Shoma Uno's quad Lutz

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

No, it was your argument that Michelle's lutz was not called out, to which I answered yes, during 6.0 not. And yes, that lutz was cheated in rotation and that should have been reflected on the marks.

You seem to still live in 6.0 times when rotation was not important. But now rotation is. And that naturally and logically includes pre-rotation.

Sadly, I have to agree with you that pre-rotation probably won't get called in an Olympic season. But well, who knows? Now that the US has Nathan chances are there.

No, I'm telling you *landing* rotation is important but pre-rotation isn't as important. Otherwise there would be more skaters (especially in the ladies on flip and lutz) who would be getting UR calls for pre-rotation, including Shoma.

Again, the rules state a cheated takeoff is assessed in specifically real-time... if pre-rotation were particularly important/egregious, don't you think they would say to scrutinize it in slow motion? Sure it is to fans who have a vested interest in Shoma getting marked down, but it isn't to the more "impartial" judges.

Same goes with 6.0. Judges still had slow motion replay... to look at landings or takeoffs and whatnot and skaters weren't really marked down for UR or flutzing... only if there was a two foot or hand down. Hence the Hughes OGM marks even with URs. Judges were more concerned with the overall performance and scores often didn't reflect technical errors or issues.

Now judges are concerned with *landing* rotation and takeoff *edge* (not prerotation). If they include pre-rotation that opens a whole new can of worms and will make assessing skaters take that much longer.

With Shoma's lutz there is also a gray area, because if they can't scrutinizing his edge for a flutz in slow motion, that would contravene the requirement that pre-rotation must be assessed in real-time ... and obviously assessing the edge and any pre-rotation would involve looking at the same replay. i.e. he can't get assessed/deducted for both a possible flutz and possible pre-rotation under the current rules.

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

@CSG theoretically, you can do a counter-loop, along as you have a RBO and a counter turn can produce one. but I was asking for cases that people has done it, videos. event it is a double loop or single loop, i never saw one, i am curious about it.
agree with your examples regarding pre-rotation of lutz jump, I will provide another skater's case, Nathan's 4LZ, also has NO pre-rotation, straight up! https://youtu.be/NEDyIIpwslQ?t=259

https://youtu.be/5nMxmwn3nSQ

Yes, she does a slight change of edge before the turn - but as mentioned many times, that is part of the technique of a counter.

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

questionable edge
https://m.imgur.com/XkTi1BS

3F？　！?

That is a questionable edge. This is a Shoma thread so this gif is a bit OT --- but given the obvious allegiance of some of the posters who have so eagerly to critiqued Shoma's edge technique, this gif - which shows a rather suspect flip edge that's flat at best and looks like it might become slightly outside at the very last second - is interesting to say the least.

It's fine enough for me for a no call, but it could be getting a ! call from a strict tech specialist.... it certainly did not take off of a definitive inside edge, but like some of Shoma's lutzes (as in no edge call), the edge might have been sufficiently borderline enough for a tech specialist to give it no call (which was what was in the protocol -- a protocol that also ratified Uno's lutz, mind you).

 

[yyyskate]

https://youtu.be/5nMxmwn3nSQ

Yes, she does a slight change of edge before the turn - but as mentioned many times, that is part of the technique of a counter.

I see, but I am reserving my opinions.

 

[Blades of Passion]

https://youtu.be/5nMxmwn3nSQ

Yes, she does a slight change of edge before the turn - but as mentioned many times, that is part of the technique of a counter.

That is NOT part of the technique of a counter (and it's hardly a "slight" change of edge anyway, it's a very obvious one), LOL!

This is not a counter turn. It's someone gliding forward while swinging their free leg and then changing their edge and doing a 3-turn.

 

[Marin]

Here's a major problem in calling Mens technical merits: Amano doesn't judge Mens, on account of his having coached Patrick Chan briefly between Coach Colson and Coach Law.

Yesterday my good friend had a brief friendly conversation with Amano at Skate Ontario. So there are some words from his mouth: she asked shin why he is not judging men and if there are some problems, and he said he only had conflict of interest in 11-13 when he was choreographer of Peter Liebers From Germany, So he was not able to be part of the judging panel in those years, And could only do women. But after that he's clear. In recent years he had a chance to be on the men panel for worlds, he got assigned but another specialist had conflict about skater he/she was coaching Shin switched with that person. He said he was on the men panel for 4cc few years ago and also assistant for coc in recent years. There are words from Amano, Coaching Chiddy was long time ago and now he has no interests in that field.I find it amusing Also FS is a sport that has conflict of interest plastered everywhere ,so having interests was not an issue for Delfa to judge men and Fernandez at WC.( this is my comment) As my friend said ,Shin seemed quite ready and eager to be selected for men. Sorry I am spamming wrong thread but I wanted to clarify as those are words from the man himself.

 

[Li'Kitsu]

I find it amusing Also FS is a sport that has conflict of interest plastered everywhere ,so having interests was not an issue for Delfa to judge men and Fernandez at WC.

Who is Delfa? Someone who worked with Javi?

And gooooood to hear Mr. Carrot-farmer could do the men! Tbh I think the men in general are often judged more leniently in the tech department then the ladies, so I'd love to see what a strict caller like Amano might do.

 

[Marin]

Who is Delfa? Someone who worked with Javi?

And gooooood to hear Mr. Carrot-farmer could do the men! Tbh I think the men in general are often judged more leniently in the tech department then the ladies, so I'd love to see what a strict caller like Amano might do.

He is technical specialist and a spanish fed employee who judges men competitions quite often, for example Yuzu's first 4lo was ratified by him at ACI16. Javi openly supported him when he was going for the ISU tech committee member headed by Biancetti and he sat with Fernadez at k/c couple of times.
So it's just an example to show that it's hard to avoid the tech panel having association with actively competing skaters.
If Delfa is alright I believe Shin should have been free long time ago
x x (screenshots)

 

[Li'Kitsu]

He is technical specialist and a spanish fed employee who judges men competitions quite often, for example Yuzu's first 4lo was ratified by him at ACI16. Javi openly supported him when he was going for the ISU tech committee member headed by Biancetti and he sat with Fernadez at k/c couple of times.
So it's just an example to show that it's hard to avoid the tech panel having association with actively competing skaters.
If Delfa is alright I believe Shin should have been free long time ago
x x (screenshots)

Well, that sounds like a conflict of interest to me. I never paid much attention to these things, so I didn't know someone who would join in a skaters KnC is allowed to judge him/her (and their competitors) at the next competition. Even if you try to be fair, it would only be human for some bias to creep in...

 

[Violet Bliss]

The tech callers were so in awe of quads that they gave easy passes, e.g. not demanding the required preceding footwork into a solo quad. Just as the basic quads (4T & 4S) were getting more mundane, along came the young phenoms with quads galore of all kinds. So the tech callers have stayed awe struck with few faulting of wrong edges and under rotations. Meanwhile, better footwork by the top Men has been amply rewarded but with PCS capped the top Man is stuck under the ceiling with little differentiation between him and the rest.

Time for a real and fair evaluation of Mens figure skating of today.

 

[karne]

Shin was ATS at CoC for the men. But then, as "my" skater at CoC was Max, I guess it didn't bother me because I knew Shin didn't have any reason to hammer him, which seems to be the problem most skating fans have with Shin Amano (and should be a problem they have with "their" skaters instead).

The tech callers were so in awe of quads that they gave easy passes, e.g. not demanding the required preceding footwork into a solo quad.

That's not the tech panel's call. The tech panel do not have anything to do with the "steps into jumps". That's a judge GOE thing, not a TP thing.

 

[Violet Bliss]

That's not the tech panel's call. The tech panel do not have anything to do with the "steps into jumps". That's a judge GOE thing, not a TP thing.

The Tech Panel should invalidate any SP non Axel solo jump with no preceding footwork. Instead they let such a quad pass seeing how much that would cost the skater with such a difficult jump and who is likely at least a contender for the top flight.

 

[karne]

The Tech Panel should invalidate any SP non Axel solo jump with no preceding footwork. Instead they let such a quad pass seeing how much that would cost the skater with such a difficult jump and who is likely at least a contender for the top flight.

That is NOT how the rules are written. The footwork into jump is evaluated in the GOE ONLY. The TP cannot just randomly invalidate a jump!

 

[Li'Kitsu]

Shin was ATS at CoC for the men. But then, as "my" skater at CoC was Max, I guess it didn't bother me because I knew Shin didn't have any reason to hammer him, which seems to be the problem most skating fans have with Shin Amano (and should be a problem they have with "their" skaters instead).

Thanks for the info - I usually rarely check the TS unless there is some specific reason too (like a lot of calls I don't agree with).
Personally, I'd love to have more strict callers. It makes no sense too have skaters consistently not called for technical flaws, as it creates a situation of unfairness and doesn't give enough incentive for skaters to fix their issues. (And yes, that includes my own favorites as well).

That's not the tech panel's call. The tech panel do not have anything to do with the "steps into jumps". That's a judge GOE thing, not a TP thing.

Yep, sadly it's only the judges to evaluate the steps into the solo jump. I wished the TP was able to flag a jump though as not fulfilling that requirement, forcing the judges to go with -3 GOE. Maybe that would give us at least some comps were the rules were actually used.

 

[Blades of Passion]

Basically it's the same problem as always - the rules are very flawed (even though we are now 13 years into CoP - THIRTEEN!) and the judges often don't even properly execute the rules which do currently exist. When will it ever finally get fixed ALL the way, who knows.

Of course the technical judges should be applying deduction for the Short Program rule of the solo jump lacking footwork into it. Using -GOE grade doesn't make sense to begin with, since GOE is supposed to be a measurement of quality only. If someone falls on a jump and gets -3 GOE, then already you can't even apply the further deduction with GOE. This Short Program instance of the rules not being followed + not being correct in the first place is just the very tip of the iceberg. Even worse is the amount of points that flawed jumps receive, especially quads, as long as they are rotated.

And on that note, I laugh at people who still try to insist it would be too difficult to judge pre-rotation in jumps or that it's not even possible in the first place, since the rules say edge calls must be made without slow-motion replay. Hey, guess what, change the rules. Have 7 judges who are solely tech judges at competitions and let them analyze and score everything in this regard, while the PCS judges concentrate on that aspect of the competition. Altering the words that exist on a piece paper, aka the rules, costs essentially nothing to change. Nor would it cost much more to train the judges better, nor would competition times be lengthened by jump pre-rotations being examined by the panel of technical judges. Knowledgeable people are already able to do it on their own from slow-motion replays shown at the competition.

 

[Violet Bliss]

That is NOT how the rules are written. The footwork into jump is evaluated in the GOE ONLY. The TP cannot just randomly invalidate a jump!

I was zoning out in Patrick's new programs but I assume you are correct about ISU rules. So the judges are awe struck by the quads though I didn't include them in my post. As well, I never mean for the TP to randomly invalidate any element.

There are holes in ISU rules. There are mandatory deduction points for falls, downgrades for jumps and levels for spins according to how much the elements are executed according to specifications, yet there are no specified penalty for a jump not fulfilling its requirements. Judges' "discretion" has been very unfair all these years.

 

[TontoK]

Basically it's the same problem as always - the rules are very flawed (even though we are now 13 years into CoP - THIRTEEN!) and the judges often don't even properly execute the rules which do currently exist. When will it ever finally get fixed ALL the way, who knows.

(snip)

This is an excellent point. I think CoP was instituted to eliminate bias and "force" judges to minimize personal preferences and preconceptions, and to encourage judging based entirely on the performance the skater delivers in the moment.

However, I sometimes think GoE (and tech calls, to some extent) have been manipulated by officials to give advantage to some skaters, and I don't think outcomes have strayed that far from what they would have been in the 6.0 era. In that sense, CoP is a tool to provide cover.

 

[TontoK]

That is NOT how the rules are written. The footwork into jump is evaluated in the GOE ONLY. The TP cannot just randomly invalidate a jump!

I don't know whether I agree with this or not. For example, in the SP, if a skater pops the axel jump, he's not given credit for a 1A. It's declared an invalid element, and it receives no points.

Now, whether it would be better to have the "footwork preceding" call be made by a tech caller is a good idea... that's a different question.

For sure, it would be a very bold move for a tech panel to make this call. And controversial, which is why I suspect it wouldn't happen.

 

[Tahuu]

Found a nice YouTube comparison of Shoma's 4F (loopflip, prerotation, free leg assisted landing, etc.) and Nathan's 4F. Both got 1.14 GOE.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qzUv5fWz16Q

ETA there is also a comparison of Shoma's Flutz to Nathan's and Jin's true Lutz.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3h77_Ak5uGo

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

I don't know whether I agree with this or not. For example, in the SP, if a skater pops the axel jump, he's not given credit for a 1A. It's declared an invalid element, and it receives no points.

Now, whether it would be better to have the "footwork preceding" call be made by a tech caller is a good idea... that's a different question.

For sure, it would be a very bold move for a tech panel to make this call. And controversial, which is why I suspect it wouldn't happen.

"Footwork preceding" is a pretty subjective call (although it's obvious in some cases). Whereas a singled axel (when a double or triple is required) or doubled solo jump (when a triple or quad is required) getting invalidated is a more tangible error that everyone can acknowledge objectively speaking.