Proposed tech requirement changes (ISU Congress June 2024)

gkelly said:
And does the judge need to do the math in their head about which jump has the highest base value if it might not be obvious?
Click to expand...
I will respond to the rest later, but why exactly is this such a big deal :confused: Surely a skating judge knows the BVs of each jump?

Well wait actually.

gkelly said:
How would your system work for judges to indicate to the computer which base value to apply to their positive or negative GOEs, falls aside?
Click to expand...
This isn't what I mean though? I am saying, it makes no sense to score 3Lz+3T which includes a small 3Lz but a well done 3T on the base value of a 3Lz. If both are clean, then we are doing a good job marking GOE based off the 3T. And even if that 3Lz is e or < or <<, it still wouldn't matter, because my point would remain the same, that the 3T is well done, so give the GOE to that jump. Or if you want to give an overall deduction to it, then it still makes sense to deduct on the 3Lz(e)/</<<'s BV.
 
Last edited:
On My Own said:
I will respond to the rest later, but why exactly is this such a big deal :confused: Surely a skating judge knows the BVs of each jump?
Click to expand...
Did you look at the detailed Scale of Values that I posted?

Even if you have memorized that the value of a 3S is 4.3, which a judge who judges events full of triples is likely to know, quick -- how much is a 3S< worth?

And how much would, e.g., -3 be worth for each of those jumps?

It is absolutely not the judges' job to memorize all those values. Nor, for that matter, the tech panel. The computer program takes care of the calculations.

The judges' job is to evaluate quality. And under current rules, they evaluate the quality of jump combinations and sequences as whole units. And they only have 11 options for which score to award, -5 through +5. The computer takes care of figuring out how many points that is worth, based on the base value of the highest scored element, which might not be the one you think it would be after e and/or << calls.

On My Own said:
This isn't what I mean though? I am saying, it makes no sense to score 3Lz+3T which includes a small 3Lz but a well done 3T on the base value of a 3Lz. If both are clean, then we are doing a good job marking GOE based off the 3T.
Click to expand...
That's not how it works. In the ISU system, the GOE is based on the quality of the element as a whole. That can include positives (which may earn a plus to the GOE) and negatives (which may or may not be errors or weaknesses worthy of minuses) of each jump and also the connection between them. Pluses on one jump and minuses on another can balance out to a final GOE somewhere in between what each jump would have earned on its own merits. But determining how many points that actually adds (or subtracts) up to is not part of the judges' job.

If you want to put the judges in charge of thinking about the numbers, you need to redesign the system from the bottom up and then retrain the judges.

On My Own said:
And even if that 3Lz is e or < or <<, it still wouldn't matter, because my point would remain the same, that the 3T is well done, so give the GOE to that jump.
Click to expand...
That only makes sense if each jump is being scored separately. Which is not the case.

Giving one GOE to the whole element but also deciding which base value to use is not practical.

What you're proposing is for GOEs to work in a completely different way, both in how judges think about the scoring and in how the scoring would be entered into the computer and calculated. In which case you would need to propose how to change the computer calculations and the interface that the judges use to input their scores. Do you care to figure out the details?
 
gkelly said:
That's not how it works. In the ISU system, the GOE is based on the quality of the element as a whole.
Click to expand...
What do you believe I'm proposing if not an evaluation of the element as a whole?
gkelly said:
That only makes sense if each jump is being scored separately. Which is not the case.
Click to expand...
This isn't what I mean.

Using your logic, we're scoring a 3Lz+3T as if only a 3Lz exists.
 
On My Own said:
What do you believe I'm proposing if not an evaluation of the element as a whole?
Click to expand...
It sounds like you're proposing that judges decide which individual jump's base value the GOE for the whole combo/sequence should be calculated on depending on the relative success of the individual jumps in that judge's evaluation.

Which there is currently no mechanism to have happen. If you want the scoring system to work that way, you need to redesign the system.
On My Own said:
Using your logic, we're scoring a 3Lz+3T as if only a 3Lz exists.
Click to expand...
My logic in trying to figure out what you're proposing? I'm still trying to wrap my head around what you want and how that might work.

Or the ISU's logic as it currently exists?

Right now, the base value of a combination is equal to the base value of the two (or three) jumps added together, after any adjustments for edge or rotation calls, or second-half bonus.

(Or +REP, or +SEQ between a first jump and subsequent jump. But those wouldn't really apply to combinations, especially the +REP.)

Right now the value of the positive and negative GOEs is always based on the base value of the higher valued jump in the element, after any adjustments.

What you seem to be objecting to is that sometimes all the errors are on a lower valued jump, so it seems unfair to set the value of the reduction based on the value of the good higher value jump.

I understand why you feel that way, but solving that issue would not be simple.

There is no way to do that in the current system. So I'm trying to figure out how you want to change the system to allow that to happen. And if you want the revised system to be able to reflect differences in the scoring of good high-value jump + bad low-value jump, it would also need to allow for the opposite, or for other permutations of strengths and weaknesses across whole combinations. And allow judges to input those decisions into the computer.
 
gkelly said:
It sounds like you're proposing that judges decide which individual jump's base value the GOE for the whole combo/sequence should be calculated on depending on the relative success of the individual jumps in that judge's evaluation.
Click to expand...
I have said enough times that I wish to see the worst part of the combo or the part of the combo that caused the combo to fail be dinged in GOE.

Conversely, the best part of the combo be rewarded in GOE.

This will not require a memorization of BVs.

gkelly said:
What you seem to be objecting to is that sometimes all the errors are on a lower valued jump, so it seems unfair to set the value of the reduction based on the value of the good higher value jump.
Click to expand...
I've also said by now enough times that it's about where the error is, not lower or higher.

On My Own said:
If someone feels a 3Lz was landed too close to the boards which then messed up the rest of the combo as gkelly said, they can deduct raw GOE on the 3Lz. That is also one raw GOE for one combo, scaled according to 3Lz BV. This is letting it go to the judges own discretion.
Click to expand...
So again, where are you getting any of the things you think I'm saying? The initial example is not the only example I've given.
 
On My Own said:
I have said enough times that I wish to see the worst part of the combo or the part of the combo that caused the combo to fail be dinged in GOE.

Conversely, the best part of the combo be rewarded in GOE.
Click to expand...
That is already the case. Judges already give pluses for any good aspects of the element before taking minuses for the bad aspects. If one jump in a combination is good and the other is bad, the final GOE for the element will end up somewhere in between. Unless the bad aspects of the bad jump subtracted from the good points of the good jump total to -5 or lower, in which case the final GOE will end up as -5.

All the judges do is give GOEs on a scale of -5 to +5. They can't go lower than -5 even if there are multiple errors, and they can't start from higher than +2 before the reductions if there are serious or multiple errors (which means they can't end up higher than -3 for an element with a fall).

An excellent first jump followed by a fall on a (fully rotated) second jump can earn -3 GOE thanks to the excellence of the first jump.

The computer interface allows judges to enter any of the following scores for each element:
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 Base 1 2 3 4 5

There is no way in the current system for them to indicate which part of an element the (final) GOE refers to. In almost all cases, the overall score for a jump combination takes into account qualities of both (all three) jumps and also the connections between them.

How do you expect them to indicate which part of a jump combo the value of the -3, for example, should be calculated from?

On My Own said:
I've also said by now enough times that it's about where the error is, not lower or higher.
Click to expand...
The position of the ISU is that an error on a jump combination is an error on a jump combination. The GOE applies to the whole element.

If you want to change that, you would need to change the way that judges input scores into the system.
 
I just read an interview with Anastasia Makarova , secretary of the UFFC. She added a few suggestions (google-translate)

Most of the offers related to single skating. In particular, it is proposed to make changes to the free program by canceling one of the jumps and replacing one of the three main spins with a choreographed one. The last element is also planned to be introduced in pair skating, where they also want to see choreographic lift. Another possible innovation: if the athlete missed the jump, the score will not be deducted, the punishment will be only in the form of negative judges' evaluations, and if he fell in the program, outside the elements, then a point or half a point will be deducted here - exactly how much has not yet been finally decided. So there will be no double punishment. Other proposals include a return to qualifying rounds, an increase in age in the junior and advanced novice categories. There are many changes, but they still have to be approved by the ISU Congress in June this year. At the same time, many experts are stressed by the fact that the new rules will be applied in the pre-Olympic year, when licenses for the Olympic Games will be played. However, technical committees are currently thinking of changing the selection criteria for the Olympics
Click to expand...
www.ukrfsf.org.ua

ÐнаÑÑаÑÑÑ ÐакаÑова: «ТÑибÑни ЧС-2024 ÑÑÑнÑли ÑкÑаÑнÑÑкими пÑапоÑами, а глÑдаÑÑ ÑикÑвалиÑÑ Ð² ÑеÑги, Ñоб ÑÑоÑогÑаÑÑваÑиÑÑ Ð· наÑими ÑÑгÑÑиÑÑами»

ЧемпÑÐ¾Ð½Ð°Ñ ÑвÑÑÑ Ð· ÑÑгÑÑного каÑаннÑ-2024 поÑÑавив кÑÐ°Ð¿ÐºÑ Ñ Ð½Ð¸Ð½ÑÑнÑÐ¾Ð¼Ñ ÑÐµÐ·Ð¾Ð½Ñ Ñ Ð²Ð¸Ð·Ð½Ð°Ñив оÑÑÑнÑиÑи Ð´Ð»Ñ Ð½Ð°ÑÑÑпного, Ñкий маÑиме ÑÑаÑÑÑ Ð¿ÐµÑедолÑмпÑйÑÑкого. ÐÐ¼Ð°Ð³Ð°Ð½Ð½Ñ Ð² ÐонÑÐµÐ°Ð»Ñ Ð±Ñли наÑиÑенÑ...
www.ukrfsf.org.ua www.ukrfsf.org.ua
 
This sounds like even more watering down than the first round.

I though there already was a 1pt deduction for falling out of an element. What is the double punishment? That’s when you fall in an element, both on the element and for the fall.
 
kwanfan1818 said:
This sounds like even more watering down than the first round.

I though there already was a 1pt deduction for falling out of an element. What is the double punishment? That’s when you fall in an element, both on the element and for the fall.
Click to expand...
I think she meant that when you fall in the execution of an element, you get negative GOEs and so you are already "punished" with the GOEs, the -1 deduction is a double punishment for that mistake.
 
Andrea82 said:
I think she meant that when you fall in the execution of an element, you get negative GOEs and so you are already "punished" with the GOEs, the -1 deduction is a double punishment for that mistake.
Click to expand...
Which would be fine if the IJS was coded to prevent the judges from giving a higher GOE than they're allowed to give for those type of errors.
 
I have a feeling that a lot of these proposals are going to get voted down or amended to only take effect in the 2026-27 season. It seems to be a really prevalent thought from skaters and coaches that it is tough to choreograph their FS without knowing what to expect for the program requirements.
 
thvu said:
Allowing skaters to repeat a jump 3 times sounds like a terrible idea. I don't want 3 out of 6 jumping passes in Mens Freeskates to become 4toes. ….
Click to expand...
Oh, this appears to be turning back on the old Zayak Rule of not repeating jumps more than once.
 
Marco said:
I wonder if the proposal to ding pre-rotated / blade assisted takeoffs would come back to the discusison table?
Click to expand...
No idea. The 2022 ISU Congress agenda & proposals were published on April 29, 2022, so hopefully we'll know what's up for debate, etc by the end of the month.
 
gkelly said:
There is no way in the current system for them to indicate which part of an element the (final) GOE refers to.

How do you expect them to indicate which part of a jump combo the value of the -3, for example, should be calculated from?
Click to expand...
What kind of question is this supposed to be? Create a new interface and system.

And if they're so poor and lacking in capacity that they can't, they can just say they don't want to make an Olympic sport and leave, because they're refusing to buy more cameras too. The idiotic graphics and shaking hands with sexual predators seems to be the priority which says everything that can be said. It barely looks like a sport anyway.

And no what I said is not "already the case".
 
The Norwegian Skating Association published a document detailing some information regarding program content for the upcoming 2024/25 season.

Teknisk Komité Kunstløp would like to notify all coaches, choreographers and skaters that several major changes are proposed at the 2024 ISU Congress, Las Vegas 6-10 June 2024. If the current proposals are voted in favor by the congress, this will affect Øvelsesutvalget for the 2024/2025 season. In order for you to plan the upcoming season, TKK has made a list of possible changes you need to be aware of when choreographing programs.
Click to expand...
Free Skating

Senior 4:00 +/-10 sec
Six jump elements
3 spins(Combo Spin, Flying Spin, Choreographic Spin)
StSq
ChSq

Junior 3:30 +/- 10 sec
Six jump elements
3 spins(Combo Spin, Flying Spin, Choreographic Spin)
ChSq
Click to expand...
9. Choreographic Spin
A Choreographic Spin is a spin which enhances the choreography of the program and matches the music. Choreographic Spin must have minimum 3 revolutions executed on a blade, with any basic or non-basic positions allowed. Change of foot is optional and can be done several times during the spin. If the Choreographic Spin cannot be identified by the Technical panel, the third performed spin will be considered as the Choreographic Spin (Choreographic Spin confirmed). This element has a fixed base value and will be evaluated by the judges in GOE only.
Click to expand...
 
On My Own said:
Nothing about three repetitions being allowed for a single jump type in the free?
Click to expand...

Nothing about that in the document. My impression is that some of these changes are implemented directly by the ISU Technical Committee corresponding to the respective discipline without vote from outside the committee, while others are voted on during the ISU Congress. I wonder if this is the kind of thing that will be subject to a vote.
 
EdgyIceMarks said:
Nothing about that in the document. My impression is that some of these changes are implemented directly by the ISU Technical Committee corresponding to the respective discipline without vote from outside the committee, while others are voted on during the ISU Congress. I wonder if this is the kind of thing that will be subject to a vote.
Click to expand...
I hope that particular one gets vetoed. It should promote variety of jumping passes instead of damaging it (still hoping to see bonuses on +Loop combos).

And the 6 jump passes/choreo spin seems pretty much a confirmed thing to me at this stage if it's already being circulated. I support those two for certain.
 
The choreographic spin is something we've all been asking for. Good news there.

The six jumping passes will be interesting. In the women's event, it will allow for X+3T and x+2A+2A combos/sequences in the same program. To this point, skaters (without a 3A) have been forced to choose between strategies, or else fill the seventh jumping pass with a double lutz. If the ISU doesn't do something to discourage the x+2A+2A sequences, they're going to essentially become a required element. In theory, I wouldn't have a problem with this, except the quality of the ones we've seen have been generally poor.

I wonder if the six jumping passes will only allow for repetition of one triple jump, similar to the rule on quads? Otherwise I suspect we're going to see significantly less variation of takeoffs, with lots of flip and lutzes. Maybe it's time to bite the bullet and combine the flip and lutz into one jump. I continue to be in favor of requiring one jump of each type (or alternatively giving a bonus for it).
 
Private Citizen said:
I wonder if the six jumping passes will only allow for repetition of one triple jump, similar to the rule on quads? Otherwise I suspect we're going to see significantly less variation of takeoffs, with lots of flip and lutzes. Maybe it's time to bite the bullet and combine the flip and lutz into one jump. I continue to be in favor of requiring one jump of each type (or alternatively giving a bonus for it).
Click to expand...
I would guess more women going for 3A actually.

And I will never get the argument for combining Flip and Lutz. It penalizes the singles skaters who can do both properly. It's different from throw Lutz and Flip where I cannot understand what the difference in take-off ever is.
 
On My Own said:
And I will never get the argument for combining Flip and Lutz. It penalizes the singles skaters who can do both properly. It's different from throw Lutz and Flip where I cannot understand what the difference in take-off ever is.
Click to expand...

So few of today's lutzes demonstrate actual counterrotation. The callers and judges largely ignore edge changes from top skaters, with some rare exceptions like this year's Worlds. Even when skaters execute properly, it's often a "just-there" shallow outside edge that isn't substantially different from the slight flutzes. Then there's the issue of Eteri skaters and others getting away with massive prerotations and loading the program full of lutz/flip takeoffs.

Unless someone can come up with a better way to raise the standard of lutzes, to old-skool Nancy Kerrigan style lutzes, I think the right solution is to minimize the number of barely differentiable lutzes and flips. Combine the jumps and limit them to two total in any program. I don't want to see Eteri skaters using four or even five lutz/flip takeoffs in the same programs with barely-there edges, severe prerotations, etc.
 
Private Citizen said:
So few of today's lutzes demonstrate actual counterrotation. The callers and judges largely ignore edge changes from top skaters, with some rare exceptions like this year's Worlds. Even when skaters execute properly, it's often a "just-there" shallow outside edge that isn't substantially different from the slight flutzes. Then there's the issue of Eteri skaters and others getting away with massive prerotations and loading the program full of lutz/flip takeoffs.

Unless someone can come up with a better way to raise the standard of lutzes, to old-skool Nancy Kerrigan style lutzes, I think the right solution is to minimize the number of barely differentiable lutzes and flips. Combine the jumps and limit them to two total in any program. I don't want to see Eteri skaters using four or even five lutz/flip takeoffs in the same programs with barely-there edges, severe prerotations, etc.
Click to expand...
The answer to this should be to penalise the wrong edges and to hold the tech panel to higher standards and also to get the judges to not reward those jumps with huge GOE, not to equate two different jumps... What exactly is somebody solving by saying "well, let's not reward someone doing both types of jumps correctly anymore either"?
 
On My Own said:
The answer to this should be to penalise the wrong edges and to hold the tech panel to higher standards and also to get the judges to not reward those jumps with huge GOE, not to equate two different jumps... What exactly is somebody solving by saying "well, let's not reward someone doing both types of jumps correctly anymore either"?
Click to expand...

I agree with you, but when has this ever worked?
 
Hopefully the introduction of the choreographic spin means a return of the classic layback (or final scratch spin) and finally resting the layback-Biellman for good. Is there any current single skaters still doing reverse spins? Would love to see reverse camels again. Last I remember was Satoko.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

A
2024 ISU Congress Agenda
12 13 14
Replies
405
Views
44K
ice coverage
ice coverage
Karen-W
2024-25 Pairs General Discussion - Who Wants to Skate Forever (in Junior Pairs)?
5 6 7
Replies
188
Views
36K
Andrea82
A
Sylvia
ISU Council's Proposal to change Rule 108 - Age Limits for Single & Pair Skating / Ice Dance + ISU Medical Commission's report
6 7 8
Replies
212
Views
31K
Vagabond
Vagabond
TAHbKA
Vaytsekhovskaya's interview with Dmitriev sr.
Replies
3
Views
3K
canbelto
canbelto
TAHbKA
Samokhvalov's interview with Gleikhengauz
2 3 4
Replies
111
Views
13K
canbelto
canbelto
Back
Top
Do Not Sell My Personal Information