Sit Spin without Scratch spin on end

Discussion in 'Moves In The Field' started by babbyrabbit, Aug 16, 2012.

1. babbyrabbitActive Member

595
38
28
Why would a coach NOT put a scratch spin on the end of a sit spin? Is there a reason behind this? (USFS)

2. gkellyWell-Known Member

12,085
4,514
113
If the scratch spin is sustained for multiple revolutions at the end of the spin, then it would count as a combination spin with two positions (sit and scratch). Depending on the requirements of the program, you might need to be doing a spin in one position and not a combination spin for that element.

Also, the coach may think it shows greater control to get out of the sitspin efficiently rather than reestablishing balance in the upright position before existing the spin.

3. Skittl1321Well-Known Member

14,832
4,682
113
My most recent test required a sit spin. The coach had me be very careful to raise up from it and immediately exit, so there was no question if I met the requirement. (You'd think sit-upright would demonstrate I could do a sit, but some judges might interpret it as a spin in isolation, and I didn't want a reskate to be taken up with an element that is fine...)

For competition - what gkelly said. You have to do all your spins of a different nature. If you already did a change position spin, you wouldn't want the sit spin to count as one, and thus get 0 points (if IJS- but many 6.0 judges are used to looking at things in IJS light.)

4. RFOSWell-Known Member

2,670
1,042
113
I did recently learn from a National level technical controller that an upright spin done at the end of a spin in one position is not counted as long as there are no difficult variations attempted, confirmed by the ISU Tech Panel Manual. I was not aware of this before and thought that more than 3 concluding upright revolutions would make it a combination spin. I believe only the underlined part is new with this version, so it appears my interpretation was out of date.

"In spins in one position and flying spins the concluding upright position at the
end of the spin is not considered to be another position independent of the
number of revolutions, as long as the skater is executing only the final wind-up without any enhancements."

http://www.usfigureskating.org/content/First Aid Singles.pdf

I do remember a few years ago that Carolina Kostner did just barely over 3 revolutions in an upright and lost credit for a spin with a very strict Tech Panel at Euros a few years ago, so perhaps they changed the rule after that.

5. Skittl1321Well-Known Member

14,832
4,682
113
Very interesting. I really hope that doesn't trickle down to 6.0 (it pisses me off when IJS things do! Now most coaches won't let you do a scratch spin and a backspin in a program because they are "same nature" when they didn't used to be. Different foot used to mean different spin, now judges just see upright.) I pretty much have to do a sit-scratch as my second spin, because my first spin (backspin) is a single position upright. My change foot still pretty much sucks.

I can't do a difficult upright variation, so if they stop counting my scratch spin I'm screwed.

Last edited: Aug 16, 2012
6. FigureSpinsNew Member

2,062
200
0
In the US, there are two different judging systems in use - 6.0 and IJS.

RFOS is correct that the ISU/USFSA just changed this rule for IJS-level skaters. (Eff. 7/2012) They also revised the footwork sequences. However, the Tech Controller's guidelines are specifically for IJS-judged events where the skater declares their planned elements in advance.

However, for a lower-level skater in the US, they have to comply with the 6.0 judging rules, so the well-balanced program guidelines apply, as gkelly explained. An upright spin of 3 or more revolutions would count towards a combination spin or count as a "spin of a different nature." Since some events (like Test Track) limit the actual number of allowed spins, tacking on a scratch spin eliminates the ability to do another spin elsewhere in the program.

RFOS and (deleted member) like this.
7. RFOSWell-Known Member

2,670
1,042
113
Thanks for your thoughts. Have you seen that in writing somewhere, or do you have the authority to have it put in writing? One of the most confusing things is knowing whether rule changes or clarifications at the higher levels also apply at the lower levels or not. Both judges and coaches I know have to try to find out about this every time something like this happens, and since judges usually don't have anything in writing the answer often is, it depends who the judges happen to be and what their interpretations are. I know some judges who consider a sit or camel with more than 3 revolutions in the concluding upright to be a combination spin and who deduct for it if a spin in one position was required, and others who don't. I don't know if any of them would also ask for a reskate if it happened on a test, but I agree with Skittl1321's coach's caution. Personally, I would comment on it on a test but wouldn't deduct or ask for a reskate as long as there were enough revolutions *in the required position* and the quality was acceptable for the level.

I appreciate that "half loops are not considered a single jump at this level" is now explicitly stated in the requirements for No Test through Pre-Juvenile well-balanced free skating, so a big thanks to whoever made sure that was put in there!

8. FigureSpinsNew Member

2,062
200
0
I can't speak for the governing bodies. This was documented/explained during the PSA's IJS webinar earlier this week. The presenters referenced several Technical Notifications from the ISU/USFSA. If you check the USFSA Tech page, it should be outlined in one of those documents. I think it was for the highest-levels of skaters, but I was on a borrowed iPhone due to a last-minute home crisis, so I wasn't able to take any notes about exactly which documents/levels, sorry. They usually post the presentation and the audio for playback later; maybe the PSA will post a link soon.

I'm cautious with programs as well. I think that push-out from the sit spin is a good exercise: since they can't step wide so they get a more powerful exit that helps the other spins.

Interesting note about the half loop jumps on well-balanced since the Test Track Pre-Prel announcement for Regionals states that that jump will be counted as a half-rotation jump.

Last edited: Aug 16, 2012
9. frbskate63New Member

26
2
3
This rule is to prevent the skater from being penalised in situations, such as a short program, where a spin in only one position is a required element. Where a spin in only one position is not specifically required, a sit/upright will often be called as a combination spin. I saw this several times at the ISU Adult Competition in Oberstdorf.

10. RFOSWell-Known Member

2,670
1,042
113
When I asked the technical controller about this question, I used an example from an Intermediate short program (where a skater did flying sit and then 6 revolutions in a basic upright, so I was surprised it wasn't called FCoSp, and where only one position is allowed in the solo spin) and she did say that she would call it FSSp in the short program. There was another example I saw at that competition where in a Junior free skate a skater did what clearly looked to be intended as a flying sit spin but where the skater did 4 revolutions on the exit. This was also called as a FSSp. I wonder if the planned program content form or what appears to be the intent of the skater is also used in this case to determine how to call the spin. From what FigureSpins said, it sounds like it might be referred to ("the Tech Controller's guidelines are specifically for IJS-judged events where the skater declares their planned elements in advance").

In the free skate mentioned above, the flying spin (which could have been called as either FSSp or FCoSp) fulfilled the flying spin box (the spin in one position and combination spin were already met), so all 3 spins would have counted either way.

11. skateboyWell-Known Member

5,039
2,393
113
Except that it isn't a half-rotation jump.

I've always hated that it's called a half-loop. Nothing "half" about it, it's a full single rotation. In roller skating it's called "Euler."

So if someone did a 2-revolution "half-loop," would that be considered a single? Makes no sense.

12. Aussie WillyHates both vegemite and peanut butter

19,243
3,951
113
I got clarification on this one today at a Tech Panel seminar today, same as RFOS. As long as you don't increase the speed (which would give it a feature) or do some difficult variation position in the upright, you can do unlimited revolutions on the end of a spin without making it a combination spin.

13. sk8ingcoachActive Member

467
41
28
Yeah i believe you can now do an upright scratch spin (with no difficult variations) at the end of the spins, and they still wont call it a combination spin

14. FigureSpinsNew Member

2,062
200
0
Traditionally, a half-loop has been counted as a half-revolution. It's only in the last few years that the ISU and other governing bodies started to recognize it as a single revolution jump.

The mechanics of the single half-loop are such that the actual rotation is not 360Â°. The takeoff is from a BO edge, but the skater naturally turns a notch as they take off, so you lose up to 45Â°. (The indicator is the "check mark" on the tracing.) On landing, the skater stays over the opposite side of the body from takeoff, so the transition takes away a bit of the rotation as well, mainly because it's a very open jump. The skater lands with the free leg behind, not in front.

In a Loop, the same is true, but the skater stays over the landing side throughout the jump, so there is some additional rotation involved. That's why the Loop was considered a single and the Half-Loop was a half revolution jump.

As I said, the designation been changed by the ISU for IJS events. That has cascaded down to the USFSA's IJS events, but not fully to the 6.0 events. In a way, that's good because it gives the lower-level skaters more options since they have fewer jumps in their skill set.

For the record, jumps on quad roller skates are very different from those on figure skates, especially edge jumps. Jumping off the rocker of a blade provides little to no "grip" on the ice - the toepicks are engaged before and after every on-ice jump out of necessity.

15. FigureSpinsNew Member

2,062
200
0
That's in Australia, right? Are all events judged under IJS, including the lower-level ones or are the rules different for those skaters?

Here in the US, the tech panel is not involved for the low-level 6.0 events at all, so it doesn't matter if they'd let it slide for a Junior. At the Preliminary level events, the tech specialists have no say. It would be good if the PSA/USFSA were to clarify what the call would be for a non-IJS event.

16. misskarne#408

9,948
6,076
113
Australia is IJS Preliminary to Senior for technical, and IJS PCS for Artistic at all levels. Anything below Prelim (Aussie Skate) is 6.0. But as the loop doesn't make an appearance until Free Skate 4 (the last AS level) I can't imagine you'd see many half-loops in Aussie Skate.

17. Aussie WillyHates both vegemite and peanut butter

19,243
3,951
113
Elements are not called for non-IJS events and there is no technical specialist. So it is a moot point.

18. Skittl1321Well-Known Member

14,832
4,682
113
But 6.0 still has required elements. So if you are required to do two spins of a different nature, and sit-upright is no longer different than a single position spin, you get a deduction for not doing the required elements.

19. Aussie WillyHates both vegemite and peanut butter

19,243
3,951
113
Well if the skaters don't do the required elements or put something in that they shouldn't then they take that into account with their deductions in 6.0. But the elements are not called by anyone.

20. RFOSWell-Known Member

2,670
1,042
113
And that's exactly what FigureSpins, Skittl1321, and I were wanting clarification of-- whether the sit spin to basic upright would be considered a combination spin or a spin in one position at non-IJS levels. There is no technical panel to determine that (and FigureSpins noted that in the post you were responding to, so no one is confused about that), but the judges have to determine what spin was performed and whether it meets the requirements, and whether to take a deduction (and coaches certainly should know too).

21. Aussie WillyHates both vegemite and peanut butter

19,243
3,951
113
Sorry I am not sure if you are making a comment or asking a question.

However you do have to remember that Technical Panels and judging are really two mutually exclusive things. A judge does not sit in the headspace of a technical person when they are judging - they are looking at quality whilst just keeping in mind the required elements as per the list they have beside them for that division. But for my mind a judge would not be looking at sit spin and then considering it as a combination spin if the skater did an upright at the end. As long as the skater fulfilled the requirements for the sit spin then it would be a sit spin.

That is why it is all a moot point. Because judges are not technical panels and don't think like technical panels. Sit on a technical panel and it is a whole different ball game to judging.

22. gkellyWell-Known Member

12,085
4,514
113
Aussie Willy, the question is about how judges consider spins in lower-level US competitions according to US rules for those levels.

Tech panels have nothing to do with it. Just mentioning them confuses the discussion.

23. Aussie WillyHates both vegemite and peanut butter

19,243
3,951
113
Actually the tech panel discussion is relevant because I think people are expecting judges to evaluate the spins like a tech panel does. But they don't.

But if the answer they are looking for is that if a skater does a sit spin and finished off with an upright, then the judge will more than likely look at it as a sit spin, not a combination.

24. DoubletoeWell-Known Member

2,742
535
113
Actually, increasing the speed is NOT considered a feature on an upright/scratch spin unless a difficult variation of position is being attempted, so a sit spin into a fast scratch spin would still be considered a sit spin under the current ISU rules.

As for 6.0 rules, if a coach is forcing a skater to pull out immediately after a sit spin instead of doing a few revolutions in upright position, the coach is probably just not up on the latest rules (which is more common than you would think). A few years ago, it could have been an issue, but the rule has changed since then, so it should be absolutely fine to do a few revolutions in upright position (although it's still probably best to do only 2-3 revolutions in upright, not fast scratch spin, before exiting the spin).

It may be annoying when IJS rules trickle down to 6.0, but when the ISU publishes a definition for a figure skating move, then--at least in theory--it would apply to every test level and competition level of every member country unless exceptions are made in the rulebook for that country.

Last edited: Aug 21, 2012
25. leafygreensWell-Known Member

1,841
312
83
What about a headless spin (like Sasha used to do) or a fast back scratch with arms overhead (like Kristi)? Are these counted as spins at all anymore? They're certainly difficult.

The 1/2 loop conversation is confusing. I don't understand how it could be less rotation if you are doing the same rotation, but just landing on a different foot. If someone did a "double half loop" it would probably be considered a 1 1/2 rev. jump like an axel. I'm not sure.

26. gkellyWell-Known Member

12,085
4,514
113
Obviously they're counted as spins and not nothing/transitions, unless performed in isolation with less than 3 revolutions.

My understanding was that the headless position could be considered a difficult variation if the technical panel deemed it to affect the body core and to be fast enough, but it was kind of subjective. I don't know what the latest tech panel guidelines on this variation are.

If performed on its own, it would be an upright spin (USp) with at least one feature that may or may not have enough other features to get a higher level. Backward entry would be a good other feature.

This isn't something you'd be likely to see at prejuvenile level or below, judged under 6.0 in the US.

The basic back (or forward) scratch is not a difficult variation, even with good speed and arms overhead.

You might see any of these spins at the end of a combination with other positions. Probably several other positions at the higher levels.

The original question for this thread is how many revolutions with what kind of speed (and position variation?) would have to be in the upright position after a sitspin for it to be considered a 2-position combination spin instead of just a sitspin. That seems to be a case of tech panels knowing it when they see it under the current IJS rules.

For IJS competitions, it would be unlikely to see a combination consisting only of a sitspin and fast scratchspin variation because a skater who can do that can probably also do other positions or variations to earn higher levels. They might end a more complicated combination with a fast scratch spin as part of getting the all three basic positions on both feet feature and to end with exciting spin speed.

In 6.0, different judges might interpret the same spin differently according to the current rules and we'll never know for sure if some of them took deductions because they considered both spins in the program to be combo spins with no change of foot or both to be sitspins.

The longer the scratch spin is held and featured with good speed and non-neutral positions, the more likely it will be considered another position and the spin considered a combination.

Well, if you're rotating counterclockwise, it takes a little less rotation to land with your weight over the left side of the body than over the right. But that's a very fine difference. It's still backward to backward, clearly more than 180 degrees total.

I think the point of the different ways half-loops are defined now is to give full credit for combinations that use it as a transition between two higher-revolution jumps but not to have it fill a jump box when used in other choreographic contexts.

27. DoubletoeWell-Known Member

2,742
535
113
Another excellent response by Gkelly!

gkelly and (deleted member) like this.
28. leafygreensWell-Known Member

1,841
312
83
Can someone help me on this?

Which jump combo is worth more:

-Axel-loop-loop
-Axel-1/2 loop-flip

I checked the Scale of Values but do not see 1/2 loop.

Also, how many extra points do you get for performing any jump in combo?

Lastly, is there any benefit to performing a wide variety of jumps, rather than harder jumps? For example, in an IJS event, would the judges like to see a skater perform a flip and a salchow-toe loop, or would it be better to perform a flip and a flip-toe loop since the flip is worth more than a salchow?

29. DoubletoeWell-Known Member

2,742
535
113
You get no extra points for performing a jump in combination; you just get the combined values of the jumps in the combination. An axel-loop-loop has the exact same value as an axel-half loop-flip. That's because a half loop counts as a loop and both the loop and flip are worth 0.5 points each. There's no benefit to performing a wide variety of jumps under IJS because you are already limited to a fixed number of each jump in your balanced program rules (that's 2 of each jump, assuming you are a U.S. Adult skater). Do the ones that fit with your choreography, give you the highest points, and that you land the cleanest and most consistently.

30. Aussie WillyHates both vegemite and peanut butter

19,243
3,951
113
Judges don't look at the difficulty of the jumps, they look at the quality.