2018-19 Singles & Pairs Scale of Values, Levels, and GOE guidelines

[Deleted member 19433]

Just posted here:
https://www.isu.org/communications/17142-isu-communication-2168/file

The ice dance scale of values was also just posted.

 

[clairecloutier]

If I'm reading this right (?), Tano and Rippon variations will no longer be features earning +GOE on jumps (assuming this document is approved by the Congress).

Jump Elements 1) very good height and very good length (of all jumps in a combo or sequence) 2) good take-off and landing 3) effortless throughout (including rhythm in Jump combination) 4) steps before the jump, unexpected or creative entry 5) very good body position from take-off to landing 6) element matches the music

Finally a change I can get behind ....

 

[MsZem]

If I'm reading this right (?), Tano and Rippon variations will no longer be features earning +GOE on jumps (assuming this document is approved by the Congress).
Finally a change I can get behind ....

And as far as I can see, no more bonus for a creative exit, only for a creative entry?

+1 to that as well. It'll be nice to see landing positions that are actually held for more than a fraction of a second.

 

[Timmay]

The under-rotation penalty seems very harsh for the 4A compared to other quads. A 4A< only gets 60% of BV, while all other under-rotated jumps (singles through quads) get 75%. An under-rotated lutz or flip with the wrong edge gets 60%. An under-rotated 4A is worth less than an under-rotated 4Lz, 4F & 4Lo and about the same as an under-rotated 4S or 4T. A 4A< (7.50) is less than a 4A<< (8.00)?!?!

 

[Meoima]

So this is final and these BVs will be applied next season?

 

[Deleted member 19433]

So this is final and these BVs will be applied next season?

Yes, barring any further communications. The value @AidenAiena mentioned seems like a serious error though and I hope that will be corrected. There have sometimes been revisions to these documents in the past before the start of the international season and there were some revisions to some of the dance rules this year after initial publication.

The features didn't really change at all for singles, but a jump will now be considered underrotated if it's 1/4 turn short (it used to be more than 1/4). Also, the wording for jump sequences makes it sound like the only thing that can now be considered a jump sequence in singles is one jump followed immediately by a step to an axel jump. That wording doesn't appear in the pairs section, however.

Also, combination spins with a change of foot will get a V if one foot has less than 3 rotations in the free skate (instead of being called as a spin without a change of foot as they currently are). In the SP it is still no value. The V for only having 2 positions in a combination spin is still there also. I'm not sure what happens if a spin has 2 positions and is short on one foot, since there isn't a "V2" or equivalent more serious error like there used to be, so maybe it still just gets a V?

 

[Orm Irian]

If I'm reading this right (?), Tano and Rippon variations will no longer be features earning +GOE on jumps

I'm guessing they come under the heading of '5) Very good body position from take-off to landing'? So if you do them, better be sure you do them well, don't expect points for effort?

 

[Marco]

Free Skating, Jump Sequences

A jump sequence consists of 2 (two) jumps of any number of revolutions, beginning with any jump, immediately followed by an Axel type jump with a direct step from the landing curve of the first jump to the take-off curve of the Axel jump.

Appears like the Savchenko and Massot kind of 3toe-3toe sequence will no longer be recognized? It's only jump - 2axel sequence now?

(ETA: I see RFOS already mentioned it above. The way the wording is included does look like it is only applicable for singles. Although I don't remember many elite singles doing non-axel sequences anymore...)

It appears the +5/-5 GOEs is going to be in effect - I like the % reward / penalty, makes more sense.

No news on the alleged changes to fall penalty and rules on back-loading? Supposed not here.

 

[Marco]

I'm guessing they come under the heading of '5) Very good body position from take-off to landing'? So if you do them, better be sure you do them well, don't expect points for effort?

I think the same way. The old wording used to be "air position". So I suppose the way Zagitova and Rippon do theirs would still be rewarded but not the way Sotskova or Konstatinova did theirs (thank skate-god).

 

[Meoima]

SO THE SOV FOR 4A< WAS REALLY A TYPO https://twitter.com/crazykuroneko/status/999558770224119808

 

[antmanb]

The -4 GOE is basically irrelevant for spins? That seems weird given that all of the other categories of elements allow the scale to go to -4 but basically all spin errors are -1 to -3 except a fall which is -5?

 

[Orm Irian]

The -4 GOE is basically irrelevant for spins? That seems weird given that all of the other categories of elements allow the scale to go to -4 but basically all spin errors are -1 to -3 except a fall which is -5?

I think -GOE can be cumulative - multiple errors with negative GOE attached could add up to -4.

 

[Aussie Willy]

I think the new GOE and guidelines for what constitutes positive and negatives make sense.

 

[antmanb]

I think -GOE can be cumulative - multiple errors with negative GOE attached could add up to -4.

Does it say anywhere that the GOE errors are cumulative? I wouldn't expect it to - what if there are errors and a fall? it would go beyond the -5 if they were cumulative.

 

[gkelly]

Does it say anywhere that the GOE errors are cumulative? I wouldn't expect it to - what if there are errors and a fall? it would go beyond the -5 if they were cumulative.

The chart of negative GOEs has the following statement at the top:
"In case of multiple errors the corresponding reductions are added. However in Pair Skating the reduction applied for a mistake of one partner or the same mistake by both partners remains the same."

They always have been cumulative -- with a bottom limit of -3 until now. So if a jump had both a ! and a < call, which both carry penalties of -1 to -2, it would get a GOE of -2 or -3. (Or just possibly -1 if the errors were mild there were several positive qualities to offset the reductions.)

If there were a jump combination of, say 3Lze<<+3T<<, there are three errors that carry penalties of -2 to -3 under current rules, but the lowest GOE available is -3 so that's what it would get. No more penalty than if it had only one of those errors at worst severity.

Now the bottom limit is -5, so that 3Lze<<+3T<< combo should end up with -5 GOE.

 

[Theatregirl1122]

The last page of this document is quite interesting:

Additional Remarks

Program Components

In a program containing a Fall or a Serious error the score ten (10) shall not be awarded for any of the Components.

In a program containing Falls or Serious errors the score nine-fifty (9.5) or higher should not be awarded for Skating Skills, Transitions and Composition and the score nine (9.0) or higher should not be awarded for Performance and Interpretation

 

[casken]

The last page of this document is quite interesting:

Additional Remarks

Program Components

In a program containing a Fall or a Serious error the score ten (10) shall not be awarded for any of the Components.

In a program containing Falls or Serious errors the score nine-fifty (9.5) or higher should not be awarded for Skating Skills, Transitions and Composition and the score nine (9.0) or higher should not be awarded for Performance and Interpretation

Inspired by Chock & Bates getting those marks despite completely wiping out on a dance spin at the Olympics?

 

[BittyBug]

Inspired by Chock & Bates getting those marks despite completely wiping out on a dance spin at the Olympics?

Unlikely, since Chock and Bates had ONE fall and they did not receive any 10's, but haters gonna hate.....

 

[laviemn]

Does the wording of "shall not" vs "should not" mean the first is a hard rule while the second is a guideline?

If the ISU wants something, they should be clear and firm about the rules.

 

[casken]

Unlikely, since Chock and Bates had ONE fall and they did not receive any 10's, but haters gonna hate.....

No I'm talking about the 9+ marks, as well as the over 9.50 marks they got from the US judge?

Haters gonna... acknowledged what happened?

 

[BittyBug]

No I'm talking about the 9+ marks, as well as the over 9.50 marks they got from the US judge?

Haters gonna... acknowledged what happened?

What happened is that they both fell on the same element. The deduction is -2.0, but I believe that the ISU considers this a single fall (but by both partners). My reasoning for that is the language on page 23 of the updated Dance guidelines (the link above is for singles and pairs). Note how they characterize a fall: "per fall by one partner vs. per fall by both partners" - they don't say for each fall by anyone. This to me suggests that the are measuring by element, and if that is true, then the guidelines say they can't get any 10's, and in fact they didn't.

As for the lone 9.75 that they received, it was for timing and interpretation of the music, something that a fall on a spin would not necessarily impact. (In fact, we've seen some perfectly timed falls over the years by many skaters. )

But if for the purposes of the new rules a fall, singular, means a fall by only one partner, and if a fall by both partners on the same element it is considered two falls, then yes, the new rules would have prohibited the PCS C&B received.

 

[peibeck]

Inspired by Chock & Bates getting those marks despite completely wiping out on a dance spin at the Olympics?

Zagitova had a disastrous FS at Worlds and got a 9.5 for skating skills. Kostner doubled one jump, popped the axel and fell on yet another jump, and her PCS were between 9 -9.75 for every component from every judge for an entirely lackluster skate. But by all means, let's place the basis for this new rule on some ice dancers who many not even continue on for the 18-19 season. They must be punished!!!

 

[Orm Irian]

Zagitova had a disastrous FS at Worlds and got a 9.5 for skating skills. Kostner doubled one jump, popped the axel and fell on yet another jump, and her PCS were between 9 -9.75 for every component from every judge

Also, didn't Medvedeva got a 10.00 from at least one judge for a program with a fall, despite the guidelines strongly advising against it? I think it was in the Grand Prix somewhere. Bit of a minor scandal at the time, IIRC.

 

[Aussie Willy]

Does the wording of "shall not" vs "should not" mean the first is a hard rule while the second is a guideline?

If the ISU wants something, they should be clear and firm about the rules.

The communication around GOEs and marking is a guideline. They are suggestions rather than saying that a judge "Must" do something.

Having said that, I read it as you just don't go giving out certain marks and is providing clarification as to what to do with components for a performance that has falls or serious errors.

 

[Sylvia]

Single & Pair Skating Scale of Values, Levels of Difficulty and Guidelines for marking Grade of Execution, season 2018/19 (REVISED)
Subject to 57th ISU Congress Decisions, the following Communication replaces Communication No. 2089
(Corrected May 24, 2018 – scale of values for 4A< on page 3): https://www.isu.org/inside-single-p...ications-fs/17142-isu-communication-2168/file

 

[laviemn]

Also, didn't Medvedeva got a 10.00 from at least one judge for a program with a fall, despite the guidelines strongly advising against it? I think it was in the Grand Prix somewhere. Bit of a minor scandal at the time, IIRC.

That's why these guidelines are weak, there will always be judges who ignore them. A fall is not a subjective matter like asking the judges to assign a numerical value to musicality or interpretation. If they want falls to result in specific PCS limits, then I don't get the value of strongly advising rather than implementing a hard rule.

 

[gkelly]

That's why these guidelines are weak, there will always be judges who ignore them. A fall is not a subjective matter like asking the judges to assign a numerical value to musicality or interpretation.

Determining whether a skater fell is not subjective, except for an error that borders on meeting or not meeting the official definition of a fall, however it is officially defined.

However, determining how the fall affects the Performance or Interpretation criteria is very much a subjective decision.

 

[Dobre]

Inspired by Chock & Bates getting those marks despite completely wiping out on a dance spin at the Olympics?

Could be in part. And by the twelve 9.75's handed out in those three categories to Papadakis & Cizeron at Finlandia after wiping out in the FD there. From 7 of the 8 judges.

It's a good change, IMO, regardless of the incentive.

 

[laviemn]

Determining whether a skater fell is not subjective, except for an error that borders on meeting or not meeting the official definition of a fall, however it is officially defined.

However, determining how the fall affects the Performance or Interpretation criteria is very much a subjective decision.

Not arguing against that. Just arguing that it should not be a subjective decision whether to disregard the specific limits for each Component as stated in the document (9.5 or higher for Skating Skills, Transitions and Composition and 9.0 or higher for Performance and Interpretation). Which the judges are still free to do if it's just a guideline.

 

[casken]

Could be in part. And by the twelve 9.75's handed out in those three categories to Papadakis & Cizeron at Finlandia after wiping out in the FD there. From 7 of the 8 judges.

That "wipe out" was him falling on a turn and then getting back up. One fall, and no marks of 10 received. So none of those judges would be in violation of the new rule according to the wording.