Good or Bad? New Scale Base Value changes, -4.0 deduction on Quads?

I couldn't find a thread for this, so apologies if there's a mention of it already . These are the post Sochi Base value changes for all elements released by ISU 2 weeks ago.

http://oi59.tinypic.com/2lx81sg.jpg

Major changes are:

Increasing -GOEs deduction for quads,
-1.0 GOEs = -1.2
-2.0 GOEs = -2.4
-3.0 GOE = -4.0 instead of previous 3. Should affect all the quads monsters. 5 falls Hanyu is a few points points worse off. (I still don't think it is enough, it should be incremental. 1st/2nd fall okay, 3rd, 4th, 5th should get additional penalties incrementally imo. Especially when it suppose to affect PCS but are rarely applied by the judging panel at the same competition. I'd also argue the rule should apply not only to quads but also triples too.)

3T has increased in BV
Previously was 4.1, Now 4.3

3S has increased
Previously was 4.2, Now 4.4

This means an overall increase of 0.4 for the easiest 3/3 combination jump or 0.44 in the 2nd half. It is also the 2nd time this has increased since Vancouver (4.0 for 3T, 4.5 for 3S, makes the 3T/3T worth 0.6 points or 0.66 more since Vancouver). it would also be the equivalent of depreciating 0.4 scores for difficult 3/3 combination jumps such as 3f3t, 3lz3t, 3f3loop by remove 0.4 from their risk/reward advantage previously to the easiest combination 3t3t popularized by the Russian youngsters early this season including Liza and in particular at Sochi where Sotnikova were able to get the highest TES with her 3t3t beating multiple 3lz3t, 3f3t programs.

3T3T + 3 GOE = 8.6 + 2.1 = 10.7
3lz3t + 0 GOE = 10.1 + 0.7 = 10.8

I am just going to go ahead and call it ISU's on going effort to depreciate the prestige of the 3lutz likely due to many skaters have problems with this jump from the power federations, and with Liza finally gaining the 3A. Her previous lz as a competitive advantage is now less important than the need to separate her from the other 3lz. It especially benefit skaters like Sotnikova who does 3T3T in her SP (and I expect this season too) due to exceedingly low lutz rate can now at least equal to Gracie Gold's 3lz3t in their short. e.g Sochi SP mark

Sotnikov's 3T3T received 8.2 + 1.6 GOEs = 9.80
Now would be worth 10.20 or 10.7 with +3 GOEs.
Or 11.56 if in the 2nd half, that is HIGHER than a +2.0 GOE of 3lz3t in the first half 11.5.

Gracie's 3lz3t there received 10.1 + 0.5 GOEs = 10.6

The narrower margin can be easily compensated through other GOE scores such as spins and even out in the PCS criteria. -0.25 here and there, + 0.25 here and there, hardly detectable, but is already 0.5 apart.

3T3T + 0 GOEs is now worth 8.6
also equals Polina's 3lz+3T< with minus 0.3 GOES < = 8.6 at Sochi

A strategic Polina might as well just do a 3T3T with positive grade of execution rather than risk a 3lz3T if she is pron to < like many skaters are.
This will make the 3t3t more popular in approach, and make the Sochi result less controversial.

It became even more advantageous to play safe to do 3T3T with tons of musically/choreographically irrelevant transitions like tanos, you'd still get the score comparable to a 3lz3t which is harder to get higher grade of execution. Do it in the 2nd half give you added 10% bonus that beat a 3lz3t in the first half with +2 GOEs. Overall I'd argue the changes makes it easier to manipulate the results through GOEs and PCS in the case of a slanted judging panel since the diversity between difficult elements have now narrowed with these new rule changes. Again. Second time since Vancouver.

It will make it strategically smart to put out programs that relies on a good solid 3T3T with tons of transitions to get high GOEs rather than risk a difficult 3/3 combo when its risk/reward system depreciated so much in recent years. Will we see more common occurrence when a 3t3t short beat the greater difficult 3.3s in a technical program that is the short program, which is hardly purpose for a technical program in which greater difficulty should matter and be the greatest scoring advantage. (or is this a sneaky way of Speedy to make short program irrelevant?)

What do you guys think? Is ISU taking figure skating backwards or makes it better? Are difficulties in combination jumps sufficiently rewarded other than the 3A? Especially in a technical program such as the short? Are the deduction in falls for the quads only sufficient?

Vancouver results breed tons of youngsters include 3lz3t in their repertoire. It seems Sochi results are pushing for more strategically safe, number crunching, transition filled programs. Other than the 3A, not sure how are others going to catch up even if you have difficulty.

It's here: http://www.goldenskate.com/forum/sh...-16-SOV-Tables-for-Singles-and-Pairs-released

There is always a tension between rewarding technical difficulty and the desire for clean programs and reducing injuries.

I do feel at the moment the ISU is still figuring it that out because there are so many opinions about what is best. Even when you see GS forum threads about this, there are a wide array of opinions. At this time, I do feel that the balance is still wacky but how can one properly and quantitatively judge how much more difficult each jump is from the other?
I do agree that tougher jumps should have more risk points wise. You get the reward and much more if you get it and harsh penalties if it doesn't work out.
In saying that, the value of the 3T should either be lower or the triple lutz should be increased. there has to be a greater disparity because consensus says that the 3Lz is certainly more difficult that the 3T.

I would say you can give even -5 deduction on quad but then give also +2 higher BV on clean quad.

HanDomi said:

I would say you can give even -5 deduction on quad but then give also +2 higher BV on clean quad.

Click to expand...

I think it depends on which quad

Moria Polonius said:

It's here: http://www.goldenskate.com/forum/sh...-16-SOV-Tables-for-Singles-and-Pairs-released

Click to expand...

Thanks, I am now only able to catch up on that thread. Great to read many points have been covered already as well as different perspectives such as UR Quad vs a fall in Quad. The fact is 3T/3T is now worth 0.6 points more (or 0.66 in the 2nd half) since Vancouver, is the equivalent other difficult 3/3s including 3lz3t BV is worth 0.6 /0.66 worse off on a relative basis should be a huge point of contention on the reasons why and how things came to be, ie/ the motivation behind the decider.

I hope US/Canadian/Japanese choreographers take note of this specific value changes, as no doubt Russian federation choreographers already took note since their ex VP heads the technical committee that decide on those things.

3T3T + 3GOEs (11.56) in the 2nd half can NOW beat a

3lz3t + 2GOEs in the first half (11.5)
3f3t + 3GOEs in the first half (11.5)
3S3T + 3GOEs in the first half (10.6)
as well as a triple axel in the first half with +3 GOEs. (10.6)

One benefit I can see from increasing 3t-3t is that it will make it tougher for a skater to come out...land the hardest jumps and essentially win. In reference to 3z-3t specifically, they ALL do it as the first jumping pass and it become a bit predictable IMO. Now programs can breathe a bit more and we'll maybe see more 3-3 latter in the program which is likely where a dramatic moment in the music will occur. Personally I think a good presentation is more enjoyable than a stacked BV.

I'm not suggesting that this reasoning justifies everything but pointing out that by removing some focus from the jumps...the skaters will potentially pay more attention to cohesive programs and the execution of it. Maybe not..... but isn't it possible that it would be a welcomed side effect.

Sam-Skwantch said:

One benefit I can see from increasing 3t-3t is that it will make it tougher for a skater to come out...land the hardest jumps and essentially win. They ALL do it as the first jumping pass and it become a bit predictable IMO. Now programs can breathe a bit more and we'll maybe see more 3-3 latter in the program which is likely where a dramatic moment in the music will occur. Personally I think a good presentation is more enjoyable than a stacked BV.

I'm not suggesting that this reasoning justifies everything but pointing out that by removing some focus from the jumps...the skaters will potentially focus more on cohesive programs. Maybe not but it is possible that it will be a side effect.

Click to expand...

Well one effect is that it can drastically change the typical layout trend set from Vancouver and likely to affect how people train (muscle memories) where as skaters usually start with the biggest difficult combo like 3lz3t, 3A/3T like you said. But when you add the limitation on jump passes, it seems the biggest benefactor of this scale value change in the ladies is Liza. Together with the post Vancouver rule of allowing 3A as a single jump pass and not combo rule in the SP, wouldn't use up her 3T as part of her difficult 3/3 jump passes. Her 3A and a 3T/3T in the 2nd half became virtually untouchable and pull her further away from rest of the field... even if Mao were able to execute a +3GOE quality 3A wouldn't make much difference. In anycase, Mao tends to get dinged for UR on her 3T and usually do the 3loop/2loop that is worth less than 3T/3T in the second half, now all of a sudden need to have 0.44 points additional difference she need to catch up some where due to these rule changes.

Ultimately when it comes to down to difficulty, risk and reward. I am genuinely curious if 3T3T is really that difficult in the 2nd half than 3lz3t and 3f3t or even a 3A to warrant that level of score, or only when it suit ISU (whoever is in charge of it)?

I agree with your second point. However, I am hardly optimistic with how they reward PCS and made no reference to any problem with how they will reward these marks to better realized/cohesive programs. For me, I appreciate organic pieces of work that follows on music intentions above else. That has artistic integrity and technicality (specifically difficulty and quality, balance) rather than take advantage of latest rules to become a fully realised classic skating program that people will want to watch beyond competitions. I don't think many programs did that last year.

HanDomi said:

I would say you can give even -5 deduction on quad but then give also +2 higher BV on clean quad.

Click to expand...

I'm against increasing the range of GOE. It gives the judges too much power. I prefer numbers that are more normalized -- see: PCS before the past few years when judges started handing out 9's and 10's like candy, and events were decided more on technical ability rather than PCS skewing causing popular skaters who did poorly to still maintain their standing.

If judges give out -2's for falls, you can bet that they would give +5 to their favourite skater, and -5 to the skaters they hate.

If they wanted to make the range -5 to +5 but re-jig the scaling such that a +5 is worth the same as a +3 currently and a -5 is the same as -3 currently, then I'm cool with that - if anything, it minimizes outliers and forces judging panels to give GOE properly lest everyone really sees inconsistencies in a panel (moreso than they do now).

Not a fan of the 3T increase. I think it should have stayed at 4.0 from the vancouver era. I have no problems with the 3S. I think we will be seeing an even greater number of 3T-3Ts.. The -4 on the quads seems like a step in the right direction.

os168 said:

I hope US/Canadian/Japanese choreographers take note of this specific value changes, as no doubt Russian federation choreographers already took note since their ex VP heads the technical committee that decide on those things.

3T3T + 3GOEs (11.56) in the 2nd half can NOW beat a

3lz3t + 2GOEs in the first half (11.5)
3f3t + 3GOEs in the first half (11.5)
3S3T + 3GOEs in the first half (10.6)
as well as a triple axel in the first half with +3 GOEs. (10.6)

Click to expand...

I'm not completely opposed to raising the value of the 3T-3T so that a 3T-3T in the second half is worth more than a 3L-3T in the first half (mostly I'm not opposed because I have no idea which one is truly more difficult than the other) but I really don't think it should apply in the short program. I would prefer not to see any second-half bonuses for the SP, period, with the exception of increased PCS for a WELL-BALANCED program.

I personally find executing a 3F-3T or 3L-3T to be much more impressive than a 3T-3T, especially given the edge issues that these jumps (flip and lutz) can pose. It matters less within the wide range of jumps attempted in the LP, but in the SP....the 3T-3T allows ladies to "get away with" demonstrating a narrower variety of jumps than another X-3T combination.

CanadianSkaterGuy said:

I'm against increasing the range of GOE. It gives the judges too much power.

Click to expand...

While I see the problem, we have to give someone more power if we want falls more penalized, don't we? The other possibility is raising the mandatory deduction for falls that is currently only -1. While I generally like the idea, there where cases of 'non-falls' in the past, where it was pretty hard to determine if a mistake should count as a fall or 'only' a hand-down/step-out. So I'd personally rather have the GOE scales being bigger (although maybe only in the negative, not the positive direction).

Li'Kitsu said:

While I see the problem, we have to give someone more power if we want falls more penalized, don't we? The other possibility is raising the mandatory deduction for falls that is currently only -1. While I generally like the idea, there where cases of 'non-falls' in the past, where it was pretty hard to determine if a mistake should count as a fall or 'only' a hand-down/step-out. So I'd personally rather have the GOE scales being bigger (although maybe only in the negative, not the positive direction).

Click to expand...

I really like the idea of reducing -3pts from BV for a fall and leaving the GOE free...even positive...up to the panel of judges. Same with everything else like UR,and edge calls. Let the tech panel make the call (-1 or -2pts from BV ) and let the judges judge the severity with GOE. That way no one person has complete say. Right now when TS makes a call ...the judges also get their hands tied.

I'd like to see falls penalised more - but not just quad falls; as if falling on a quad is somehow more heinous than falling on anything else.

Why isn't the benefit plus four. It's outrageous and bluntly anti quad. It's a stridently american anti quad position

The fall is -4, but an amazing perfect quad is still worth +3?
sounds not fair imho, it should go both ways.
Or increase the BV and then subtract 4 for a fall.

3T3T *sigh*
tano3T-tano3T *GROAN*

The other side of boosting 3T3T though, is skaters would have used up their allotted repeat jump on the toe, they are no longer allowed to do another 3T combo.(?) Does that mean we well see even more of that 1/2 loop 3 Sal combo? Or a x-jump 2A combo sequence?

LRK said:

I'd like to see falls penalised more - but not just quad falls; as if falling on a quad is somehow more heinous than falling on anything else.

Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly. To be honest, I don't understand at all the -4 only for quads, but I also find it hard to believe that the ISU is trying to discourage quads. And I know that one more point doesn't make all that much of a difference in scores/placements, but the logic (or lack thereof) behind the change irks me.

owl said:

My thoughts exactly. To be honest, I don't understand at all the -4 only for quads, but I also find it hard to believe that the ISU is trying to discourage quads. And I know that one more point doesn't make all that much of a difference in scores/placements, but the logic (or lack thereof) behind the change irks me.

Click to expand...

But if the isu wasn't trying to discourage quads why is punishment for failure worse for quads than for anything else? Clearly something is up and it seems like it might have been a compromise over an effort to ban quads.

gmyers said:

But if the isu wasn't trying to discourage quads why is punishment for failure worse for quads than for anything else? Clearly something is up and it seems like it might have been a compromise over an effort to ban quads.

Click to expand...

It could be because, as the BV for quads is the highest, they needed to take a higher amount of points to make it proportional to the triples and the doubles. The quads didn't post too much risk point-wise even with -3 across the board and the -1 deduction, now the risk is slightly higher. Just my speculation.
What bugs me is the higher BV for UR, penalizing the falls even harsher would have been better, IMO.