1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi all! No longer will threads be closed after 1000 (ish) messages. We may close if one gets so long to cause an issue and if you would like a thread closed to start a new one after a 1000 posts then just use the "Report Post" function. Enjoy!

Revamping COP for Next Quad.

Discussion in 'Great Skate Debate' started by JJS5056, Jan 29, 2014.

  1. kwanfan1818

    kwanfan1818 I <3 Kozuka

    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: Jan 29, 2014
  2. irinayunafanatc

    irinayunafanatc Member

    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.
  3. kwanfan1818

    kwanfan1818 I <3 Kozuka

    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.
  4. RFOS

    RFOS Well-Known Member

    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.
  5. Aussie Willy

    Aussie Willy Hates both vegemite and peanut butter

    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.
  6. caseyedwards

    caseyedwards Well-Known Member

    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.
  7. Rob

    Rob Beach Bum

    I want the spiral sequence back.
  8. watchthis!!

    watchthis!! Well-Known Member

    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?

  9. snoopy

    snoopy Team St. Petersburg

    I don't think that would ever fly but an interesting idea. It could be done with just straight triples too, no combos.
  10. SpeedySucks

    SpeedySucks Active Member

    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.
  11. RFOS

    RFOS Well-Known Member

    The choreographic sequence would be a good place to do one of those (though admittedly I don't specifically remember much about the choreo sequences most skaters have been doing, so maybe there's room for improvement in the skaters' use of that element). I think having a leveled step sequence (where there's incentive to show different kinds of turns and steps, rotate in different directions, really show edges etc.) is good because under 6.0 there were so many step sequence that might have been fast and entertaining but literally did not turn at all in one direction or the other, didn't have any variety of steps, didn't demonstrate much in terms of edges, etc.
  12. Taso

    Taso Well-Known Member

    On a completely selfish level, I hope something is done about dance. I haven't seen more than about a dozen fds or sds, respectively, this quadrennial because I'm so unbelievably bored....which is really sad since I was more a dance fan than anything pre-CoP. I realize it can't go back to what it was, but oh mylanta it can't stay how it is :snooze:
  13. gkelly

    gkelly Well-Known Member

    In the short program, the emphasis could be on gaining levels -- or at senior level there could even be a requirement to achieve at least "variety" of steps and turns and rotations in both directions, which would be equivalent to level 2. Maybe no need for the other features. Or maybe SP would be the only place to get extra points for doing "complexity" of steps and all four features in the same sequence.

    Using the tech program vs. free program distinction, all sequences in the freeskate could be unleveled "choreo" sequences rewarded only in GOE -- and however they affect the PCS positively or negatively.

    But then there needs to be some way built in to reward skaters who do difficult unique step sequences in the free program and do them very well. The point difference between 0 and +3 GOE is not sufficient to represent difference between your favorite level 4 step sequence and your least favorite level 2 sequence that was trying to be level 4 but didn't get credit for all the features.

    And as the choreo sequence rules stand now, there's even less means to distinguish between the very best level 4 sequences and the very best 6.0 era sequences that relied on quick feet and charisma with few edges and fewer turns.

    Same for other kinds of sequences, e.g., mostly spirals/field moves, or low-rev jumps, if those are options. Make it more valuable to do something not so difficult with good edges and quickness and musicality and choreographic coherence than just to throw in a bunch of difficulty without the other qualities. But make it worth most of all to do a difficult sequence AND all the other positive qualities.
  14. justAfsfan

    justAfsfan Active Member

    When Zayak is applied deduct the one that harm score the least rather than the latest attempt.
  15. Iceman

    Iceman Well-Known Member

    IMO Since skaters are given points for choreography they should have to do it themselves. If they are not good at that, it is no different than not being good at a particular jump, etc. Choreographing would just be another skill for which they would be judged on their ability to do it. If they are still allowed to hire choreographers, then the name of the choreographer should not be made public so as not to perhaps affect judging. It is hardly fair that some skaters have the resources to hire the name and best choreographers, while others aren't.
  16. RFOS

    RFOS Well-Known Member

    Should the names of the coaches who taught them technique not be made public either?

    I've heard the argument before that choreography is the coach's/choreographer's mark and it annoys me every time. The skaters are only judged on the movements they execute, where on the ice and in the span of the program they execute, the ice coverage they demonstrate (being the ones actually skating on the ice), etc. Regardless of where the skater "learned" those things, they are part of the judging criteria just as jumps and spins are (which the skater also had to learn to do from somewhere or someone, who might have taught them good or bad technique).
  17. DreamSkates

    DreamSkates Well-Known Member

    My 2 cents- no points for trying and falling on a quad.
    Bring back the spiral! One of the beautiful movements (or can be) - I so miss that.
    Downgrade any bielman spin that isn't fully stretched and FAST.
  18. Triple Butz

    Triple Butz Well-Known Member

    I'm sure I'm in the minority, but I would like the SP kept exactly as it is and in the free program simply have a single mark from 0-10 for each of the following for TES: Jumps, Spins, Footwork, MITF all weighted appropriately. There would obviously be some guidelines for jumps and spins (Zayak rule for example). The judges could take in the program at the end decide an overall mark for the quantity and quality of elements. This way, we keep the intense scrutiny in the short program, but take a step back in the free programs which allows skaters a little more breathing room to be creative and play to their strengths.
  19. PeterG

    PeterG Well-Known Member

    I agree. Eliminate the quad.
  20. Aussie Willy

    Aussie Willy Hates both vegemite and peanut butter

    That is a skater/coach issue. Tell them to make their step sequences more interesting and musical.
  21. VIETgrlTerifa

    VIETgrlTerifa Well-Known Member

    But with the system in place, they don't have to make them interesting and musical. They need to do what it takes to get a level 4 as of now, the only way skaters have been able to do that is to make these step sequences a minute or more long. It'd be nice if they could, but what's the real incentive if a really great footwork sequence that hits the beats doesn't necessarily score higher than one that hits all of the marks?
  22. peibeck

    peibeck Simply looking

    Backtracking to the topic about the SP once again being more of the "technical" program, I feel like there should be a greater penalty for any missed element (say combo jump not completed in singles, or a lift which has to be aborted in pairs or dance).

    In the free program, I would like them to penalize or prohibit skaters from repeating the same style jumps more than 3 times at the senior level. I.e. A lady could do a 3T/3T and a 2T on one other combo, but no other toe loop jumps. Or someone like Fernandez or Aaron could not put 4 salchows (be them quads or triples) in the free program, regardless if two are done in a combination or sequence.
  23. JJS5056

    JJS5056 Well-Known Member

    A few responses to questions/comments:

    Ziggy: Yes, there are a couple of duplications within the PCS I didn't catch; you can probably remove timing from the choreography. However, I see no problem with the skater's technical performance impacting this set of marks through the "continuity" and "cleanliness" components. Mistakes/stumbles were always penalized in the Presentation mark, as they should be- they impact the overall performance, which this set of marks is intended to do. Additionally, stumbles on non-elements or breaks/pauses aren't assessed anywhere in the TES.

    The reality is the current PCS does not look at the overall impression of a program, and the majority of skating fans feel that the part of the score that grades the level of performance should take these things into consideration, regardless of your personal opinion or how the two marks should ideally function. It's clear that the judges don't always follow the system as they should.

    I am all for 2 panels, as well. Any additional PCS you'd like to add if more eyes/more time could be given?

    Antmanb: My definition of "different families" of jumps was intended to mean edge vs. toe; I went back and forth between prescribing the solo jump or simply requiring one edge and toe, and ended with the latter.

    Kwanfan: I disagree that the spiral sequence requires a certain body type; under this system, the only requirement would be 3 positions with the leg held above horizontal, something any elite skater should be able to achieve. The focus of the spiral is on the depth of edge, coverage, speed/glide, etc. An aesthetic position is certainly part of the score, but a Bobekian spiral is not the standard. I think I want to take back my comment about the layback; in reality, I just think Butyrskaya should be able to show off her camel spin as much as Cohen her layback.

    Speedysucks: I agree regarding footwork; I drafted guidelines form GOE, but don't think I'll post them. But, my version of the COP would have "ability to complete sequence in a defined circular, straight, or serpentine pattern" and "ability to complete sequence in one direction with little to no break in movement" to minimize the back and forth/weaving/1-minute steps we see.
  24. giselle23

    giselle23 Well-Known Member

    7 triples used to be the gold standard. Now, skaters can substitute a double axel-2-2 combo and get more points than a triple lutz! Also, I am tired of seeing the 3loop instead of the flip or lutz in the short program. This is a regression, IMO. Not sure how to fix these things but these quirks of the IJS are not moving the sport forward for the ladies.
  25. VIETgrlTerifa

    VIETgrlTerifa Well-Known Member

    Yeah, but aren't Triple Loops being put in SPs that have 3/3s? I don't know if that's regression. Also, I know the Triple Flip is technically more difficult than a Triple Loop in the books, but the Triple Loop isn't that far behind in base value. I do know that I had wished Maria Butyrskaya kept the Loop as her solo jump rather than the Flip just based on aesthetics.
  26. kwanfan1818

    kwanfan1818 I <3 Kozuka

    A spiral has to be at least hip level to be considered a spiral. That requires specific back, hip (for turnout), and leg flexibility. Most male skaters do not have it, and I don't see why female skaters should have to. If either gender wishes to do a layback spin or a spiral step sequence as their spin or (one of their) step sequences, they should be able to.
  27. Aussie Willy

    Aussie Willy Hates both vegemite and peanut butter

    Hmmm if a skater can do a camel spin, which most competitive skaters can do, they should be able to do a spiral. It doesn't have to be Sasha Cohen or Nicole Bobek level but they can achieve the basic position.
  28. kwanfan1818

    kwanfan1818 I <3 Kozuka

    Few skaters do camels spins like John Curry in the arabesque position. Few use turnout, and many are done parallel to the ice, without a significant bend in the back. It's a different skill and physical challenge to spin in a 90-degree position and to hold and glide for a prolonged period of time in arabesque position. (The other spiral positions require more flexibility.) I don't see why Ladies should have to show this skill and Men do not. Either both should be required to do a spiral, or neither should be required to do a spiral.
  29. manhn

    manhn Well-Known Member

    The worst was when judges suddenly expected male pairs skaters to be uber flexible. I never care to see Stanislav Morozov do that ugly skate to head on the side spiral (or whatever the official name of it is).
  30. kwanfan1818

    kwanfan1818 I <3 Kozuka

    That's pretty true of most male Pairs skaters. Male and female Pairs skaters rarely get the same body positions in their spin positions: forget about spirals.