Lutz and flip edges at U.S. Nationals

[RFOS]

I hope it's OK if I repost this analysis from the "Genesis of bad technique" thread in the Trash Can (http://www.fsuniverse.net/forum/show...t=77496&page=3), because the topic seems appropriate for GSD and I put a lot of work into the analysis and at least want to hear other poster's thoughts. It was said that one would have to be "choosing to ignore" the "clearly wrong" edges of Wagner and Lam's lutzes and anyone who couldn't see them in real time is "on the cuckoo bird train." I disagree, and I'm not choosing to ignore anything, but trying my best to analyze it closely and objectively. I'm open to hearing others' dissenting opinions, even if you think I'm "cuckoo." Please try to provide evidence to support your opinions (the fact that such-and-such a skater has the reputation for being a flutzer doesn't count as evidence. )

All of the videos for these screen caps were easily found on Youtube and mostly from the NBC coverage (I think Gao's SP video was from Japanese TV coverage).

Because I just can't let go once I've gotten started on something, and love overanalyzing things

Each image includes screen caps, my best analysis, and what I would call for edge violations/warnings in real time and based on the screen caps/slow mo. All videos are from 2011 U.S. Nationals except for Cohen's from 2010.

1. Wagner SP lutz: http://i52.tinypic.com/2w3aqnd.png

Real-time conclusion: "!" if it exists, no edge call if it doesn't (unclear edge)
Slow-mo/screen cap conclusion: edge appears correct, no edge call

2. Wagner FS lutz: http://i56.tinypic.com/kcdzix.png

Real-time conclusion: "!" if it existed, no "e" if it doesn't (unclear edge)
Slow-mo/screen cap conclusion: "!" if it exists, no edge call if it doesn't (Giving benefit of the doubt based on poor quality screen caps. Appears as though she may have changed edge but not confident)

3. Nagasu SP lutz: http://i54.tinypic.com/280inmd.png

Real-tme conclusion: no edge call, looked OK in real time due to overall outside entry curve
Slow-mo/screen cap conclusion: "!" if it exists (unclear edge), no edge call if it doesn't

4. Nagasu SP flip: http://i53.tinypic.com/fapvg1.png

Real-time conclusion: appeared to be a possible slight outside edge in real time due to overall outside entry curve, would give "!" if it existed, otherwise no edge call (giving the benefit of the doubt)
Slow-mo/screen cap conclusion: Still pretty unclear, possible "!" if it existed, otherwise no edge call.

5. Nagasu FS lutz: http://i51.tinypic.com/w9uv84.png

Conclusion: Unclear edge both in real time and slow-mo/screen caps. "!" if it exists, otherwise no edge call

6. Nagasu FS flip: http://i55.tinypic.com/fdykiw.png

Conclusion: Looks OK, no "e" or "!"

7. Lam SP lutz: http://i54.tinypic.com/2n8czs3.png

Conclusion: Unclear edge in real time. "!" if it exists, otherwise no edge call to give benefit of the doubt. Slow-mo appears to show a slight inside edge at takeoff. Would still only give "!" if it existed because it was short and slight. Possibly an "e" if there is no "!" available and screen caps were allowed.

8. Czisny SP lutz and flip: http://i55.tinypic.com/1j6lfm.png

Conclusion: Strong outside edge on lutz, slight outside edge on flip (looked pretty clear in real time as well as slow-mo/screen caps, would give an "e").

9. Flatt SP lutz and flip: http://i54.tinypic.com/2d1s07c.png

Conclusion: Both jumps correct

10. Zawadzki SP lutz and Gao SP flip and lutz: http://i52.tinypic.com/66x24j.png

Conclusion: Zawadzki lutz and Gao flip are correct. Gao lutz looked unclear in real time. Overall entry curve is outside, appears as though it may switch at the very last second but not confident enough to say for sure in real time. "!" if it exists based on real-time. Screen caps show more clearly that the edge did indeed change at the last minute and would give an "e" based on that.

11. Cohen SP lutz (2010): http://i55.tinypic.com/2vazdbn.png

Conclusion: Clear edge change visible in real time and in screen caps from the angle in this video. I wonder if the tech panel had access to video from this angle, because the angle shown in the segment on TV where they gave the tech panel comments was not as good. I would hope they'd have multiple angles.

Based on this year's rules ("e" only, no "!") and real-time (which the tech panel was using), the only "e"s I would give were Czisny's flip and Cohen's lutz. Therefore, the only call I "disagreed" with based on the same limitations the tech panel has is Cohen's lutz (which could be due to the different viewing angle), and Mirai's flips based on the most recent viewing (however, my very first impression watching them in real time was that the edge was incorrect, and I felt pretty confident on the one in the SP, so I can see why the tech panel called it. I was less clear on the one in the FS the first time in real time and would have given her the benefit of the doubt there. Oh, and Ashley's 3Lutz in the FS got an "e" also. I suspect that would've been more clear with a better video. The one I watched switched camera angles a split second before she jumped and had no slow mo.

Overall, I don't think the tech panel was on the "cuckoo train."

I thought this year's rules were that the panel is supposed to give "e" for an unclear edge as well as a clearly wrong one, and then it's up to the judges to reduce the GOE or not

A couple more:
Zawadzki FS flip, Lam FS lutz, Siraj SP lutz and flip: http://i52.tinypic.com/14wvadw.png

Conclusions: "e" for Agnes' flip in real time and on screen cap (not called by tech panel), "!" for Lam's lutz and Siraj's flip if available, otherwise no edge call in real time. No edge call for Lam if "!" is not an option (edge just wasn't clear), would give "e" to Siraj if there was no "!" and screen caps could be used because it does look pretty clear to me there, but not clear enough in real time for me to give an "e."

Gao FS lutz, Czisny FS flip: http://i54.tinypic.com/nl9cns.png

Conclusions: "!" for Gao's lutz in real time if available, otherwise no edge call (to give benefit of doubt, again it just wasn't obvious to me in real time). Does appear to switch to a very slight inside in screen cap. "e" for Czisny's flip in real time and screen cap (not called by tech panel)

Page 14 of the tech panel handbook says "Not taking off of a clean correct edge" as being the criterion for an "e." So it looks like one would have to be at least pretty sure the edge was incorrect before an "e" was called (especially since it also says below that "The technical panel will use the sign 'e' for a wrong take-off edge" and "judges will decide the severity of the error (major or minor error)," which implies that there IS an error. However, the burden of proof might be slightly lower than giving an "e" last year since there's no less severe option. "!" last year was defined in various places either as a short change of edge prior to takeoff or an "unclear edge at takeoff" so one would not have to be as sure that there was an error to give it, but a suspicion would seem to be enough.
http://www.usfigureskating.org/conte...%20Singles.pdf

I guess an flat takeoff edge could be considered not a "clean" correct edge, and the judges do have a reduction for "unclear takeoff edge" so based on that some others that I didn't call could be called (any one that didn't CLEARLY appear to be on the correct edge in real time). Only a few of the skaters above had really pronounced, obviously correct takeoff edges in real time (Zawadzki, Flatt, Czisny and Siraj's lutzes and probably only Gao and Flatt's flips of the ones I looked at, but I didn't look at Lam's or Wagner's flips [yet ]). Calling more than half of the jumps with an "e" when many were very unclear and possibly would look obviously correct on closer analysis would really water down the significance of an "e."

Mirai's FS flip is one that looked unclear and possibly even outside to me in real time, but correct on the screen cap. The pronounced outside edge curvature going in is bothersome however. Zhang used to often do this and her flips often looked to be off on an outside edge to me in real time in the past, and I recall understanding and agreeing with her "!" calls on her flips that other posters were making fun of. Don't have time to look at her jumps right now. Rachael also used to (often) do the same thing with a very distorted entry curve on her flip (I definitely recall seeing it and taking note at Skate America 2009 when I was there live) but seems to have corrected it in her SP. She's the ONLY one who had no flat-looking or obviously distorted entry curvature or suspected edge changes in either real-time or slow-mo/screen caps. Just one of many things she's improved greatly and people don't give her enough credit for). I usually noticed the same distortion of the entry curve on her flip with Sasha as well. I'll try to look at Zhang's jumps and Cohen's flip later.

EDITED the last big quoted section because I forgot to list Czisny's lutz in the "clear" category and that made it more like 50/50 as to how many were "clearly correct" in real time.

[RFOS]

BTW, I did notice on a second reading of the ISU document above, that a "wrong takeoff edge" is USUALLY identified without any review in slow motion "which can only be used if the camera angle does not allow to see the take-off edge at normal speed." So it sounds like the tech panel CAN use slow motion if necessary (but probably not screen caps?), at least at ISU events (I'm not sure if that wording is a change from last season). In that case, I might be able to add a few more "e"s (likely Gao's lutzes, possibly Siraj's flip, maybe Lam's SP lutz, and I'd definitely like to review Wagner's FS lutz in slow motion). I can't look at the videos now and can't remember in all cases which ones showed slow motion and which screen caps I just took from the regular speed video.

The document very clearly says that CHEATS on the takeoff may only be watched in regular speed, with no exceptions given.

[barbk]

Thanks for the analysis, RFOS. I was quite surprised at the very poor quality of the clip that they showed to explain the calling process. If that is representative of the general quality of video they're working with -- and with only real-time analysis allowed -- I'd guess that the only way you get an edge call is if the edge is egregiously bad or the camera just happens to capture a great view because of where the skater places the jump. (And if I were a coach, I'd make sure to place iffy jumps at the part of the rink where the camera is least likely to be able to grab a useful image. -- Any sense of whether that's being done?)

ETA: OK, I see that they might be able to use slo-mo to a degree, but I'm still of the opinion that the quality of the image is terrible.

[nanigirl]

Awesome analysis! Thank you! I agree with all your conclusions.

I have a couple clarifying questions: So, the panel is supposed to give only possible minus GOE on a flip where the skater's edge goes from outside to inside and at the time of the pick, the edge is inside? Also, the panel is supposed to give only possible minus GOE on a flip or lutz where the skater's edge starts on the correct edge but then at the time of the pick, the edge is flat?

Thanks!

[HisWeirness]

ISU Communication 1611:

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.

GOE Guidelines
Errors for which final GOE must be in the minuses: Starting from wrong edge in F/Lz (sign “e”) -2 to -3

Errors for which final GOE is not restricted: Unclear edge at take-off in F/Lz (sign “e”) -1 to -2

2010-11 ISU Technical Panel Handbook:

In cases of not taking off from the clean correct edge the Technical will indicate the error to the Judges using the sign “e” (edge). Usually the wrong edge take- off is identified without any review in slow motion which can be used only if the camera angle does not allow to see the take-off edge at normal speed.
The Technical Panel will use the sign “e” (edge) for cases of wrong take-off edge.
Each Judge will then decide himself/herself on the severity of the error (major or minor error) and the corresponding GOE reduction.

[nanigirl]

ISU Communication 1611:

Ah, thank you. So that explains why Mirai's flip and Ashley's lutz get "e." Mirai's flip starts on the wrong edge and Ashley's flat edge lutz is an unclear edge at take off.

[RFOS]

ISU Communication 1611:

Thanks for posting that. It does give a slightly different wording (not surprisingly, from the ISU ). Having "!" alternately referred to as "change of edge at takeoff (short)" and "unclear edge at takeoff" last year was a bit confusing also. I'm not sure why they got rid of the "!" honestly, I think it's better to acknowledge that some things are unclear and have an option if an incorrect edge is suspected, but very slight, or not CLEARLY visible given the limitations of the camera angle, video speed, etc.

[gkelly]

I have a couple clarifying questions: So, the panel is supposed to give only possible minus GOE on a flip where the skater's edge goes from outside to inside and at the time of the pick, the edge is inside? Also, the panel is supposed to give only possible minus GOE on a flip or lutz where the skater's edge starts on the correct edge but then at the time of the pick, the edge is flat?

Which "panel" are you talking about?

The technical panel gives an edge call, or not. They don't give any GOEs.

The judging panel (individually) gives GOEs, based on what they saw during the program and on any calls relayed to them by the technical panel.


But really, the way it works now, if a judge saw a great jump with no edge problem, and the technical panel calls an "e," the judge has no way of knowing whether it just looked borderline/unclear to the tech panel on replay, or whether it was clearly incorrect.

So how many judges in that situation would stick to their own perceptions, believing that if there was an edge problem it was negligible, and give +1 or +2 on the theory that they could have given +2 or +3 without the edge call?

Or how many would think "Well, I didn't see an edge problem, but I was looking at the jump as a whole. The tech panel scrutinized the edge with replay. I'll take their word that there was a problem and not give positive GOE."?

Obviously, if they saw a blatant edge change/wrong edge, they should give negative GOE whether the tech panel calls it or not.

[BigB08822]

I have a question. If there is a skater out there who both flutzes and lips, could they simply call the jumps differently to avoid (e) calls? I don't believe a flip has to be entered from a three turn, does it? So if a skater does a "flip" because they know they will badly flutz and then calls their flip a "lutz" because they lip, would the judges be able to do anything about it? Who says you can't do a flip with a long back gliding edge going into it? Who says you can't do a lutz from a three turn and quickly change edges to an outside?

[RFOS]

I have a question. If there is a skater out there who both flutzes and lips, could they simply call the jumps differently to avoid (e) calls? I don't believe a flip has to be entered from a three turn, does it? So if a skater does a "flip" because they know they will badly flutz and then calls their flip a "lutz" because they lip, would the judges be able to do anything about it? Who says you can't do a flip with a long back gliding edge going into it? Who says you can't do a lutz from a three turn and quickly change edges to an outside?

Those are definitely good questions. I'm not a technical specialist or controller (other than an armchair one who doesn't do levels... yet ) but it would be a good question to ask one of them. What I know is that they are supposed to go by the "intent" of the skater. I heard from someone that a particular former international skater put 3Lz on her planned program sheet. It was a skater who "lipped" but did not have a 3Lz. The technical panel at that event didn't buy it. I believe she entered her 3F/"Lz" from a 3-turn but I'm not sure.

If you look at Mirai's flips from Nationals, she does a 3-turn, coming out basically flat, then rocks onto a strong outside edge and appears to switch back to an inside at the very last second (Sasha, Rachael, and Caroline have all done something similar in the past). It's pretty clear she's intending to do a flip, if only because she already did a 3Lz in the SP and you can't do the same jump twice. Even if she didn't switch back to an inside at the last second, it would still look like a flip attempt to me.

Contrast that with Richard Dornbush's 3Lz in his free skate, entered with a FO rocker instead of an FO 3-turn. He comes out of the turn on a strong outside edge and takes off almost immediately for his lutz. It's a really cool and difficult entry, but I had to pray that it was going to be called as a lutz, because I've heard of a skater who attempted a lutz from that entry, thinking it was a difficult entry to a lutz, and had it called as a "lip." (I'm not sure how well the skater executed the rocker because I didn't see it). I love that entry to his lutz and because he's on such a good outside edge coming out of the rocker, it looks like a lutz to me. However, if he slipped up and got sloppy on the rocker so it became like a 3-turn, I'm worried he might get it called as a lip.

[Jenna]

I'm not a technical specialist or controller (other than an armchair one who doesn't do levels... yet ) but it would be a good question to ask one of them.

I love armchair calling at my house. I learned how to do spin levels about a year ago and now it's pretty simple. (But only after a LOT of practice on icenetwork) I still don't know how to do footwork and I probably never will. It just seems too difficult and complex.

After the event is over, I compare my notes with the protocol.

[/end personal story]

[gkelly]

I love armchair calling at my house. ... I still don't know how to do footwork and I probably never will. It just seems too difficult and complex.

I think it is too difficult and complex for one person in real time -- that's why there are three people on the tech panel.

I'm sure it helps to have done all those turns oneself and feel the checks in one's body. I see a rocker or a counter and I usually know immediately that it was either a rocker or a counter, but I need to stop and think about which one it was, and by the time I figure it out the skater has already executed several more steps.

[RFOS]

I think it is too difficult and complex for one person in real time -- that's why there are three people on the tech panel.

I'm sure it helps to have done all those turns oneself and feel the checks in one's body. I see a rocker or a counter and I usually know immediately that it was either a rocker or a counter, but I need to stop and think about which one it was, and by the time I figure it out the skater has already executed several more steps.

Usually if I don't immediately recognize what a turn is, I figure it was a counter. But I'd also miss several other steps thinking about it was before I realized that it was almost certainly a counter. For some reason my brain just can't process counters when they're mixed in with anything else. I was working on a few different kinds of counters last week and had a phobia that I was going to turn the wrong way and would sometimes just lock up before the turn. For some reason, I just couldn't wrap my brain around which way I was supposed to turn, even though if I did turn in the wrong direction (with the same entry and exit lobes, which is what would have happened) I would immediately realize that I had done a rocker. Somehow that logic doesn't work for me in reverse.

And don't even get me started on choctaws...

[WayCon]

My understanding is that the printed rules are only a rough, general description of an interpretive process that the judges learn from other judges during many lengthy training sessions. Thus, the rules are not as important to judges as what they learn from their fellows. In that context, I am told that for a questionable Lutz what the judges are really looking at is the skater's knee--does the knee roll over just before the jump. In a Lutz this is most likely the case if the skater doesn't bend the support knee enough and is forced to roll over in order to reach down to the ice to pick. (I believe Mao is an example of this.) A true and pure triple Lutz is almost impossible to do, so most skaters stay on an outside edge by bending their ankles outward--many a good Lutz jump is done on an inside turn on an outside edge, which sounds impossible, but isn't.

Would an experienced judge agree with this? Hard to judge.

[RFOS]

Hmm, I've never heard that about looking at the skater's knee, and am not sure what I'd be looking for there or how it would be helpful to look for that when trying to determine an edge change in real time. Even Zawadzki, whose blade is tilted very strongly to the outside has her body (including her knee) leaning to the inside in the screen cap.

I do know that it's possible to have the boot turned one way but be traveling on the wrong curve (the curve you'd expect if the skater had the blade tilted the other way on the same foot), and you're right, I did think it was impossible until I saw an example on video. I've never noticed it on a lutz. Maybe on super-duper slow-mo. Would you say it's more likely to happen during the split-second after the skater's picking toe has gone into the ice but before the original skating foot has left the ice? It seems like that's when it would happen because the curve of the entry is (ideally) pulling the skater to the outside and the toe picks in to the inside of the skating foot and forces the skater to immediately start rotating in the other direction. Although as you can see in some of the screen caps, even the skaters with true lutzes tend to lean way INSIDE the circle just prior to takeoff (Zawadzki has the best view of that, Flatt did also if you look at the video that shows her upper body). I still don't see the weird edge phenomenon with them though, but I'm sure it would be hard to even perceive if it happens quickly because it's not something I'm used to looking for.

[WayCon]

This is a subject for further study, RFOS. With 4CC and Worlds coming up we can try to interpret what the judges and technical panel are doing. And, maybe, at some point, some judges might say something about it, here at FSU, or elsewhere.

One friend of mine, who is not a judge and is interpreting the rules to the letter, says "flutz" nearly every time he sees a Lutz. If he is on the ice himself, he will look at the mark left by the left blade just before take-off, and, in general, he seems to find an S (really a backward S) at the point of takeoff.

As for the knee roll, when you see someone really flutz, as for example with Mao sometimes, her knee rolls way over--there is a lot of clear motion to her right--and, thus, she takes off in a clear flip position. In other cases, it can be very vague, especially with a twisted ankle--which edge actually was taking the weight?

[RFOS]

One friend of mine, who is not a judge and is interpreting the rules to the letter, says "flutz" nearly every time he sees a Lutz. If he is on the ice himself, he will look at the mark left by the left blade just before take-off, and, in general, he seems to find an S (really a backward S) at the point of takeoff.

That wouldn't surprise me really (especially if the weird "outside-tilted blade on the inside curve" phenomenon is common, but happens too quickly to be perceived), but taking that same type of view and going by the exact letter of the rules probably just about every jump (except maybe some rare jumps that are what we would normally call overrotated and probably wouldn't be landed with any control ) would be considered "underrotated" too just due to the physics of the jump (i.e., I don't think doing a loop with 3 full revolutions in the air without any blade would be possible, unless it was a really cheated quad. The turning on the toepick is needed to initiate the rotation).

I'll have to try to look at my lutz tracings really closely next time I skate, now that I've gotten really obsessed with the issue , but my coach and I did look at one once where I had a very light tracing that switched onto the inside curve which was due to my blade still being on the ice (and in the process of lifting off of it) after I picked in to take off. So I may have picked in when I was on an outside or flat but switched over slightly after that, which I suspect would be visible on some of these "unclear" edges.

If only I had millions of dollars so I could buy really high tech equipment to set up in rinks and a lab to analyze the physics of jumping down to the atomic level, because I'm feeling just that geeky right now.

[WayCon]

If only I had millions of dollars so I could buy really high tech equipment to set up in rinks and a lab to analyze the physics of jumping down to the atomic level, because I'm feeling just that geeky right now.

That's a good feeling--the spirit of inquiry.

And, of course, as we all know, a jump, by it's very nature is under rotated. I'm sure you're coach has said to you that a single jump is only a half turn, double is one and a half, and a triple is two and a half. And since you can't land absolutely flat back, you land before you've finished the last rotation. For a single jump, you almost don't need any rotation at all.

[RFOS]

That's a good feeling--the spirit of inquiry.

And, of course, as we all know, a jump, by it's very nature is under rotated. I'm sure you're coach has said to you that a single jump is only a half turn, double is one and a half, and a triple is two and a half. And since you can't land absolutely flat back, you land before you've finished the last rotation. For a single jump, you almost don't need any rotation at all.

For our next episode, we will be featuring obsessive slow motion and screen cap analysis of jump takeoffs and landings.

I did some of that before a while back. I also recall someone posting some videos of various triple loops a few years ago and hypothesizing that Evan Lysacek's loop (at least in this particular competition) was less stable because he DIDN'T pre-rotate enough (Jeff Buttle was one he was compared to and pre-rotated an entire half revolution and Evan pre-rotated less than that). I assume this is the reason the rules are so adamant that any cheat on the takeoff has to be obvious in real time and can't be viewed in slow motion, because otherwise everything would be called as underrotated/downgraded. The jumps that don't look cheated in real time at least have the skater facing the same direction on the overall entry and exit edge (except for the axel), though there's going to be some (possibly a lot) of prerotation and at least a slight underrotation from when the toepick first touches the ice to when the full blade is on the ice and the skater glides out of the jump.

The one time I saw myself skate on video, my jump mechanics were so slow that the prerotations were really obvious. My lutz was definitely prerotated more than it should've been but the others may not have been more prerotated than they "should be", just slower. I bet they would've been deemed underrotated/downgraded though, if I had been competing under IJS. At least good skaters have quick enough mechanics that they don't look as prerotated as they really are to the naked eye in real time.

My natural tendency is to take everything literally and try to pick apart the minutiae of language of rules (I majored in philosophy as an undergrad, which let me pick apart arguments and caused me to be extra careful about exactly how I worded things in papers ). So it's a challenge for me to realize that things really aren't as they seem and can't be taken TOO literally, so you do have to go by the "forest" and the overall impression sometimes rather than the "trees" of what actually happens on the molecular level.

"OMG, everything's a flutz and everything's cheated!" What next? Has my entire life just been a dream? Am I really just a brain in a vat being manipulated by a mad scientist? (Sorry, there's the philosophy dork coming out again. )

[WayCon]

Seems like you're bordering on a dialectic between Frank Carol and Ludwig Wittgenstein.