If You Could Make Just One Rule Change

[clairecloutier]

If we're stuck with the shorter time limit in the LP for Mens and Pairs, then I say get rid of the step sequences from all programmes (mens, ladies and pairs). They routinely take at least 30 seconds if not more. Removing a jump from the men hasn't given them anything back. If they want to keep a something in place then I suggest a second non levelled choreographic ...

There is currently no step sequence in the pairs FS. There is a choreographic sequence. I wouldn’t particularly advocate removing that, as it’s one of the few spots in the program where we see actual choreography going on (aside from the opening 20 seconds).

 

[antmanb]

There is currently no step sequence in the pairs FS. There is a choreographic sequence. I wouldn’t particularly advocate removing that, as it’s one of the few spots in the program where we see actual choreography going on (aside from the opening 20 seconds).

Wow, I didn't realise that! I wouldn't want to scrap the choreographic sequence either. Have they kept the steps in the SP?

Personally i'd scrap the pairs spins, I don't really enjoy them these days but I find it interesting to watch the SBS spins....but if pushed I could live with having neither

 

[clairecloutier]

Wow, I didn't realise that! I wouldn't want to scrap the choreographic sequence either. Have they kept the steps in the SP?

Personally i'd scrap the pairs spins, I don't really enjoy them these days but I find it interesting to watch the SBS spins....but if pushed I could live with having neither

Yes, the step sequence lives on in the pairs SP.

I think the ISU should just give us our :30 seconds back so we don’t have to make any of these decisions.

 

[Rob]

Only one or two arm over head jumps. Negative GOE in total for hook arm/hand. Positive GOE for properly curved, stretched, or en haut position.

I miss long held out cross ice spirals and sweeping spread eagles. Positive GOE for arabesque split positions, positive GOE for arched spread eagles, negative GOE for fire hydrants.

 

[Theoreticalgirl]

Another rule change: Bring back the old UR calling rule that was changed for this season.

 

[miffy]

I would like to see the number of triples you can repeat increased when you do the repitition in combination. It really annoys me that we don’t see a lot of triple-triples in the ladies thanks to this rule. We also see too many double axels sometimes! Even 3 triples being repeated would be an improvement on the current 2. If someone can do 2 triple axels (or flips) and 2 triple lutzes they have to stick some doubles in somewhere as they run out of triples! And obviously it’s the second/third part of the combinations that ends up with the doubles.
We also could potentially see some 3-3-3 combinations if they could repeat more!
It seems to be ok in men’s because they do quads so they fill some jumping passes without needing to repeat triples. So the triples can be the later part of the combinations.
So I would keep the Zayak rule for the first part of the jump but say that you can repeat in the later part(s) of combinations.

 

[bladesofgorey]

Fine then, after consideration I would extend men's, women's and pairs free skates to 4:30 and add the additional element for women. That I could live with.

 

[Marco]

That works fine for moves like spirals, hydroblades/shoot-the-duck, spread eagles, and Ina Bauers.

But what about, e.g., split jumps? Are you saying the skater needs to stay in the air for 2 seconds for the move to count?

Or transitions or choreo sequences that rely on lots of

Just for these moves of course (or things that can reasonably be held out), and definitely not for split jumps, leaps and turns, LOL. Specifically I am tired of Zagitova's ChSq this season being regarded as a sequence and earning a good GOE when all she did was a split second spiral and a split second ina bauer. I hate it when there are a lot of things in the Sq but nothing is made important.

How would you define "legitimately maxed out"?

If a lady has repeated 2 types of triples and the 2axel, and has attempted every other type of triple jump, all within 6 jump passes, then she has the liberty to do another triple jump or 2axel in her last pass.

1. 3lutz3toe,
2. 2axel-euler-3flip,
3. 3lutz3loop,
4. 3sal,
5. 3flip,
6. 2axel
7. **

 

[gkelly]

If a lady has repeated 2 types of triples and the 2axel, and has attempted every other type of triple jump, all within 6 jump passes, then she has the liberty to do another triple jump or 2axel in her last pass.

1. 3lutz3toe,
2. 2axel-euler-3flip,
3. 3lutz3loop,
4. 3sal,
5. 3flip,
6. 2axel
7. **

Ah, see, this is where I would like the flexibility of different kinds of elements to come in.

A jump sequence that could earn levels with double or lower revolution jumps to potentially end up being worth as much as some solo triple.

Or a non-jump element. A fourth spin, or a different kind of element such as a figures variation, or a second step sequence/choreo sequence for juniors.

If you can fit all the triples and double axels into 6 jump passes, then rather than repeating a jump you've already done, that could open up a slot to show some other kinds of skills.

Skaters who can't max out their triples would also have the option of doing a non-jump element in place of one of the jump slots. If they can do all the different kinds of triples but not (m)any triple-triples, then they'd earn more points with the maximum allowed jump slots. If they've maxed out their own repertoire of triples because there are some takeoffs they just can't get 3 revolutions from, then one of the other options could be worth more for them than filling a slot with a solo double jump -- possibly worth more in the current scale of values than a third triple toe loop or salchow and surely should be worth more to show more variety than more of the same jumps.

 

[Miki89]

'Clean URs' not punished as much, but not messy ones. Could be done. Lower BV, but no further reduction in GOE for the UR. Would give a higher effective starting position. Then everything the same thereafter i.e. deductions for further errors, positive GOEs for good things etc.

This is a good point! I don't agree with a decently landed jump that is slightly lacking in the required rotations getting less points than a rotated jump with a sloppy landing. The rotation error is already reflected in the lower BV, further reduction in GOE is a bit much imo and it overlooks the fact that the jump might have other positive qualities.


--I agree with bringing back the spiral sequence!
--Separating TES and PCS, and perhaps change the way PCS is scored. I think a 6.0 styled system is better for scoring presentation because it allows the judges to account for the whole picture.
--Ban voiceovers!

 

[gkelly]

'Clean URs' not punished as much, but not messy ones. Could be done. Lower BV, but no further reduction in GOE for the UR.

This could be done easily. Just don't show the tech panel calls to the judges. Any judges who see the underrotation themselves in real time should reflect that in their GOEs. But if they think the jump was rotated they can give whatever +s they think it deserves and not take off for the the problem they were unaware of. The consistent penalty will be the lower base value (and now that also means lower value of the plus GOEs).

You'd also probably get judges taking off only -2 for jumps that they thought were underrotated but that the tech panel actually downgraded.

I'd be OK with this.

 

[Spun Silver]

I don't want a mandatory spiral sequence. Too many ladies have ugly ones. Just make sure the ladies who have nice ones have time to do them and get credit for them. Is that too much to ask?

 

[screech]

I don't want a mandatory spiral sequence. Too many ladies have ugly ones. Just make sure the ladies who have nice ones have time to do them and get credit for them. Is that too much to ask?

I agree!! I'd MUCH rather have a sequence of field moves (that can include spirals if desired) mandatory for both men and women.Spirals, spread eagles, Ina Bauers, pivots, hydroblading...
When I was competing, I remember that though the SP had a required spiral sequence, the FP only required field moves (with a minimum of one spiral). I hated spirals, but loved spread eagles and Bauers, so that was a huge relief for me.

 

[Spun Silver]

I agree!! I'd MUCH rather have a sequence of field moves (that can include spirals if desired) mandatory for both men and women.Spirals, spread eagles, Ina Bauers, pivots, hydroblading...
When I was competing, I remember that though the SP had a required spiral sequence, the FP only required field moves (with a minimum of one spiral). I hated spirals, but loved spread eagles and Bauers, so that was a huge relief for me.

Does it have to be a sequence though? Can't individual MITFs be scored as separate elements like jumps? There is something rigid about mandatory sequences and I'm not sure the choreographic sequences give enough credit to some of the glory moves. But I am the farthest thing from an IJS expert so maybe I'm all wrong!

 

[gkelly]

Well, a lot of those moves can be done in less than a second or two. Blink and you miss it. So there would need to be some kind of minimum way of defining what's enough of a move to earn points and what's just a quick transition.

Same as steps and turns will happen all the way through a program -- some programs will have more of them, or more difficult ones, or better quality -- it's not really feasible to count every step and turn in a program. So there's a step sequence where putting a bunch of them together in a defined time period gets scored on difficulty and other qualities, and then everything else is evaluated in PCS in a nonquantitative way.

Right now, the Choreographic Sequence is defined

A Choreographic Sequence consists of any kind of movements like steps, turns, spirals, arabesques, spread eagles, Ina Bauers, hydroblading, any jumps with maximum of 2 revolutions, spins, etc. Listed elements included in the Choreographic Sequence will not be called and will not occupy a box. The pattern is not restricted, but the sequence must be clearly visible.

So it would be within that definition to choose one extended gliding move and hold it for long enough to be "clearly visible." A full circle or end to end should certainly qualify, or somewhat less than that. If you can hold one move that long and it's impressive enough as is and matches the music better than several shorter-duration moves, that should be able to fill the requirement on its own.

But if you only turn out your feet and glide in a spread eagle or Ina Bauer position for 1 or 2 seconds and then do a few simple turns and then go into your next element, how would the tech panel count that?

 

[missing]

Zero points if the skater fails to do a second jump in the combination jump part of the short program. With only one jump attempted, it's not, by definition, a combination.

 

[Spun Silver]

Yeah @gkelly, you're right. Skaters have gotten so good at packing their programs that these moves that I think of as highlights are often quick transitions now, and there's no going back from that. Although sometimes it would be nice to encourage skaters to hold them longer, but I don't know what the best way to accomplish that would be.

 

[gkelly]

A leveled field moves sequence, which could include spirals and also other held-out moves?

As one option of several for the free program, not as a requirement for all.

So skaters who are strong in those areas could earn more points by including those moves, and skaters whose strong points lie elsewhere could play to their own strengths.

 

[Spun Silver]

A leveled field moves sequence, which could include spirals and also other held-out moves?

As one option of several for the free program, not as a requirement for all.

So skaters who are strong in those areas could earn more points by including those moves, and skaters whose strong points lie elsewhere could play to their own strengths.

From your mouth to the ISU's ears!

 

[clairecloutier]

The definition for the current choreographic sequence is: "Consists of any kind of movements like steps, turns, spirals, arabesques, spread eagles, Ina Bauers, hydroblading, any jumps with maximum of 2 revolutions, spins, etc."

And we in fact typically see spirals, spread eagles, Ina Bauers, in many choreographic sequences. So the opportunity is there for skaters to use these elements.

I would prefer not to see a leveled moves sequence because the whole purpose of leveled elements is usually to reward difficulty and extra features. So if what you are looking for is more beautiful and sustained and choreographically creative moves, a leveled moves sequence is not the way to go IMO. Extra features in a leveled moves sequence might well wind up being requirements like "Ina Bauer held for 119 seconds" or "spread eagle while hydroblading" or "Slutskaya-style Biellmann" or other such nonsense. (Yes, I exaggerate .) In a leveled sequence, we might well see, for example, things like a wobbly spiral held for a certain amount of time perhaps scoring higher than a more beautiful, but brief, spiral.

If the goal is more beautiful and choreographically interesting use of moves, better options IMO would be to give choreographic sequences higher base value, or perhaps introduce different types of choreographic sequences, such as one specifically focusing on spread eagles or spirals. Ice dance is exploring that direction this season, with their new types of Choreographic technical elements (slide moves, lifts, etc.), and I think the results so far are interesting.

 

[Rhino]

This could be done easily. Just don't show the tech panel calls to the judges. Any judges who see the underrotation themselves in real time should reflect that in their GOEs. But if they think the jump was rotated they can give whatever +s they think it deserves and not take off for the the problem they were unaware of. The consistent penalty will be the lower base value (and now that also means lower value of the plus GOEs).

You'd also probably get judges taking off only -2 for jumps that they thought were underrotated but that the tech panel actually downgraded.

I'd be OK with this.

Yes, this would work really well. At the moment you're getting lots of judges giving big positive GOEs for jumps/combinations that end up with a UR in them. Then they have to re-mark. However if the Technical Panel just calls it in isolation you wouldn't need the latter, thereby speeding up the whole review process as well.

 

[Amantide]

Thanks.

I came up with an alternative, if my first wish cannot be granted: Bring back Special Figures instead!

Isn't it nice that I am willing to compromise?

Seriously though, it shouldn't be difficult to arrange something about figures. It will help the skaters a lot. They don't even need to be part of competitions (e.g. Worlds, Europeans etc.), but they can be used as an incentive to give the skaters points for their ranking.

To make a comparison with music, figures are like scales and arpeggios. In the music school we had two final exames, called saggio. One was in the end of December (call it GPF) and one was in May/June (call it Worlds). You would play in front of a commission made by all the teachers, of whatever instrument you were studying (e.g. Violin - Violion teachers, Piano - Piano teachers etc.) and it was open for everybody else to see. Like a mini concerto, if you like.

What you would present was smth like the SP+FS, which was usually a sonata+concerto. These two were the most important exams of the years, though the one in May/June was more important than the one in December.

However, by the end of each month, we also had to pass a "minor" exam called "Didactic Exam", but in this case we had to present only scales, arpeggios and etudes.

Boy, you can imagine how boring that was for me, especially at a young age.
You can imagine practicing and studying scales, arpeggios and etudes for hours every single day. On top of that, I had to study Bach as well because he was "god" and it was "obligatory" to present one Bach etude. It come to a point where I just couldn't stand the old man anymore. lol

But those are the bases and it's what makes the technique. Without them, you can be the most talented person in the world, with a lot of musicality etc., but your bases and technique will always be bad and will let you down in the long run. Without them, you basically can't play the big sonatas, concertos etc.

Only with time I came to appreciate that part. Funny enough, Bach today is one of my top favorite composers also.

Anyway, all this essay to say that I see figures in the same way as I see that ""Didactic Exam".

 

[screech]

I remember being indifferent to figures back when they were compulsory. Didn't love them, but they weren't the bane of my existence.
But then I remember a few years after they were eliminated, our coaches randomly making us all do figures for about 30 minutes one day, and I absolutely loved it! It took longer than I'd like to admit to get the feeling for it again, but I really enjoyed it. And I really think that skaters could benefit from doing them, especially with how things need to be done to get levels in the footwork.

 

[Theoreticalgirl]

I say bring figures back for testing purposes and for the education of fundamental skating skills, but leave them out of the competitive end of things. I'm not sure the overly quantitative nature of IJS lends itself well to the discipline.

(Speaking as a person who has passed their 8th test, and as someone who does about 2 hours of patch a week.)

 

[gkelly]

I say bring figures back for testing purposes and for the education of fundamental skating skills,

Is this a rule to be enforced (at the ISU level? or in each national federation that chooses to do so and not at all in those who choose not to?) or just a practice to be encouraged by coaches who want to promote basic techniques?

but leave them out of the competitive end of things. I'm not sure the overly quantitative nature of IJS lends itself well to the discipline.

Actually, I think it would lend itself quite well. Think of each figure as an element and award grades of execution for each.

Since it is easier to define what would constitute "perfect" execution of a figure, would it make more sense for judges to imagine what a perfect/+5 execution would look like and then go down from there? Or to define an "acceptable" execution to be worth the base value, with specific guidelines on what would qualify for positive bullet points?

 

[Vagabond]

Since it is easier to define what would constitute "perfect" execution of a figure, would it make more sense for judges to imagine what a perfect/+5 execution would look like and then go down from there?

That would be like sneaking in 6.0 through the back door.

 

[Theoreticalgirl]

Is this a rule to be enforced (at the ISU level? or in each national federation that chooses to do so and not at all in those who choose not to?) or just a practice to be encouraged by coaches who want to promote basic techniques?

I'm only thinking of USFS. It would be interesting to see them give skaters the option of choosing a figures or MITF test track as part of the overall structure.

Actually, I think it would lend itself quite well. Think of each figure as an element and award grades of execution for each.

Since it is easier to define what would constitute "perfect" execution of a figure, would it make more sense for judges to imagine what a perfect/+5 execution would look like and then go down from there? Or to define an "acceptable" execution to be worth the base value, with specific guidelines on what would qualify for positive bullet points?

It's possible to think of it in this way—and for the record, this is how figures were evaluated in the 6.0 system—but I'm not sure how the PCS end of things would be measured out. Or would figures not have a component mark, in the way you are thinking?

 

[gkelly]

I'm only thinking of USFS. It would be interesting to see them give skaters the option of choosing a figures or MITF test track as part of the overall structure.

That could work.

I expect most skaters would choose the MITF, especially if figures judging remained as strict as when they were part of competition and patch time remained difficult to come by. But for those who want to and can train figures, they could use that as a way to bypass MITF tests.

But if they want to learn twizzles and spirals to use in step sequences/choreo sequences and as transitions, they'd have to do so outside the testing structure.

Every year there are fewer and fewer judges left who are qualified to judge them, so training new figures judges would be an issue.

It's possible to think of it in this way—and for the record, this is how figures were evaluated in the 6.0 system—but I'm not sure how the PCS end of things would be measured out. Or would figures not have a component mark, in the way you are thinking?

I was thinking just one mark per figure per judge, like in the 6.0 days.

 

[Spun Silver]

Is this a rule to be enforced (at the ISU level? or in each national federation that chooses to do so and not at all in those who choose not to?) or just a practice to be encouraged by coaches who want to promote basic techniques?



Actually, I think it would lend itself quite well. Think of each figure as an element and award grades of execution for each.

Since it is easier to define what would constitute "perfect" execution of a figure, would it make more sense for judges to imagine what a perfect/+5 execution would look like and then go down from there? Or to define an "acceptable" execution to be worth the base value, with specific guidelines on what would qualify for positive bullet points?

OT but I'd like to suggest a subtitle for your avatar: The Fearsome Questioner. In all admiration!

ETA: Or: The Questioner Cometh.

 

[Amantide]

Keep them out of competion but make it an obligatory test. Give them points and add them to overall ranking points. It's a good incentive, or something along those lines.