The problem with the COP doing anything like that means if it gets more points, most of the field are going to work on doing it to the point that it is no longer unique, but generally likely to end up in messier looking jumps. Or at some point so many people start doing it that it no longer seems worthwhile differentiating between the original a new creations so it has to be rebalanced back.
Very true.
That's very true. Maybe make originality a bullet point for GOE?
It already is, more or less.
For spins, step sequences, and choreographic sequences, for both singles and pairs, the wording is "creativity and/or originality." For choreo sequences, it's the first list of the mandatory bullet points.
For jumps, there's no bullet point for originality per se, but there is one worded "steps before the jump, unexpected or creative entry." So if a skater really does have an original way of getting onto the correct takeoff edge, that's where it could be rewarded.
There used to be a bullet point for "Varied position in the air / delay in rotation" but we rarely saw variations other than one or both arms overhead and so many skaters were using those so often that people got tired of them and they weren't especially difficult compared to other variations that skaters could have been using but never did. Instead now there's "very good body position from take-off to landing." That could be just excellent execution of standard body positions, or creative positions could be rewarded there too as long as they execution is very good.
There was also a bullet point for "Good extension on landing / creative exit." That could also be rewarded under the current "very good body position" bullet if done well as well as being creative. Or not, since the previous wording didn't require originality.
If someone does original landings or original air positions that enhance the jumps by being fun/interesting/creative but don't quite meet the standard of being very good quality, I guess they could be rewarded in the Composition score but not in the GOE.
ETA: I remember the discretionary innovation point, but I’m not sure it was ever awarded?
I don't recall it ever being awarded internationally.
I suspect the original intention of that point was to reward anyone who invented a totally new kind of skating move, e.g., something that wasn't in the Scale of Values at all because it wasn't a standard move when the SoV was compiled. But IJS came too far into the history of the sport for that to be likely.
Instead, when skaters did variations on spin positions, lift positions, etc. that might have slightly different inflections from anything that tech panel had ever seen before, the panel might discuss whether they should award the bullet point, and if so probably decided it was really just a variation on a variation they had already seen, not a brand new move, and therefore not worthy of the bonus.
But the guidelines weren't spelled out clearly so it was too subjective and dependent on the particular panel and what they had seen from other skaters in the past.
And then of course if a new move or new variation was awarded the first time a panel saw it, what would happen at the next competition when the same skater did it again, or when other skaters realized they could learn the same thing and add it to their programs?
Seeing this rule playing out for a while now, I’m curious what others think about this question: 1) shouldn’t the harder, actual combos be worth more (BV) now that seq combos are allowed? Putting a 3Lz2A2A in the second half gets a bonus, plus GOEs as long as there’s no mess-up — we’re talking 15 points or something like that. But a well executed 3-3 (lz toe or lz loop) is so much more difficult to do well, esp in the second half. You can’t even compare the degree of difficulty. Most US Novices and even intermediates can do a lutz and put a couple axels on the end of it and make it look pretty good. Not so for the 3-3, which many US seniors struggle with.
