Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 37 of 37
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Age
    48
    Posts
    17,937
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    33912
    Quote Originally Posted by RFOS View Post
    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).
    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.
    When you are up to your arse in alligators it is difficult to remember you were only meant to be draining the swamp.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Age
    53
    Posts
    10,458
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    20970
    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.

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Age
    48
    Posts
    17,937
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    33912
    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    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.
    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.
    When you are up to your arse in alligators it is difficult to remember you were only meant to be draining the swamp.

  4. #24
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    2,600
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Aussie Willy View Post
    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.
    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 by Doubletoe; 08-21-2012 at 05:31 AM.

  5. #25
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    “It is far more important to have a good judge than a possible conflict of interest." - Ottavio Cinquanta
    Posts
    1,635
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    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.

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Age
    53
    Posts
    10,458
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    20970
    Quote Originally Posted by leafygreens View Post
    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.
    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.

    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.
    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.

  7. #27
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    2,600
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Another excellent response by Gkelly!

  8. #28
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    “It is far more important to have a good judge than a possible conflict of interest." - Ottavio Cinquanta
    Posts
    1,635
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    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?

  9. #29
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    2,600
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by leafygreens View Post
    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?
    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.

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Age
    48
    Posts
    17,937
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    33912
    Quote Originally Posted by leafygreens View Post
    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?
    Judges don't look at the difficulty of the jumps, they look at the quality.
    When you are up to your arse in alligators it is difficult to remember you were only meant to be draining the swamp.

  11. #31
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    “It is far more important to have a good judge than a possible conflict of interest." - Ottavio Cinquanta
    Posts
    1,635
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Aussie Willy View Post
    Judges don't look at the difficulty of the jumps, they look at the quality.
    So if you can perform both jumps equally well, there's no benefit to performing a variety, you should do the one worth the most points?

  12. #32

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Age
    53
    Posts
    10,458
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    20970
    Are we talking about IJS competition?

    You will get more points in the Technical Elements Score for doing jumps with higher point values, assuming the quality/GOEs are the same. That's guaranteed.

    Some judges might pay attention to the variety of jump takeoffs as part of the Choreography component, but you can't count on any of them doing so. And even if they do, at most it might make a difference of 0.25 in their score. So if you're doing double and triple jumps, that consideration wouldn't make up for the loss of base value. With single jumps, it would be worth it if you could count on getting rewarded for variety, but since it's not built into the rules, you can't count on it.

    If we're talking about 6.0 judging, then judges have more room to reflect whatever is important to them. Variety of jump takeoffs might be important to some. But again, you can't count on enough or any judges on your panel caring about that, and there's no way of knowing whether they do or how it affects their scores.

  13. #33
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    “It is far more important to have a good judge than a possible conflict of interest." - Ottavio Cinquanta
    Posts
    1,635
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    I was wondering for IJS because if there's a .1 difference between flip and salchow, would any judge recognize that with a .1 higher PCS for variety? But as you said, there's no guarantee. It's probably best to perform the jumps with higher point value.

    It may be more of an urban legend that there's any points given for jump variety? Also Scott Hamilton saying "She did five triples, ALL DIFFERENT!" that makes people wonder. lol

  14. #34

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Age
    53
    Posts
    10,458
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    20970
    Quote Originally Posted by leafygreens View Post
    It may be more of an urban legend that there's any points given for jump variety? Also Scott Hamilton saying "She did five triples, ALL DIFFERENT!" that makes people wonder. lol
    It was a consideration under 6.0. Some judges cared about it more than others.

    They might still care under IJS, but they don't have an official place in the scoring to reflect the variety.

    Scott Hamilton is probably still influenced by 6.0 considerations in his own evaluations, maybe more than some judges and less than others.

  15. #35
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    2,600
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    If your choreography and transitions marks are diminished because you force a lutz where you could have done a flip with a more interesting entry and better pattern, then you might want to sacrifice the 0.1 technical point and do a flip instead. Since IJS judges are already responsible for scoring each individual element as well as the 5 PCS components (for which they are focusing on things like speed, ice coverage, transitions, interpretation, choreography, etc.), I'd say they don't have enough brain space left to pay attention to your variety of jumps. They are more likely to notice if you did both of your lutzes in the exact same spot (a choreography issue).

  16. #36

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Age
    48
    Posts
    17,937
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    33912
    Quote Originally Posted by leafygreens View Post
    I was wondering for IJS because if there's a .1 difference between flip and salchow, would any judge recognize that with a .1 higher PCS for variety? But as you said, there's no guarantee. It's probably best to perform the jumps with higher point value.

    It may be more of an urban legend that there's any points given for jump variety? Also Scott Hamilton saying "She did five triples, ALL DIFFERENT!" that makes people wonder. lol
    The computer will take care of the types of the jumps done. Judges are not going to penalise an easier jump over a harder jump because it is an easier jump. If both jumps are done well they will get marked accordingly.

    In Australia at the Preliminary and Elementary levels, there is no restriction on the number of a particularly type of jump a skater can do. They can do up to 4 jumps at level. So a skater could basically do all axels as their jump content. That does not make a well balanced program. However as only two components get marked (Skating Skills and Performance/Execution) there is actually not much room even there to reflect that the program is not well balanced.
    When you are up to your arse in alligators it is difficult to remember you were only meant to be draining the swamp.

  17. #37
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    108
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    The way I've understood the "concluding upright spin," at least for the past year or so, is that an upright is considered another position if it is "enhanced" in any way -- e.g., arms overhead -- but not necessarily a "difficult variation." In other words, it doesn't have to be awarded a feature, it just has to show that the skater meant to do the upright and have it count as a position.

    The wording in the 2012-13 ISU Technical Panel handbook for Singles seems to bear this out. It says, "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."

    If they meant "difficult variations," they would have said "difficult variations" and not "enhancements," no?

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •