Changes to Base Values, Under-rotations, and Levels - ISU Comm. 1611

[HisWeirness]

ISU Communication 1611 changes the Singles and Pairs scale of values, levels of difficulty, and guidelines for marking the grade of execution (GOE) for the upcoming season (I assume).

There is a lot to digest here, with changes to base values, under-rotation rules, levels, GOE, etc. Here are some posts copied over from the ISU proposals thread where this communication was first discussed.

Additional ISU communication with more changes for singles/pairs:

Are they a done deal, suggested by the fact that this is a separate ISU communication from the congress proposals?

Or do they need to be voted on, suggested by the phrase "the following language would be recommended"?

Here's the intermediate rotation proposal. Works for me.

Additional feature for step sequences -- half the sequence on one foot. About time!

Removal of some features for spins -- both directions only counts in camel or sit position. Edge change only counts in camel or forward sit.

There go my chances of ever getting level 3 on a spin. Not that I'll probably ever compete under IJS.

Here is a new UR rule in singles/pairs in Communication 1611! Thanks gkelly for pointing these out!

A jump or throw identified as under-rotated will receive a reduced base value - 70% of the base value of the intended jump/throw rounded to one decimal place. (i.e., if the base value of a jump is 6.0, then the value of the under-rotated jump is 4.2).

They are introducing three rotation classifications for jumps and throw jumps:

1. Accepted Rotation: missing rotation of 1/4 revolution or less - full base value
2. Under-rotated: missing rotation of more than 1/4 but less than 1/2 revolutions - gets "<" symbol and 70% of base value of intended jump
3. Downgraded: missing rotation of 1/2 revolutions or more - gets "<<" symbol and base value for the element of one rotation less (<<3T would get base value of 2T)

Also,

Twist Lifts with lacking intended rotation on the landing can also be downgraded if they have “missing rotation of ½ revolutions or more”.

[HisWeirness]

Key:
Jump: new base value, old base value (change in value)

Single jumps: no changes in base value.

GOE (+++, ++, +, -, --, ---)
New: (0.6, 0.4, 0.2, -0.1, -0.2, -0.3)
Old: (1.0, 0.6, 0.3, -0.1, -0.2, -0.3)


Axel + Doubles
Base Values
1A: 1.1, 0.8 (+0.3)
2T: 1.4, 1.3 (+0.1)
2S: 1.4, 1.3 (+0.1)
2Lo: 1.8, 1.5 (+0.3)
2F: 1.8, 1.7 (+0.1)
2Lz: 2.1, 1.9 (+0.2)

GOE (+++, ++, +, -, --, ---)
Axel
New: (0.6, 0.4, 0.2, -0.2, -0.4, -0.6)
Old: (1.5, 1.0, 0.5, -0.2, -0.4, -0.5)

Double Toeloop and Salchow
New: (0.6, 0.4, 0.2, -0.2, -0.4, -0.6)
Old: (1.5, 1.0, 0.5, -0.3, -0.6, -1.0)

Double Loop, Flip, Lutz
New: (0.9, 0.6, 0.3, -0.3, -0.6, -0.9)
Old: (1.5, 1.0, 0.5, -0.3, -0.6, -1.0)


Double Axel
Base value
2A: 3.3, 3.5 (-0.2)

GOE (+++, ++, +, -, --, ---)
New: (1.5, 1.0, 0.5, -0.5, -1.0, -1.5)
Old: (3.0, 2.0, 1.0, -0.8, -1.6, -2.5)


Triples (toe through axel)
Base Values
3T: 4.1, 4.0 (+0.1)
3S: 4.2, 4.5 (-0.3)
3Lo: 5.1, 5.0 (+0.1)
3F: 5.3, 5.5 (-0.2)
3Lz: 6.0, 6.0 (no change)
3A: 8.5, 8.2 (+0.3)

GOE (+++, ++, +, -, --, ---)
Triple toeloop through lutz
New: (2.1, 1.4, 0.7, -0.7, -1.4, -2.1)
Old: (3.0, 2.0, 1.0, -1.0, -2.0, -3.0)

Triple Axel
New: (3.0, 2.0, 1.0, -1.0, -2.0, -3.0)
Old: (3.0, 2.0, 1.0, -1.4, -2.8, -4.2)


Quads
Base Values
4T: 10.3, 9.8 (+0.5)
4S: 10.5, 10.3 (+0.2)

GOE (+++, ++, +, -, --, ---)
New: (3.0, 2.0, 1.0, -1.0, -2.0, -3.0)
Old: (3.0, 2.0, 1.0, -1.6, -3.2, -4.8)

Overall, GOE has been reduced in both directions (fewer + AND - GOE points).

The "new" values and guidelines are from Communication 1611 (May 2010).
The "old" values or guidelines are from Communication 1494 (April 2008, SOV table), 1504 (June 2008, change to 2A negative GOE), and 1557 (April 2009, Updated GOE guidelines).

[Polymer Bob]

Finally. I always thought an underrotated triple should be worth more than a clean double.

[MikiAndoFan#1]

I wonder why the 2A, 3S and 3F will be worth less.



Anyways, I'm liking some of these changes!

[millyskate]

Overall, I like these changes. Very, very glad to see the double axel getting less credit. It was not really challenging anyone and getting a big reward.

[gkelly]

I wonder why the 2A, 3S and 3F will be worth less.

For the 3S and 3F, I assume it's to make their values closer to those of 3T and 3Lo, respectively, which have been slightly raised.

For singles and now for doubles, the base values for those sets of takeoffs are identical.

One effect might be that skaters who repeated 3F and didn't bother with 3Lo primarily because of the difference in base mark will now have less reason to avoid the loop.

If they still don't include it in their programs, we can assume that's because they can't do it, consistently or at all.

Overall, I like these changes. Very, very glad to see the double axel getting less credit. It was not really challenging anyone and getting a big reward.

Well, it's challenging for entry-level juniors, most novices and below. But it's still worth a lot more than double lutz, so those who can do it successfully will still get rewarded.

[sk8er1964]

Axel + Doubles
Base Values
1A: 1.1, 0.8 (+0.3)
2T: 1.4, 1.3 (+0.1)
2S: 1.4, 1.3 (+0.1)
2Lo: 1.8, 1.5 (+0.3)
2F: 1.8, 1.7 (+0.1)
2Lz: 2.1, 1.9 (+0.2)

Wheeee!!!

I love that the axel is getting some point lurve. Makes a big different at the US adult gold level.

[reckless]

Finally. I always thought an underrotated triple should be worth more than a clean double.

But should that be the case? An underrotated triple toe with -1 GOE would score 2.17. A perfect double toe (+3 GOE) would score 2.0. An underrotated 3Lz with -3 GOE gets the same score as the 2Lz base value. And an underrotated 3Lz with -2 GOE will get a 2.8, while a perfect 2Lz with +3 GOE would only get a 3.0. It seems like there is little reward for doing less difficult skills perfectly. Moreover, diminishing the impact of GOE basically means that how skills are performed will not make as much difference in the competition; instead, high base values and good PCS will control.

I'm curious how these new point values would have affected the Olympics scoring this year.

[miki88]

But should that be the case? An underrotated triple toe with -1 GOE would score 2.17. A perfect double toe (+3 GOE) would score 2.0. An underrotated 3Lz with -3 GOE gets the same score as the 2Lz base value. And an underrotated 3Lz with -2 GOE will get a 2.8, while a perfect 2Lz with +3 GOE would only get a 3.0. It seems like there is little reward for doing less difficult skills perfectly. Moreover, diminishing the impact of GOE basically means that how skills are performed will not make as much difference in the competition; instead, high base values and good PCS will control.

I'm curious how these new point values would have affected the Olympics scoring this year.

I think GOE has been playing too big a factor recently. So much that competitions can be won by racking up GOE points. The new rules are taking base values of jumps into more consideration, which balances things out a bit. And I don't think the execution of a double can be compared to the execution of a triple jump. Just because a skater executes good doubles doesn't mean they are capable of executing good triples.

[sk8er1964]

What is a choreo spiral? Has the spiral sequence in singles been ditched?

[MR-FAN]

I am soo happy with many of the changes to the base value of jumps. the 2 things that irk me is that they reduce the value of the 3flip (WHAT??? so those who never bothered to learn it will have even less motivation to do so... A flip is hard and shouldn't be only 0.2 points higher than the loop. I also wish they would address how they count combination jumps already to reward difficult combos (and sequences). adding the 2 values together doesn not a good system make!

In terms of ladies, the rule changes are very good news to Mao and Miki, and not so good for Kim. She won't be getting those crazy high GOEs anymore, her lack of a loop will hurt more, and her 3 double axels won't count for as much. Joannie and Laura shouldn't be too affected by the rules, except I wouldn't be surprised if Joannie decides to repeat the loop instead of the salchow (And now I don't see Laura ever going for the 3-flip. she has a good layout as it is)

[HisWeirness]

SINGLES and PAIRS

Moves
This communication introduces two "new" elements, the choreo step sequence and the choreo spirals (definitions of these are in the ISU proposals). These are elements (with base value and GOE) only in the free skate under the new proposals. In the Ladies SP any spiral done is counted towards the Transistions PCS score.

For Senior Men the second (in the order of execution) step sequence will always be awarded a fixed Base Value and evaluated by Judges in GOE only. This sequence can have any pattern while fully utilizing the ice surface.

Senior Ladies
There must be at least two (2) spiral positions not less than three (3) seconds long each or only one (1) spiral position not less than six (6) seconds long. In case this requirement is not fulfilled, the spiral sequence will have no value. The Spiral Sequence will always be awarded a fixed Base Value and evaluated by Judges in GOE only.

Senior and Junior Pairs
There must be at least two (2) spiral positions of each partner three (3) seconds long each. In case this requirement is not fulfilled, the spiral sequence will have no value. The Spiral Sequence will always be awarded a fixed Base Value and evaluated by Judges in GOE only.

Choreo Step Seq. (ChSt) - This is the second step sequence done by a Senior Man in a Free Skate
Base value = 2.0
GOE (3.0, 2.0, 1.0, -0.5, -1.0, -1.5)

Choreo Spirals (ChSp) - This is the spiral sequence done by a Senior Lady or Senior/Junior Pair in a Free Skate
Base value = 2.0
GOE (3.0, 2.0, 1.0, -0.5, -1.0, -1.5)

Step sequences are now indicated on the protocols without the -Sq, so you get Sl2, Ci2, and Se2 for straight line, circular, and serpentine step sequences (called level 2 in this example).

The points subtracted for -3 GOE for Level 1 and 2 steps have changed from -1.0 to -0.9.

Spins
The base values for singles spins have not changed. The points subtracted for -3 GOE for spins have changed from -1.0 to -0.9.

PAIRS ONLY

Lifts
The points subtracted for -3 GOE for Group 1 and 2 lifts have changed from -1.0 to -0.9.
The points added for +3 GOE for Group 1 and 2 lifts have changed from +1.0 to +0.9.

GOE for all levels of Group 5 Axel and Reverse Lassos has changed to: GOE (2.1, 1.4, 0.7, -0.7, -1.4, -2.1).
Levels 3 and 4 used to have GOE of (3.0, 2.0, 1.0, -0.7, -1.4, -2.0) and Levels 1 and 2 used to be (2.0, 1.4, 0.7, -0.7, -1.4, -2.0)

Twist Lifts
Base values have gone down slightly for Levels 2-4 double and triple twists. Base values increase for quad twists.

Throws
Single throws worth 0.1 less in base value.
Axel and 2T and 2S throws worth slightly more. No change in base value for the other double throws or the triple/quad throws.
Some GOE increases for double and triples here too, but I am getting

Death Spirals
+3 and -3 GOE increases to 2.1 points instead of 2.0 points.

Introduction of the "Pivot Figure" (PiF) . Base value of 2.2 and GOE spread the same as death spirals (2.1, 1.4, 0.7, -0.7, -1.4, -2.1).

Pair Spins
The points subtracted for -3 GOE have changed from -1.0 to -0.9.

[MikiAndoFan#1]

Wow, so many changes. What's the difference between choreo steps and step sequence?

[MR-FAN]

What's a pivot figure?

[CantALoop]

(deleted)

[ThePurestSport]

Finally. I always thought an underrotated triple should be worth more than a clean double.

the real question: what will UR bashers like myself find to bi*** about now.

Seriously the << rule is a great change. I am a bit suprised "<" applies all the way down to 1/2 UR. Many falls will be receiving 70 percent base. I wonder if falls will need to be addressed with an "automatic <<" provision for falls (like the "automatic GEO-3" rule). But that's a minor nit. I like the direction COP is taking on this, and certainly won't miss the "shock value" of a clean skate recieving an impossibly crap TES.

Overall, I like these changes. Very, very glad to see the double axel getting less credit. It was not really challenging anyone and getting a big reward.

This is the most humorous change. (ie. down to 3.3 ..again) I guess when it was changed to 3.5 a few years ago, nobody anticipated three- and four-2A programs.

3.3 base + big GEO reduction = far fewer 2A-heavy programs from now on.

[barbk]

Agree with TPS, this proposal on underrotations addresses a whole lot of the issues, and decreasing the value for a 2A will help. For the ladies, it will make doing the 3A even more of a difference given the differential between a 2A and a 3A.

[natsukie325]

Is this communication 1611 already decided or just a proposal which will be discussed at the congress in June?

[HisWeirness]

GOE and jump under-rotations and downgrades

Mandatory negative GOE when:
Jump downgraded (<<), reduction of -2 to -3
stepping out of landing in a jump, reduction of -2 to -3 (used to be -2)

A downgraded jump/throw will be indicated by the Technical Panel to the Judges and in the protocols with a “<<” symbol after the element code.

GOE not restricted to negative when:
jump is "lacking rotation (no sign)," reduction of -1
jump is under-rotated (<), reduction of -1 to -2

An under-rotated jump/throw will be indicated by the Technical Panel to the Judges and in the protocols with a “<” symbol after the element code.

Also:

In both Singles and Pairs “Starting from the wrong edge” and “Unclear edge at take-off” in Flip or Lutz jumps will be identified by the Technical Panel to the Judges and in the Protocols with the sign “e”. Each Judge will then decide himself/herself on the severity of the error (major or minor error) and the corresponding GOE reduction.

No more !, just "e"

and

The S&PTC would like to remind the Judges that if prior to the element of Singles Short Program “jump immediately proceeded by connecting steps and/or by other comparable Free Skating movements” there are no steps and movements or there is break between steps/movements and the jump, the GOE must be reduced according to the Guidelines.

I think this is the Ziggy rule.

[gkelly]

I am a bit suprised "<" applies all the way down to 1/2 UR. Many falls will be receiving 70 percent base.

And some will still receive full base mark.

They'll also all receive -3 GOE and a fall deduction.

So the scoring difference between a jump with a fall that was fully rotated and a jump with a fall that was not quite 180 degrees underrotated will be 30% of the base mark.

And then falls on jumps that were short by more than 180 will be worth even less (i.e., negative net points after the fall deduction in most cases).

I wonder if falls will need to be addressed with an "automatic <<" provision for falls (like the "automatic GEO-3" rule).

Why should it? We do still want to distinguish between falls on jumps that were fully rotated and those that weren't even close, right? So then the question is what to do about those that were somewhere in between. Why not score them somewhere in between?


But that's a minor nit. I like the direction COP is taking on this, and certainly won't miss the "shock value" of a clean skate recieving an impossibly crap TES.


This is the most humorous change. (ie. down to 3.3 ..again) I guess when it was changed to 3.5 a few years ago, nobody anticipated three- and four-2A programs.

3.3 base + big GEO reduction = far fewer 2A-heavy programs from now on.[/QUOTE]