more detail later but I am very glad that '!' and 'e' are back.

It wasn't fair to the skaters who have correct entry edge that others - like Lipnitskaia - kept getting away with unclear edges due to the judges failing to notice/ignoring that (another example: Sotnikova's Olympic FS 3lutz/3toe combination where the edge change was at least '!'). If it gets applied consistently (it probably won't ), Lipnitskaia will be in trouble.

Based on how the marking has looked in the past, unless the technical panel displays '!,' 'e,' '<,' or '<<,' the vast majority of the judges will not deduct as appropriate.

Which makes me really wish that the technical panel would flag 's' for the break after the steps in the SP, which at least half of the judging panel usually seems to miss.

Last edited: Apr 28, 2014
15. RFOSWell-Known Member

2,771
1,155
113
Aha, I get it now. Thanks!

That was my thought too, but then I wondered, what about a 1A<? That would be less than 1 1/4 revolutions. Would it still get 0.8 points (70% of the base value of a 1A) or no points if done in the free skate?

Last edited: Apr 28, 2014
16. soxxyGuest

Is anything happening in Dance, or is Dance covered separately? (Cannot read the Communication now.)

42,938
21,930
113
18. bardtoobWell-Known Member

10,190
4,416
113
They gave base values for flying Layback spins . . . ok

Layback Level B 1,7
Layback Level 1 2,0
Layback Level 2 2,4
Layback Level 3 2,9
Layback Level 4 3,2

Whatever? Any supposed "flying layback" spins I have ever seen were really combo spins that went from an ugly flying upright, camel, or sit spin into layback positions. As far as I am concerned, a flying spin maintains the position of the spin while in the air, so a flying upright spin is upright in the air, a flying camel spin is in the camel position in the air, a flying sit spin is in the sit spin position in the air, and a flying layback spin is in the layback spin positon in the air, which would either involve smacking one's head against the ice or be an illegal acrobatic maneuver.

When I first saw it, I thought somebody had just overdone it with recursive cut and pastes in Excel.

Last edited: Apr 28, 2014
19. RFOSWell-Known Member

2,771
1,155
113
Yep, and that's not new. IIRC, they've been in place since the beginning. Ji-Eun Choi was credited with one way back apparently. Her Wikipedia article links a broken link to 2005 JGP Japan Results. I found a good link to the results themselves but the protocols won't load for me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ji-Eun_Choi
http://www.isuresults.com/results/jgpjpn2005/

Here's a video from 4 Continents 2006 where she has a fly and achieves a layback position within 2 revolutions, but it was called as a FUSp4 (possibly because of the position at the end? though I'd still call that a sideways leaning position which is lumped in with layback at least now-- but I don't know what the exact rules were back then).

20. bardtoobWell-Known Member

10,190
4,416
113
It should have been removed along with "regular spiral".

I saw the one from 2005. The entrance looks like a flying sit spin entrance.

Last edited: Apr 28, 2014

11,370
9,320
113
what a pity

22. RFOSWell-Known Member

2,771
1,155
113
Cool. The entry is pretty similar to the one I linked from 2006 4CCs. That one (2005 4CCs) was also called as a FUSp (level 2). http://www.isuresults.com/results/fc2005/fc05_Ladies_FS_scores.pdf

She doesn't fly in a layback position, which would probably be very dangerous (as one of the comments on the video pointed out) and maybe that would have been a reason back then not to call a FLSp, but I don't think it would be now (and if they really were going to expect the skater to achieve a layback position in the air AND land in the layback position to get an FLSp called then that's so dangerous that I don't think it should be an element-- not that it's being listed has led to many skaters actually trying it anyway). Flying spins don't necessarily need to hit the ultimate spinning position in the air in the free skate (i.e., a death drop to flying sit has a camel position in the air but would still be a legitimate FSSp and in fact would earn a feature for a difficult entry). I'm not sure if it would've mattered back in 2005 that in your link she does slightly over 2 revolutions in a traditional upright as a concluding windup. To my knowledge, at least these days, the concluding windup can be ignored if there are no "enhancements," and to me it's clear the intention was a FLSp. I also seem to remember the rule from earlier in IJS as being 3 revolutions in each position to count, and she doesn't do 3 revolutions in the concluding upright.

5Ali3, can you help?

Last edited: Apr 28, 2014
bardtoob and (deleted member) like this.
23. kwanfan1818I <3 Kozuka

25,669
10,918
113
However, while the << jump is listed as intended, the base value of the jump is one rotation down. Examples: Abbott's, Bychenko's, and Takahashi's Sochi SP 4T<< started with a base of 4.1, the value of 3T, whereas Reynolds 4S < had a base value of 10.5 (4S) *.7. Martinez's 3Lz/3T<< had a base value of 7.3 (6.0 [3Lz] = 1.3 [2T]), and in Saitama, Gold's 2A<< received base of 1.21 (1.1 [1A] plus 10% 2nd half bonus), and, more to the point, Ovcharova's 2Lz<< received base value of .6, the value of a 1Lz. ETA: Or in the SP, whether 3Lz/2T<< or 3Lz<</2T will be considered to be combos that don't meet the revolution requirements.

The values show that the jump is considered one revolution down, and the question, not clear in the Communication, is whether << doubles will be considered singles with no base score, and a 2Lz<</2T will count the base value of the 2T only, since it's only double-revolution jump, and beyond that, whether that combo now becomes a 2T+combo, with 80% taken off the base value of the 2T.

Last edited: Apr 28, 2014
24. RFOSWell-Known Member

2,771
1,155
113
As I already mentioned, the flying spin doesn't always necessarily have to hit the ultimate flying position in the air in the free skate (or Senior SP), because a death drop to flying sit achieves a camel position in the air rather than a sit, but is still a FSSp. And as I mentioned IF they were actually expecting a flying layback to hit a layback position in the air to be called then I agree that it would be too dangerous to be in the scale of values.

I would assume so, because the rule (spelled out explicitly on page 6) still says they will have the base value of the same jump one revolution lower. The jump one revolution lower is a 1Lz which now has no base value for Junior and Senior. So it seems pretty clear to me that 2Lz<< would get no base value.

It definitely wouldn't be a 2T+COMBO. That would only happen if the 2T was the first jump and there was either no second jump at all, or there was a step out or serious weight transfer or lots of turns before the second jump so the combination was broken. Also, there's no provision for taking 80% of the base value when adding +COMBO, I think you're confusing that with the addition of +SEQ in the free skate to the second attempt of a triple or quad jump when neither attempt was actually in a combination or sequence. When +COMBO is added (which for singles only happens in the short program) the jump still gets the base value of the first jump, and there isn't a proposal to change that here.

So 2Lz<<+2T I'm pretty sure would just be called as such have the base value of a 2T (with a mandatory -3 GOE), because that is the higher base-valued jump (accounting for the << which reduces the base value of the 2Lz to that of a 1Lz, i.e., now nothing).

25. Aussie WillyHates both vegemite and peanut butter

19,431
4,280
113
Thanks to those who post the links to the communications. Much appreciated. I now have some reading to do.

26. kwanfan1818I <3 Kozuka

25,669
10,918
113
You're right: that was the mistake I was making.

That would mean a program with a 3Lz/2Lo<< -- or, more likely, 2A/2Lo/2Lo<< -- and a solo 3Lz should have one count as 3Lz+SEQ with the 80% hit.

27. bardtoobWell-Known Member

10,190
4,416
113
The flying spin should always necessarily have to hit the ultimate flying position in the air. I never considered a death drop into a flying sit spin a form of flying sit spin because it is not a flying sit spin. The CoP might call it that erroneously, but a flying sit spin with the sit spin position achieved in the air and a death drop into a sit spin were considered different elements before the CoP. I do not disagree that they should get the same base value, but the protocols should call them something different if the protocols are supposed to indicate what was done on the ice.

Last edited: Apr 28, 2014
28. kwanfan1818I <3 Kozuka

25,669
10,918
113
That sounds very Iron Lotus to me.

29. RFOSWell-Known Member

2,771
1,155
113
In non-IJS discussion, "flying sit spin" usually did specifically mean a flying spin that achieves a sit position in the air, as differentiated from a death drop, but both are FSSp in IJS (which is generally translated as "sit spin with flying entry").

You might only want to call a spin that actually hits a layback position in the air as a "flying layback spin" but if I understand correctly a spin could still be a FLSp without hitting a layback position in the air, and would be called a "layback spin with flying entry." Hopefully 5Ali3 can give some insight.

30. bardtoobWell-Known Member

10,190
4,416
113
I understand what you are saying and agree with how you minced the words, but the institution that is supposed to be the caretaker of the sport should produce better references than this. We should not have to use different language to discuss skating depending on whether we are talking about what is on the ice or what is scored if the ISU Technical Committee knows what it is doing or cares what it is doing.

Rather than create a whole classification with base values for something that is dangerous, does not exist, or means something different than is printed, there should be one rule/bullet point that says, "Any spin with a flying entrance of any kind will get an additional level."

Last edited: Apr 28, 2014