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

[gkelly]

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.

Think of it this way.

Another way that GOEs could be calculated would be as a straight percentage of the base value for each element.

In that case, the value of -3 for a 10-point element would be greater than the value of -3 for a 5-point or a 2-point element.

Essentially, that is what the ISU is trying to do with making the values of the GOEs larger for higher value elements than for lower value ones. For whatever reason, they originally chose to set the values of the GOEs at strict 1, 2, and 3 integers for triple and quad jumps, and they have made some adjustments since, but they have not chosen to use a straight percentage.

Maybe the percentage approach would be clearer. And then we could debate whether the percentage for +1 or +3 should or shouldn't be the same as the percentage for -1 or -3, respectively.

The fall deduction is separate from GOE reduction.

It's possible to fail seriously at an element without falling. Sometimes the failures are just as bad as falling from either a technical or an aesthetic perspective. But they don't also incur a fall deduction.

It's also possible to fall on nothing, or on a singled or double jump, in which case the skater gains at most a few tenths of points for the element and loses one whole point for the deduction, so the net effect on the skater's total score is negative.

1.0 off per fall is negligible for skaters who can rotate quads and land multiple triples.
But it's significant for skaters who are only doing double jumps or maybe attempting but not necessarily rotating and landing a few triples.

So any change to the way falls are penalized in order to make sure that fallen quads lose a bigger percentage of their base value needs to be applied in a way that does not overly penalize skaters who are nowhere near attempting any quads.

All senior men will always compete under the same rules. So far, all juniors and seniors in all disciplines have also been using the same rules regarding falls -- and lower levels as well.

The US has just changed the fall deduction from 1.0 to 0.5 for juveniles and intermediates, since almost all the jumps at those levels are doubles (and single axels).

If the ISU were to raise the fall deduction for senior men to something significant enough to make a difference between two medal contenders when one falls more than the other, they would need to not raise it the same amount for senior ladies or for juniors and preferably leave it at no more than 1.0 for novices.

Or they could just change the fall deduction to a percentage of the total element score.

 

[gmyers]

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.

Yes success or full rotation gets lots of points but that's always been the case. It's over punishment for failure which would almost lead to the quads extinction from men's skating. And now extreme over punishment for failure is back.

 

[Sam-Skwantch]

I am becoming less and less interested in GOE altogether. I wouldn't miss it one bit if it were to be completely eliminated from scoring. Would it really be so bad (?) if the Tech Panel would focus solely on the TES/BV (determining edges and UR) or basically to qualify jumps on a technical merit alone freeing up the panel of judges who would only focus on PCS. This way the effect the jumps have as a whole on the programming would be hopefully increased thus making PCS more of an actual artistic mark and less of an extension of TES like it arguably is now in cases like P/E. In a way GOE would still exist but instead of showing up for individual jumps and spins it would just appear in the P/E and SS. Removing the subjective nature from the technical aspect of the sport and putting it only in component scoring sounds kind of nice to me.

This would never happen but sometimes I just gotta rant a bit :

 

[Li'Kitsu]

I am becoming less and less interested in GOE altogether. I wouldn't miss it one bit if it were to be completely eliminated from scoring. Would it really be so bad (?) if the Tech Panel would focus solely on the TES/BV (determining edges and UR) or basically to qualify jumps on a technical merit alone freeing up the panel of judges who would only focus on PCS. This way the effect the jumps have as a whole on the programming would be hopefully increased thus making PCS more of an actual artistic mark and less of an extension of TES like it arguably is now in cases like P/E. In a way GOE would still exist but instead of showing up for individual jumps and spins it would just appear in the P/E and SS. Removing the subjective nature from the technical aspect of the sport and putting it only in component scoring sounds kind of nice to me.

This would never happen but sometimes I just gotta rant a bit :

Only speaking for myself, and everyone has their own opinion: but please god no!
I don't think it would work with the "it could be part of the PE mark" idea. So basically, Hanyu or Yan don't get anymore points for their 3As than Ge or any other average 3A, or Kovtuns 4S would get him the same points as Fernandez' gets him. PChiddys steps would be worth the same as Nguyens, and Pogorilayas spins would be rated just as high as Sotnikovas or Lipnitskayas. There is already a lot of stuff factoring into the single PCS categories, if the technicalities of the single elements would be included too, that would be too much IMO. And seeing someone with zero connection to their music or the audience getting good PE marks because of amazing jump height sounds all wrong to me too. The GOE are probably part of the few things I like about the actual system

Also, you are making these jumpamatron vids, you really still believe BV and UR/edge calls are all objective...?

 

[Sam-Skwantch]

Only speaking for myself, and everyone has their own opinion: but please god no!

I actually like the idea of GOE myself.

It's just sometimes I feel like the system needs to be simplified and much more cohesive for people to grasp. I've discussed the scoring with people who actually compete in front of IJS judges internationally and don't understand the complexities of a large part of the scoring system. In fact...it changes so often it's really hard for them to not only learn it but to then also keep up. I guess GOE is a fairly simply concept...it's just....exactly what a +2 on a jump is and how we get there can mean very different things to very similar people.

 

[Li'Kitsu]

I actually like the idea of GOE myself.

It's just sometimes I feel like the system needs to be simplified and much more cohesive for people to grasp. I've discussed the scoring with people who actually compete in front of IJS judges internationally and don't understand the complexities of a large part of the scoring system. In fact...it changes so often it's really hard for them to not only learn it but to then also keep up. I guess GOE is a fairly simply concept...it's just....exactly what a +2 on a jump is and how we get there can mean very different things to very similar people.

Mhm... simplifying the system in general could be a good idea. TBH, I'd rather have the PCS categories changed though - maybe put CH and TR together (with an emphasis on quality over quantity when it comes to TR - or just scrap TR completely ), or PE and IN or something like that. Or work with the GOE guidelines. Neither of those cases are really used as they're intended to anyway.
And the dozen changes a year are really unnecessary. It feels to me like the ISU is just bored and tries to find the most creative ways not to do what the main criticisms ask for.

 

[QuadThrow]

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).

:thumbsup:

 

[jkun]

I am becoming less and less interested in GOE altogether. I wouldn't miss it one bit if it were to be completely eliminated from scoring. Would it really be so bad (?) if the Tech Panel would focus solely on the TES/BV (determining edges and UR) or basically to qualify jumps on a technical merit alone freeing up the panel of judges who would only focus on PCS. This way the effect the jumps have as a whole on the programming would be hopefully increased thus making PCS more of an actual artistic mark and less of an extension of TES like it arguably is now in cases like P/E. In a way GOE would still exist but instead of showing up for individual jumps and spins it would just appear in the P/E and SS. Removing the subjective nature from the technical aspect of the sport and putting it only in component scoring sounds kind of nice to me.

This would never happen but sometimes I just gotta rant a bit :

Putting GOE as part of PCS would make it even worse! At least we can see which jumps they add on/took off right now. They need to make a stricter GOE system followed by strict bullet points that each judge would have to list behind his/her GOE award. It increases accountability, but may have negative effects, making jumps less free and point-driven.

 

[solani]

I have a question: If the skater falls on the quad attempt and the jump gets downgraded (<<) is it also -4 then? (f.e. 4T << + fall would be: (correct me if I'm wrong) 4.3(BS) - 4 (GOE) - 1 (fall) = -0.7. Negative points would be quite harsh.

 

[gmyers]

I have a question: If the skater falls on the quad attempt and the jump gets downgraded (<<) is it also -4 then? (f.e. 4T << + fall would be: (correct me if I'm wrong) 4.3(BS) - 4 (GOE) - 1 (fall) = -0.7. Negative points would be quite harsh.

Yes. This is about some people who don't want quads in skating.

 

[solani]

Yes. This is about some people who don't want quads in skating.

Thanks. I don't think that this will stop any skater from doing quads. It's still worth the risk.
I just don't like this whole downgrade stuff. That it's better to try to rotate and crash than to open a jump and try to land safely.

 

[gkelly]

I have a question: If the skater falls on the quad attempt and the jump gets downgraded (<<) is it also -4 then? (f.e. 4T << + fall would be: (correct me if I'm wrong) 4.3(BS) - 4 (GOE) - 1 (fall) = -0.7. Negative points would be quite harsh.

If the jump is downgraded (<< symbol), it gets the base value of a jump with the same takeoff and one fewer revolution (e.g., 4T<< gets the base value of 3T) and it also gets the negative GOE value for the lesser value jump.

4T<< with -3 GOE would get 4.3 base value - 2.1 GOE = 2.2 for the element; with another 1.0 off for the fall deduction the net value of the jump to the program as a whole would be 1.2. Not much, but at least it's positive.

Fall on most downgraded triples, on the other hand, or most rotated doubles, does result in less than 1.0 for the element and therefore less than 0 (negative net value) after the fall deduction.

 

[gmyers]

I was going by the chart and found that line further down. Downgraded quads or triple toes wouldn't have much value anyway so why wouldn't they just go for negative value since they want to punish failed quads so overwhelmingly.

 

[russianbratz]

Enhancing the TES on the 3T is tragic.... Judges will increase their grip over where skaters place, and skaters will have less incentive to increase their technical difficulty.

 

[aromaticchicken]

Yes. This is about some people who don't want quads in skating.

Psh I think you guys are just being dramatic about this. I love quads but I'm in favor of these new rules because I'm sick of seeing quad falls or poorly executed quads getting higher base value and final scores than clean triple Lutz and flips. It's kind of ridiculous. The fact that anyone who doesn't have a quad is automatically considered a second tier skater even if they have better transitions, edges, and quality of skating should have been a red flag years ago.

Don't tell me you really think just because he has quads that someone like max aaron* should get more points technically (not even considering PCS!) than someone like Jason brown who has high GOE on spins, footwork, and his non quad jumps and jump combos. Because previously even with falls max was set up to get way more TES points, even if he has less quality on the other elements and two footed his quads

*Max aaron from 2013. I rather like his new programs

 

[Ice Dance]

I love quads but I'm in favor of these new rules because I'm sick of seeing quad falls or poorly executed quads getting higher base value and final scores than clean triple Lutz and flips.

I'm in agreement here. But I just keep seeing Patrick's 2013 Worlds LP in my head and thinking these rules wouldn't do a thing to increase the deductions in that disastrous performance. Meanwhile all the guys who are finally challenging him would get heftier deductions for falling on bigger jumps. Also the poorly executed quads are getting higher base value now--so no solution there whatsoever. I'd like to see a larger deduction for falls straight across the board. And no increased base value for the poorly executed ones. Also stronger wording about what designates a fall. IMO it's high time any jump with both hands down was clearly defined as a fall.

 

[sabinfire]

Also stronger wording about what designates a fall. IMO it's high time any jump with both hands down was clearly defined as a fall.

Is it really a fall, though? I remember a time I was walking down some stairs outside a friend's house during the wintertime, and I slipped on some ice, but I managed to catch myself with both my hands and prevent myself from actually falling. Even my friend admired my moves with a, "Nice save!"

 

[Ice Dance]

Is it really a fall, though? I remember a time I was walking down some stairs outside a friend's house during the wintertime, and I slipped on some ice, but I managed to catch myself with both my hands and prevent myself from actually falling. Even my friend admired my moves with a, "Nice save!"

It's never looked like a save to me. One hand down implies a loss of balance, but two hands down implies the transferral of that balance to the ice. I know this is my gymnastics fandom coming out here. As long as I can remember, in gymnastics, two hands down have been designated as a full deduction for a fall. I try not to let the rules for one sport impact my appreciation of another, but when skating switched to a Code of Points system, they encouraged more falls without increasing the deductions. I just think it's time.

 

[andromache]

I'm in agreement here. But I just keep seeing Patrick's 2013 Worlds LP in my head and thinking these rules wouldn't do a thing to increase the deductions in that disastrous performance. Meanwhile all the guys who are finally challenging him would get heftier deductions for falling on bigger jumps. Also the poorly executed quads are getting higher base value now--so no solution there whatsoever. I'd like to see a larger deduction for falls straight across the board. And no increased base value for the poorly executed ones. Also stronger wording about what designates a fall. IMO it's high time any jump with both hands down was clearly defined as a fall.

I'm all for this. My initial thought was that increasing the penalty on quad falls (to make them no longer worth more than a well-executed more difficult triple) is great. But honestly, increase the penalty for falls all around. The reminder of Patrick's 2013 LP....

If judges only dared to deduct PCS for poorly executed jumps this wouldn't be an issue. Sigh.

 

[Interspectator]

I'm all for this. My initial thought was that increasing the penalty on quad falls (to make them no longer worth more than a well-executed more difficult triple) is great. But honestly, increase the penalty for falls all around. The reminder of Patrick's 2013 LP....

If judges only dared to deduct PCS for poorly executed jumps this wouldn't be an issue. Sigh.

Agree. And I know people hold up Patrick and Yuzu as ultimate bad examples, but the truth is falls are just as jarring from someone further down the rankings too. Falls will happen on quads, triples and even doubles and steps, so the penalties should be across the board and accumulative for multiple falls. JMO.