The ISU's New Set Of Judging Rules For Jumps

[Miki89]

Some of these new rules are meticulous to the point of being ridiculous. There's an unclear edge sign deduction and unclear edge no sign deduction. If the edge is unclear, it should be deemed !. The less than 1/4 UR range is both super picky and vague. Does that mean any jumps that is not perfectly 100% rotated or only jumps between 1/8 and 1/4 turn? Tbh, even some of the best jumpers often land difficult jumps between 1/8 and 1/4 range in competition. I don't see the judges strictly applying this new rule because otherwise there should be very few jumps in the +4-5 range. I think these rules are just going to make the scoring more subjective and confusing. Don't see how this is going to help the popularity of the sport.

 

[VGThuy]

Some of these new rules are meticulous to the point of being ridiculous. There's an unclear edge sign deduction and unclear edge no sign deduction. If the edge is unclear, it should be deemed !. The less than 1/4 UR range is both super picky and vague. Does that mean any jumps that is not perfectly 100% rotated or only jumps between 1/8 and 1/4 turn? Tbh, even some of the best jumpers often land difficult jumps between 1/8 and 1/4 range in competition. I don't see the judges strictly applying this new rule because otherwise there should be very few jumps in the +4-5 range. I think these rules are just going to make the scoring more subjective and confusing. Don't see how this is going to help the popularity of the sport.

I totally agree. This level of meticulous should apply when we have sensors and automation making that determination. Not create an overly picky system to appease the self-identified arbiters of rotation and full-bladeness who have a false sense of their eyesight and abilities to be unbiased and objective who will just complain when real human judges fail to be accurate with this meticulousness with videos slo-Moing over and over and demanding people see that the blade left at a certain time even if it’s unclear.

 

[LeafOnTheWind]

I am by no means an expert in jumps and technique but it bugs the piss out of me when even I can see a poor jump technique that gets GOE rewards while someone else gets slammed with penalties for something that isn't even noticeable. They really need to concentrate on consistency and fairness before they decide to get even more picky about technique. Especially in the same competition.

 

[Miki89]

I may be in the minority but I don't see further scrutiny of jumps as being the solution. What is more concerning is the lack of great skating skills among many of the top competitors today. Better time and resources could be spent establishing a standard system to help coaches teach the correct jump techniques from the very beginning. I also wouldn't mind the return of figures training to improve overall skating skills.

I always found the ISU rule changes to be short-sighted and arbitrary. There is no real long term planning, so the same issues persist and they continue to search for another solution.

 

[gkelly]

Some of these new rules are meticulous to the point of being ridiculous. There's an unclear edge sign deduction and unclear edge no sign deduction.

That is not really a new distinction. From last year's ISU Communication 2254:

Wrong edge take off F/Lz (sign “e”) -3 to -4
Unclear edge take off F/Lz (sign “!”) -1 to -3
Unclear edge take off F/Lz (no sign) -1

These are GOE marking guidelines for the judges to use. The presence of a ! sign tells the judges that the tech panel saw a borderline issue with the takeoff edge that does not affect the base value of the jump. However, since the judges are notified that the tech panel saw a problem, they are supposed to reflect that problem in their final score, whether they themselves saw the problem in real time or not.

The "no sign" deduction is for when a judge sees a problem that the tech panel didn't call. That might be because the judge had a better angle due to the placement of the element on the ice, or it might be because this judge is more nitpicky/eagle-eyed than that particular tech panel. In any case, if there is no call but the judge did see a problem, they should take off -1.

The changes in the recommended reductions are now more generous to the skaters. Unclear edge in the judge's eyes with no sign remains -1 exactly like last year. Unclear edge with a ! sign is now -1 to -2 instead of -1 to -3, and wrong edge with e is now -2 to -4 instead of -3 to -4. So we will now see jumps with either e or ! calls earning -2 that would have earned -3 last year.

The less than 1/4 UR range is both super picky and vague. Does that mean any jumps that is not perfectly 100% rotated or only jumps between 1/8 and 1/4 turn?

As with the edge calls, it is up to the individual judges. If they had a good view and the jump looked underrotated to them but the tech panel did not call q (let alone <), then it's up to the judge to evaluate the evidence of their own eyes in real time vs. the tech panel calls and apply the reduction if they think it warranted.

As I see it, the only new thing here is that for the past couple years the < call applied to jumps that the tech panel saw as underrotated 90-180 degrees, which came with a reduction in base value. The new change is that if they think it is just 90 degrees short, they now call "q" instead of < and the jump retains its full base value, but the judges are informed and are supposed to reduce the GOE by two steps.

This will also end up being more generous to skaters who tend to land on the quarter in the tech panel's eyes than last year's rules: last year they would only have gotten 70% of base value and the judges would have reduced the GOE. Now they get full base value but will lose some GOE.

 

[babayaga]

This is a change I agree with. Ranking the Lutz higher than the flip just gives an advantage to natural Lutz jumpers over natural flip jumpers.

Where was this rule when Mao was competing?

 

[Colonel Green]

Where was this rule when Mao was competing?

This wouldn't have made any difference to Mao. She was competing against Yuna, who had correct edges on both.

 

[AxelAnnie]

Well it now gives a disadvantage to those who actually have clear Lutz and Flip edges.

Like, why not just create a new jump called Floptz? The BV for 4Lo, 4F and 4Lz are the same now anyway.

Makes me happy///the distinction. The Lutz is more difficult than the Flip it deserves its extra point.

With slo-mo, the exacting rules should be fairly discernable. And, they should have more camera angles. That should not be too expensive.

 

[tony]

Makes me happy///the distinction. The Lutz is more difficult than the Flip it deserves its extra point.

With slo-mo, the exacting rules should be fairly discernable. And, they should have more camera angles. That should not be too expensive.

Seems you’re not understanding that 3F/3Lz and 4Lo/4F/4Lz are all now the same values. Reading the whole thread would help

 

[kwanatic]

I do think dropping the lutz value down is a cop-out on the part of the panel and the judges. There are skaters with great lutzes, so-so lutzes and straight up flutzes masquerading as lutzes...same thing for the lippers. Making the two jumps equal in value when they are not equal in difficultly seems unfair IMO.

However, assuming the jumps are called correctly, the advantage should still lie with a skater who has correct technique for both jumps. Those with weak lutzes or flips should get dinged for them which reduces the value they earn whereas the skater with the correct technique gets full value and no reduction in GOE...if things are scored fairly which we all know they never will be.

As far as the excessive rotation/full blade bit...

Not to pick on Eteri's skaters because they aren't the only ones, but quite a few of hers have cheated technique when it comes to full blade and excessive on ice rotation---a lot of her big stars are guilty of rotating a full 180 degrees on take off before their blade leaves the ice. If Trusova and Shcherbakova's quads were evaluated correctly, unfortunately most of them (if not all) would be considered downgrades as they usually get half a rotation done before getting into the air.

I'm fine with it as long as it is applied fairly to all skaters. Put everyone under the same microscope...

It will be interesting to see if these new rules/guidelines will be followed.

 

[tony]

As far as the excessive rotation/full blade bit...

Not to pick on Eteri's skaters but quite a few of them have cheated technique when it comes to full blade and excessive on ice rotation---a lot of her big stars are guilty of rotating a full 180 degrees on take off before their blade leaves the ice. If Trusova and Shcherbakova's quads were evaluated correctly, unfortunately most of them (if not all) would be considered downgrades as they usually get half a rotation done before getting into the air.

It will be interesting to see if these new rules/guidelines will be followed.

And I just want to point out that if this is implemented in a fair way, it goes way beyond Eteri skaters. Uno and his 4F, Tennell and her 3T on the end of combos, Miyahara and a lot of her jumps, Khodykin and his 3F attempt— the list extends far beyond Trusova, the Russians, and even the ladies themselves. I still think the way they’ve asked the judges to be the determining factor of it is kinda ridiculous considering they are trying to look for 6 positive criteria on the jump at the same time. It would not be difficult for the technical panel to flag any suspicious-looking elements and give the take-off an extra 2 second view as they do with underrotations and downgrades.

 

[kwanatic]

And I just want to point out that if this is implemented in a fair way, it goes way beyond Eteri skaters. Uno and his 4F, Tennell and her 3T on the end of combos, Miyahara and a lot of her jumps, Khodykin and his 3F attempt— the list extends far beyond Trusova, the Russians, and even the ladies themselves. I still think the way they’ve asked the judges to be the determining factor of it is kinda ridiculous considering they are trying to look for 6 positive criteria on the jump at the same time. It would not be difficult for the technical panel to flag any suspicious-looking elements and give the take-off an extra 2 second view as they do with underrotations and downgrades.

Is the full blade/pre-rotation determination being left to the judges to decide? Did I miss that?

 

[tony]

Is the full blade/pre-rotation determination being left to the judges to decide? Did I miss that?

It’s a GOE reduction only. No notation from the technical panel.

 

[kwanatic]

It’s a GOE reduction only. No notation from the technical panel.

Wow. That is...that's just stupid.

That's clearly a determination that should be made by the technical panel as it deals with the technical execution of the jump and would likely require a slo-mo replay to confirm. It's beyond brainless for it to be left up to the judges to decide.

I swear for every step forward the ISU takes in the right direction and takes three steps backwards...

 

[hanca]

This wouldn't have made any difference to Mao. She was competing against Yuna, who had correct edges on both.

I think the difference in marking Mao and Yuna was also the fact that Mao had Russian coach and Yuna Canadian coach. At certain point, Yuna would get the gold even if she decided half way through the program that she has done enough and can’t be bothered to finish it. The way she was overmarked completely turned me off her skating.

 

[vesperholly]

This is a change I agree with. Ranking the Lutz higher than the flip just gives an advantage to natural Lutz jumpers over natural flip jumpers.

Or, people who learned and focused on keeping the correct technique. Even my highly untalented behind was able to learn a proper outside edge (single) lutz.

I always thought the flip was easier than the Lutz because of the momentum you get from the three-turn in the flip. I was able to land some doubles. Lutz- never. I know some skaters have come up with Slutskaya-like entrances over the years where they do turn immediately before setting up the jump, but the mechanics to me would still be more difficult.

It's not the 3-turn. The lutz is harder because of the counter rotation of the body on a BO edge prior to takeoff. Except hardly anyone does that anymore, they just do a flip and practically break their ankle over onto the outside edge so it gets called a lutz.

I wish they would make some kind of mention that a +GOE lutz would include "clear counter rotation of upper body prior to takeoff" ... but nah.

 

[tony]

Or, people who learned and focused on keeping the correct technique. Even my highly untalented behind was able to learn a proper outside edge (single) lutz.

It's not the 3-turn. The lutz is harder because of the counter rotation of the body on a BO edge prior to takeoff. Except hardly anyone does that anymore, they just do a flip and practically break their ankle over onto the outside edge so it gets called a lutz.

I get the counter-rotation is tough to get into the air (pole vaulting mechanics). I could do a single Lutz without much trouble, on the correct edge. But double? No way- I did get stuck a lot trying but it was never anywhere close. On the flip, I landed some doubles and for me the momentum and rhythm going into it made it make much more ‘sense’ for me to get into the air without getting tangled. But if I were holding that edge past the three-turn, I’d probably still get tangled or unstable.

But I do still think that even if it is used correctly in scoring the technical flaws, the Lutz should carry more weight.

Remember the year at Euros(?) that Joubert did a flip by all definitions of the preparation of the jump, but since it was on such a severe outside edge, somehow the technical panel came up with calling it a Lutz with positive GOE?

 

[misskarne]

I'm extremely mad about this, breakdown to come on my lunch break.

 

[Miki89]

This wouldn't have made any difference to Mao. She was competing against Yuna, who had correct edges on both.

Kim did receive a few unclear edge calls on her flip. I believe Kostner never received an edge call during her career. I do recall Gracie getting away with quite a few lip calls and looking back that was unfair to all the skaters dinged for flutzing.

 

[tony]

Kim did receive a few unclear edge calls on her flip. I believe Kostner never received an edge call during her career. I do recall Gracie getting away with quite a few lip calls and looking back that was unfair to all the skaters dinged for flutzing.

I remember I wrote a piece after 2013 Worlds in regards to rules that I think needed to be changed (basically stemming from the men’s comp debate), and IIRC all of the ladies in the top 10 at Worlds that year got hit with one call or the other if they attempted both lutz and flip- except for Tuktamysheva (just checked- and Kostner). In those days, the skaters were likely getting a 0 or -1 for a completely wrong edge, and some of them were even doing two flips and two lutzes- which essentially meant four of the same exact jump in a program with little to no penalty. I always thought that was incredibly baffling, yet the skater who couldn’t do a loop was basically screwed out of getting those ‘extra’ points for the completely wrong jump.

Kim didn’t have an ‘e’ in the LP, but she did get one in the short. 8 of the top 10 getting at least one ‘e’.

 

[Aerobicidal]

Some of these new rules are meticulous to the point of being ridiculous.

If someone ever creates a Broadway musical based on the rise of Eteri Tutberidze, this HAS to be a song lyric in a dramatic ballad about the ISU maltreating her and her skaters.

I'm extremely mad about this, breakdown to come on my lunch break.

I can't wait that long.

 

[Miki89]

In those days, the skaters were likely getting a 0 or -1 for a completely wrong edge, and some of them were even doing two flips and two lutzes- which essentially meant four of the same exact jump in a program with little to no penalty. I always thought that was incredibly baffling, yet the skater who couldn’t do a loop was basically screwed out of getting those ‘extra’ points for the completely wrong jump.
Kim didn’t have an ‘e’ in the LP, but she did get one in the short. 8 of the top 10 getting at least one ‘e’.

Is a flutz the same as a flip? I remember a poster here or at GS explaining the mechanics of a flip and lutz were different beyond the edge direction. If the judges marked correctly, they will usually get -2 in deduction for an e. The problem is that judges turned a blind eye for some skaters. Yulia's flutz was a most curious case. She would get an e on one lutz and the second one would be totally fine with plus GOE from the judges in the same program!

 

[Marco]

I don't know about the rotation calls. In theory, this 'q' notation is supposed to give skaters benefit of the doubt in case the caller feels the jump is definitely UR and wants to raise it. GOE reduction under 'q' is still better than a BV reduction under '<' which will most definitely be accompanied with GOE reduction anyways. And this 'q' has always been implied - any jump that looks cheated but doesn't get a '<' call is by definition in that category and the judges are free to give appropriate GOEs. So for me this 'q' is more for the caller to show that they are doing their job as in 'I saw it's UR but I am giving you benefit of the doubt' instead of 'I saw it's UR and I'd rather it be given < than be seen as clean'.

I see this new call and I immediately think (((Satoko))).

As for the new language on pre-rotation and full blade assist, I agree it should be the caller's job to identify it just as it is his job to identify under-rotation on landings and wrong edge take-offs. Still, I am glad the ISU is finally clearly acknowledging this issue and sending a message about it. I think sooner or later the caller will take over this duty. Remember when Amber Corwin's 3toe3toe would be called a 2toe2toe in the earlier seasons of IJS? I suppose this means the caller counted it as UR from when she actually took off. I believe the ISU's struggle is whether to classify this as a 'take off' issue which is what they are doing now, instead of letting the caller call the natural rotations which was what that old caller did to Amber Corwin.

The leveling of BVs for 3lutz and 3flip and for the higher tier quads is for me the sugar of the entire announcement. Lutz is by definition and mechanics a harder jump so this is definitely cutting the flutzers some slack. They can now do 2 flips and 1 lutz and have the same BV before being exposed to 1 edge call compared to doing 2 lutzes and 1 flip and be exposed to 2 edge calls. I suppose the ISU saw that their attempt of introducing the edge calls to encourage correct take off has not worked (so well) that they are now using the ostrich policy on it instead. This can't be good for the younger skaters. I see they are trying to encourage the 4loop seeing that it is the least attempted and landed quad from both men and ladies.

So far no one has mentioned the new feature of 'difficult spin exit'. I have a hard time imagining what this meant. Exiting into a spread eagle? Into an illusion? Spins these days are so complicated anyways that most either grind to a halt or the skater had to put the free foot down to stop the spin. I wish the ISU would reward or at least encourage CLEAN spin exits before introducing difficult exits. This gives a lot of skaters a legit reason to cover up their sloppy exits with transitions (like Hanyu with all those jump step outs that he would cover up with spread eagles..., but much uglier).

 

[vesperholly]

Is a flutz the same as a flip? I remember a poster here or at GS explaining the mechanics of a flip and lutz were different beyond the edge direction. If the judges marked correctly, they will usually get -2 in deduction for an e. The problem is that judges turned a blind eye for some skaters. Yulia's flutz was a most curious case. She would get an e on one lutz and the second one would be totally fine with plus GOE from the judges in the same program!

Flutzes can be a couple things. A skater can really try to do a proper lutz, show counter rotation of the upper body etc, and then switch edges at the last minute. Tara Lipinski is a good example, you can see her shoulders are rotated and she tries to hold the edge but the leg kick pulls her way off axis. Or the skater tries to disguise it with steps prior, but never really go for a lutz as there is zero counter rotation of the upper body. Anna Scherbakova is the example here. The right shoulder doesn't go back even though the arm does. She actually does a credible job of keeping the edge at least on a flat, but the point is that a lutz involves the whole body, not just the edge.

Another thing to look for is the placement of the pick - you should be picking in directly in line behind the skating foot's edge, not out to the right - look how far apart Sasha Cohen's feet are as she lifts off the ice. She also has poor counter rotation of the upper body, and her high kick poor technique on the lutz and flip is probably due to a lack of power.

It's the technical panel's inconsistency in calling flutzes that drives me crazy. But some skaters and coaches are damn smart and know how to play the system. Footwork, short edges, shoving the foot over even though the pick is way to the right, can all fool a caller.

A proper lutz is damn hard and should be rewarded as such. I'm disappointed that the ISU has devalued a difficult and (when properly performed) beautiful jump. Brian Boitano is the ne plus ultra example - you can even see how the lutz is actually a jumped BO counter turn, performed in the air.

 

[muffinplus]

As for the new language on pre-rotation and full blade assist, I agree it should be the caller's job to identify it just as it is his job to identify under-rotation on landings and wrong edge take-offs. Still, I am glad the ISU is finally clearly acknowledging this issue and sending a message about it

Except... it's anything but clear with how they worded it. They have not defined what they mean by "full blade" take off and what this intended to punish. Shcherbakova and Trusova' takeoffs? They simply drop the blade.. they are not on the blade while rotating. Likewise, what is excessive rotation on the ice? Is it 120, 180, 270 ? They have not defined it

 

[kwanfan1818]

Also, I’ve said this since the beginning but why does the computer not just void out GOEs and PCS that are not attainable once certain thing happen? If a skater has one serious error, automatically disable the PCS scores they can’t get. If it’s two serious errors, do it again.

This.

And, yes, if judges are doing them manually, the original scores can be crossed out when they are calculated and tallied, with the max GOE (allowed) entered in their place.

 

[Marco]

Except... it's anything but clear with how they worded it. They have not defined what they mean by "full blade" take off and what this intended to punish. Shcherbakova and Trusova' takeoffs? They simply drop the blade.. they are not on the blade while rotating. Likewise, what is excessive rotation on the ice? Is it 120, 180, 270 ? They have not defined it

LOL fair enough. Unless they started the discussion.

I am sure the PR and FBA issue will be further clarified and finetuned as the questions you asked inevitably get asked throughout this first season. The issues with UR and edge calls evolved through multiple seasons too.

 

[MAXSwagg]

Where was this rule when Mao was competing?

exactly! This is a slap in the face. First they make extremely harsh penalties for UR and wrong edges. Now they’re basically saying flip? Lutz? Who gives a... it’s all the same.

 

[gkelly]

Expect a new edition of the technical panel handbook, which tends to give a bit more detail than the ISU Communications.

 

[Orm Irian]

So far no one has mentioned the new feature of 'difficult spin exit'. I have a hard time imagining what this meant. Exiting into a spread eagle? Into an illusion?

Maybe skaters can start looking at how ice dancers enter and exit twizzle sets and transfer some skills across.