Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 141
  1. #21
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    212
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    I would like to see specific jumps performed in the short. For examples, for the ladies the required combination should involve a loop jump and the jump from steps should be a specified jump for all ladies. Men should be required to perform on quad jump in the short. I would also like to see specific steps and moves incorporated in the step sequence. How things are set up now, we have two free programs: one shorter and one longer.

  2. #22
    Left in the Kiss-n-Cry
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    near St Louis
    Posts
    16,057
    vCash
    24000
    Rep Power
    37422
    Since this is first and foremost a sport, I don't agree with limiting the amounts of jumps (or pairs lifts/throws) in the second half of the program. The bonus is minimal (.1) for the difficulty of doing the elements late in a program.

    If anything, I think doing a bunch of those elements later should reflect in the PCS on the program being well balanced (in terms of the choreography) mark.

    As for the fact that the ISU does not use COP anonymity at all their events (just the GP and ISU championships), it is all the more reason to do away with it altogether. While the ISU suggests it is there to support the judges from federations which may punish a judge (quite the admission!) for their marks, it is rather obvious they created the rule to cover their asses in regards to people being able to see if block judging is (still) happening. Since I think a majority of judges are honest, you have a rule which protects the guilty far more than the innocent.
    I meant to take the high road.... but I missed the exit.

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Age
    53
    Posts
    10,458
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    20970
    I figure, if we want the short and long programs to measure different things in different ways, there are two basic options:

    1)
    Short program has specific basic requirements that everyone should be expected to do at some level (maybe allowing simple variations that don't count as difficulty features in spins, and optional number of revolutions on jumps with required takeoffs); quality counts more than difficulty, and missing any elements completely will be very costly
    Freeskate allows and rewards skaters to add as much difficulty as they can handle in as many elements as they can, and also between the scored elements, while also rewarding overall performance quality

    OR

    2)
    Technical program is the place to reward the most difficult skills, including attempts at the most difficult jumps and higher levels on steps and spins (for this purpose, perhaps the technical program should not be shorter than the free and should allow the maximum jump content);
    Freeskate is the place to reward overall program coherence with more emphasis on PCS than TES and "choreo" rather than leveled elements scored primarily on GOE

    JJS5056 and risto1803 are suggesting essentially the former approach. Do we want to brainstorm what the rules should be for such a short program, which would in essence be more similar to the way short programs worked in the 1970s and 80s?

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    BC
    Posts
    9,136
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    34134
    Quote Originally Posted by aka_gerbil View Post
    I would use the numerical scores to rank the skaters (74.57 first, 72.47 second, 71.09 third, for example) in each segment, but when it came to determining the final placements and medals, I'd go back to ordinals. I don't like that someone can get buried in the SP just based on points, nor do I like that someone can win overall just by the SP if they muck up the FS or FD. You win the SP by 13 points? Great, but you're also going to have to skate a good FS to actually win the whole competition.
    You lose out on those skaters who are 10th but are just a couple points behind the leader after the short, then potentially winning the event or going up way ahead (see men's competition at Euros). Or the skater who is 2nd or 3rd despite skating awfully and the leader skating great, but wins the entire competition because they scored .01 more than the leader in the LP/FD.

    Ultimately, I am less concerned with specific rules and more concerned with consistent application of said rules and having the audience understand said rules. I am a novice and I would love to know as soon as I see a skater land a jump that that jump was fully rotated or not. I want to know as soon as that dance team does the unnecessary pairs spin what level they got. Get that technology in.

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Age
    53
    Posts
    10,458
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    20970
    Quote Originally Posted by manhn View Post
    You lose out on those skaters who are 10th but are just a couple points behind the leader after the short, then potentially winning the event or going up way ahead (see men's competition at Euros). Or the skater who is 2nd or 3rd despite skating awfully and the leader skating great, but wins the entire competition because they scored .01 more than the leader in the LP/FD.

    Ultimately, I am less concerned with specific rules and more concerned with consistent application of said rules and having the audience understand said rules.
    Good points.

    I am a novice and I would love to know as soon as I see a skater land a jump that that jump was fully rotated or not. I want to know as soon as that dance team does the unnecessary pairs spin what level they got. Get that technology in.
    All we can really be told in real time as soon as the element is completed is that the tech panel flagged it for review. We won't get the final decision until after they review it at the end of the program.

    The TES ticker added to some broadcasts this year is useful in seeing where the tech points are coming from, but it does require some prior knowledge to be able to interpret it.

    What else could the ISU make available for high-profile or all events? What do they have to rely on broadcasters to communicate -- which some will do well and others won't do at all?

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Petaluma, CA
    Posts
    5,617
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    8129
    Quote Originally Posted by olympic View Post
    Two major changes that I think would bring in more casual skating fans -

    1. Penalize falls more heavily.
    2. Reward 3-3s more.
    Amen to that!

    I think if you fall, the element should not count. Period. Just doesn't make any sense to me, otherwise.
    DH - and that's just my opinion

  7. #27
    I <3 Kozuka
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Vancouver/Seattle
    Posts
    19,181
    vCash
    730
    Rep Power
    43796
    I disagree with a spiral requirement for Ladies: it relies just as much on body type as the layback spin. I think both should be abolished as requirements for Ladies.
    "The team doesn't get automatic capacity because management is mad" -- Greg Smith, agile guy

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    BC
    Posts
    9,136
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    34134
    I think if you fall, the element should not count. Period. Just doesn't make any sense to me, otherwise.
    If you don't fall on an element, then you're not being penalized at all. Why is falling on nothing better than falling on an attempted throw quad?

    I have always found it strange that a fall by a team is only minus-one if only of them falls, and minus-two if both fall. I wouldn't mind a change that it is an automatic minus-two (like when one does a triple and the other does a double, it's considered a double). Certainly, a fall is more disruptive to a dance program than an extended lift.

  9. #29
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    11,012
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    I think the fall deduction should be higher in Mens than it is in Ladies; higher in seniors than in juniors. As a percentage of the score- a fall hurts a junior lady much more than it does a senior man.

  10. #30
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    139
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    One change I would make is now with the limit on double axels to have a rule that the number of triples or triples/quads you can do is depending on how many combinations with atleast 2 triples are done. Since there are 7 jump passes, the starting point would be 6, and then move up from there. So for a women if you do one triple-triple you are now allowed 7 triples, even if you repeat 3 different triples twice. If you do two triple-triples you are now allowed 8 triples, even if you repeat 4 different triples twice, and so on up. The only thing would not alowing any one triple more than twice, so Yu Na Kim even doing three triple-triples would still be only allowed 8 triples and not 9, unless she decided to do the triple loop. Then a man who does say four different quad-triple or triple-triples would be allowed to 10 total quads or triples.

    I find the current rules, especialy for women, dont reward triple-triples enough. People say COP rewards difficulty more, but I find it does less.

    Another thing I would consider is bonus points for the harder combinations. The value of the two jumps together and then some on top of that, depending on how difficulty certain combinations are deemed to be.

    I would change the spin and footwork rules that require all these ugly changes of edge and position just to get levels on spins, and the silly footwork sequences today that need to take forever and have unneccessary changes to get the levels. They need to have a more open minded approach to this. There are past spins and footwork levels that were extemely difficult and very enjoyable that wouldnt even get high levels today. The footwork sequences are way to long, and leave barely room for anything else in the program.

    I would have a rule that each fall is an automatic .5 deduction on every PCS the judges have awarded taken off after the marks are put in. If there was a 2nd fall an automatic 1.5 total (so 1 point for the 2nd fall). For a major stumble an automatic .3 deduction on every PCS, and if there was a 2nd major stumble an automatic 1 point total deduction. If it is one major stumble and one fall, then make it 1.2. There is a seperate judge to determine this and the marks are deducted automatically from the final PCS once they are in and before it is posted. Call it the Chan rule, to avoid the farce we have seen over the last 3 years many times, atleast half those times involving Chan, happen in future competitions.

  11. #31
    I <3 Kozuka
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Vancouver/Seattle
    Posts
    19,181
    vCash
    730
    Rep Power
    43796
    All falls get a -1 penalty, plus anything the judges want to deduct (or not) from PCS. I agree with the double fall penalty for any elements both skaters do in parallel (or mirror).

    Extended lift penalties are ridiculous. Teams should be able to take as much time as they want with lifts. There could be a time limit to the number of features counted -- ie, anything done after six (or 12) seconds doesn't count towards levels, like only a certain number of jumps in a sequence is counted -- but what is the point of penalizing a long lift? It just means less time to get credit for something else. Why extended lift penalties in Dance anyway, when in Pairs, they can increase the levels during a 20-second lift? Lifts are intrinsic to many kinds of dancing, and certainly many of the ballroom styles on which Ice Dance is allegedly based.

    I've always thought the Zayak rule shouldn't apply to the second jump in combination, under both systems.

    I don't think any element in the SP that doesn't meet the requirement should count. A flawed element should get dinged in GOE, but a fall, a double where a single is required, a <<, a solo into steps where the steps can't make L1* or there is a break of a defined time-length between steps and the jump should receive no credit in the required elements technical program, currently the SP. An edge call or < would still be considered meeting the requirement, but the element shouldn't get 0 or positive GOE.

    I think all jumps should be leveled like twists are in Pairs, taking into consideration difficult entrances and exits, and that the judges should award GOE purely on quality.
    Last edited by kwanfan1818; 01-29-2014 at 07:58 PM.
    "The team doesn't get automatic capacity because management is mad" -- Greg Smith, agile guy

  12. #32
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    139
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by kwanfan1818 View Post
    All falls get a -1 penalty, plus anything the judges want to deduct (or not) from PCS.
    Yet obviously that is working as many of Chan's victories, and some other skaters with messy mistake filled programs show. Even Asada's scores through the grand prix with major stumbles and falls in each event were strange, even if she might have deserved to win in them. You cant trust the judges to dock from PCS, some of them dock nothing. So there needs to be even harsher penaltities for falls, the -1 for the fall, the -3 across the board for GOE, and now added deductions on the PCS. If performances like Chan's from Worlds last year ever win a major title, the rules must not be good enough and need to be changed further, so more and more fall and mistake deductions until we stop seeing nonsense results like that which make everyone laugh at our sport.

  13. #33
    I <3 Kozuka
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Vancouver/Seattle
    Posts
    19,181
    vCash
    730
    Rep Power
    43796
    I was responding to falls not getting any deduction. They do. I think that the second fall should be penalized more than the first as called penalty, and the third should be penalized more than the second, etc. If it means different scales for different levels -- novice vs. junior vs. senior, for example -- so be it.

    I don't think there should be mandatory deductions in PCS, because there is no base in PCS! Just like in 6.0, you don't know where the judges start their calculation, or what goes into their assessment and what they choose to ignore or their relative judgements so how can you proved they didn't deduct or deduct enough from any skaters' PCS? The only way to ensure that a penalty is taken is to show it separately, so that it is deducted from the total score by someone with a name -- referee, tech panel -- who is responsible for the call and has to stand behind it.
    "The team doesn't get automatic capacity because management is mad" -- Greg Smith, agile guy

  14. #34

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    2,221
    vCash
    5550
    Rep Power
    17276
    Quote Originally Posted by kwanfan1818 View Post
    All falls get a -1 penalty, plus anything the judges want to deduct (or not) from PCS. I agree with the double fall penalty for any elements both skaters do in parallel (or mirror).

    Extended lift penalties are ridiculous. Teams should be able to take as much time as they want with lifts. There could be a time limit to the number of features counted -- ie, anything done after six (or 12) seconds doesn't count towards levels, like only a certain number of jumps in a sequence is counted -- but what is the point of penalizing a long lift? It just means less time to get credit for something else. Why extended lift penalties in Dance anyway, when in Pairs, they can increase the levels during a 20-second lift? Lifts are intrinsic to many kinds of dancing, and certainly many of the ballroom styles on which Ice Dance is allegedly based.
    Pair lifts are limited, based on the number of rotations though (generally a maximum of 3 1/2 rotations by the man), not the time duration.

    However, I agree with you that I don't see the need for extended lift deductions.

  15. #35

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Age
    48
    Posts
    17,934
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    33055
    Quote Originally Posted by allezfred View Post
    Anonymity isn't a part of COP though. We've had it since 2002/2003 and it isn't even used at all competitions.
    Exactly. It isn't part of the IJS. It is a decision made by the ISU for certain events. So petty much every competition, except for those nominated by the ISU, have the judges identified.
    When you are up to your arse in alligators it is difficult to remember you were only meant to be draining the swamp.

  16. #36

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Quadland
    Posts
    6,284
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    3358
    Quote Originally Posted by VIETgrlTerifa View Post
    No thank you. I hated seeing SPs where the first 3 elements were jumps.
    Now it's always 1:25- time for a jump or two jumps in a row. When you set a time the jumps occur exactly when the skaters hit that second! The proper thing to do is say if the last technical element is a jump there a bonus or maybe even second to last. Or just ban two jumps in a row! That's all you have to do. I don't like this separation in halves of programs. Especially when you get in the fs 4 or 5 or even 6 jumps in a row.

  17. #37
    Beach Bum
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Maryland burbs and shore
    Posts
    13,101
    vCash
    583
    Rep Power
    9792
    I want the spiral sequence back.
    I think I will have a snack and take a nap before I eat and go to sleep.

  18. #38
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    369
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    This is probably crazy...but how about only double jumps allowed in the short program, so that the points would come from incredulous quality...higher heights, greater space between the take-off and landing than ever before, and seemless flow held going out of the jump?

    Quote Originally Posted by fan View Post
    de-anonymize the judges.

  19. #39

    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    with the traditionless
    Posts
    5,618
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    8583
    Quote Originally Posted by watchthis!! View Post
    This is probably crazy...but how about only double jumps allowed in the short program, so that the points would come from incredulous quality...higher heights, greater space between the take-off and landing than ever before, and seemless flow held going out of the jump?
    I don't think that would ever fly but an interesting idea. It could be done with just straight triples too, no combos.
    What would Jenny do?

  20. #40
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    292
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    They desperately need to do something to improve the speed and musicality of footwork sequences. Current footwork sequences take up too much time and they often do not express the music at all. I miss footwork sequences that fly down the ice and really get the crowd involved in the program.

Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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