Should the Zayak rule be modified?

[Mrs. P]

MM and gkelly you both make good points. It's easy for us fans to Monday Morning quarterback and say why didn't you just do X jump instead? But imagine having to try to make that on-the-spot decision in competition.

I suppose good planning/design helps, i.e. Javier Fernandez probably is asking for trouble by doing 4 salchows in his FS (2 quads and 2 triples). And maybe Oda shouldn't tried to include 3 toe-loops in his 2011 FS.

But I feel the double jump rule can cause a lot of unintentional zayaks.

 

[Sandpiper]

Alternatively, after 11 years, some skaters still haven't learned the rule.

It's obviously not rocket science, since so many fans seem to understand it perfectly, and we don't even do this for a living.

I'm particularly not sympathetic to skaters who have been burnt more than once.

Fans are sitting at their desks analyzing these things with no time limit. Skaters are forced to do mental calculations in the middle of a program if they make a mistake.

Say you plan 3Lz-3T at the beginning, and have your three-jump combination (3F-2T-2T) in the second half. You accidentally double the 3Lz-3T into 3Lz-2T. By the time the second half kicks in, considering all the stuff you did in your program and the pressure of competition, you've temporarily forgotten what mistakes--exactly--you've made in the first half. You do 3F-2T-2T and end up with zero points. Whereas some other person landed the 3F badly, managed to eek out a 2T, and had no speed left for anything else... but they still get the BV of 3F-2T. Or, alternatively, someone else falls on the end of their 3Lz-3T... and still wind up with a bunch of points, since they have no run-in with Zayak.

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

Noburnari Oda missed out on so many world medals (and an Olympic berth) because of that damn rule. So yes, I'd say it's overly restrictive especially that super dumb rule on double jumps.

I agree that a BV hit on too many jumps would be preferable than giving ZERO points.

Agreed. A repetition deduction should be applied, but not zero points. Certainly a combo should not be entirely negated if the skater does an extra 2T. I'd say it should be worth 50% of the base value (of the repeated jump, not the whole combo).

 

[MiRé]

Fans are sitting at their desks analyzing these things with no time limit. Skaters are forced to do mental calculations in the middle of a program if they make a mistake.

Say you plan 3Lz-3T at the beginning, and have your three-jump combination (3F-2T-2T) in the second half. You accidentally double the 3Lz-3T into 3Lz-2T. By the time the second half kicks in, considering all the stuff you did in your program and the pressure of competition, you've temporarily forgotten what mistakes--exactly--you've made in the first half. You do 3F-2T-2T and end up with zero points. Whereas some other person landed the 3F badly, managed to eek out a 2T, and had no speed left for anything else... but they still get the BV of 3F-2T. Or, alternatively, someone else falls on the end of their 3Lz-3T... and still wind up with a bunch of points, since they have no run-in with Zayak.

and what's wrong with that? They followed the rules by not zayaking and earned their points. Rules are rules no matter what.

 

[Sandpiper]

and what's wrong with that? They followed the rules by not zayaking and earned their points. Rules are rules no matter what.

So it shouldn't be discussed it because "it's the rules"? Then why are the rules constantly changed? (Not that they're always changed for the better...)

 

[drivingmissdaisy]

It should go like this: If do 3T+3T (intending 4T+3T) and then 3A+3T you should get full credit for the first three jumps and lose the points for the third 3T. This just seems like common sense to me. Even so, the mistake on the quad ended up costing you 20.3 points. Isn't that enough? Why should the rules specify that you lose credit for your triple Axel because you made a mistake earlier on your quad?

Part of this involves planning. If you may repeat a jump three times, you should be ready to execute a back-up plan. The penalty is perhaps draconian but it is simple to understand; you will lose credit for a jumping pass if it contains an element with a Zayak penalty. Ignoring part of a jumping pass adds complications. If the 3A is perfect but there is an error on the 3T, do we ignore the error since it is a non-element? Don't we always complain that the system is too complicated already?

On a related note, has a 3T every been given for a true 4T attempt (as opposed to a < or <<)? If you pop a quad into a triple I would think there would be no question that it is a triple.

 

[TontoK]

I have to believe that this discussion is important because someone's favorite may have been hurt by the rule.

I've heard Javier, Oda, Kulik from the old days...

I wonder... has a skater from Iceland or Argentina or Malaysia been penalized by Zayak rules... and if so, where is the outrage for them?

It's a sport. Sports have rules. If the rules change... then fine... and I believe that most on the thread are making a case for a rule change, and not simply whining.

It's fair enough.

 

[MiRé]

So it shouldn't be discussed it because "it's the rules"? Then why are the rules constantly changed? (Not that they're always changed for the better...)

Rules are what keeps sports competitive. For example, You can't have more than 11 people on one team in a soccer game. If there were no limits, there wouldn't be such thing as "sport." Honestly, the Zayak rule regarding doubles should have been proposed along with limiting 2A's back 2010.

 

[MoonlightSkater]

Fans are sitting at their desks analyzing these things with no time limit. Skaters are forced to do mental calculations in the middle of a program if they make a mistake.

Say you plan 3Lz-3T at the beginning, and have your three-jump combination (3F-2T-2T) in the second half. You accidentally double the 3Lz-3T into 3Lz-2T. By the time the second half kicks in, considering all the stuff you did in your program and the pressure of competition, you've temporarily forgotten what mistakes--exactly--you've made in the first half. You do 3F-2T-2T and end up with zero points. Whereas some other person landed the 3F badly, managed to eek out a 2T, and had no speed left for anything else... but they still get the BV of 3F-2T. Or, alternatively, someone else falls on the end of their 3Lz-3T... and still wind up with a bunch of points, since they have no run-in with Zayak.

This, or even a more complicated scenario. Let's say your jump layout is 3Lz-3T, 2A-2T, 3F, 3R, 2A, 3S, 3R-2T-2R. This might happen for skaters who feel like the loop is their best triple and they want to repeat it and can do so consistently later in the program. The skater's contingency plan for doubling the 3T is to put a loop in the middle of the sequence. If they double both the 3T and the 3R then they have no three jump combo option left. Even if they do a successful solo 3R, having to change the middle of the two jumps in the three jump combo might cause them to pop the first loop.... and then they have no three jump combo option left. They will likely Zayak because this is just so complicated. Or, they won't feel like they can repeat their favorite triple. Too risky. And so they'll have to plan a different lead jump for the three jump combo, will find it harder to pull off than the original, will be more likely to pop it for this reason, and might still Zayak because of the confusing mix of possibilities.

I think it would be far better to allow a double jump to be repeated three times. This would remove the worst of the pressure from the above situation but would still mean that skaters can't just tack a toe loop (or loop) onto every combination. They'd have to be more original in at least one combo jump.

Edit- should be fixed. Note to self- changing one jump in the layout affects all. I about Zayaked just posting!

 

[MalAssada]

I would simply give 0 points to the Zayaked jump without 0ing the entire combo. So, using Mathman's 4T-3T and 3A-3T and considering that the quad is tripled, the skater would end up with 16.7 BV instead of the clean 27.1, way better than the 8.2 they are getting now.

 

[cl2]

Rules are what keeps sports competitive. For example, You can't have more than 11 people on one team in a soccer game. If there were no limits, there wouldn't be such thing as "sport." Honestly, the Zayak rule regarding doubles should have been proposed along with limiting 2A's back 2010.

To take the analogy with soccer a step further, soccer players (and almost all other athletes) have to constantly think on their feet. Sure, they may have practiced their set pieces and penalty kicks, but when it comes to playing a match, no amount of practice will fully replicate all kinds of eventualities that could occur.

As for skating programs, don't skaters have to practice thinking on their feet whenever they do a run-through? I cannot imagine that they have never in a run-through popped a 4T into a 3T and then had to fall back on (or think up of) a Plan B. In fact, as far as eventualities in jumps go, there are only a finite number of outcomes anyway. (And you're in control of the outcomes, not your opponent like in a soccer match.)

Personally, the value I see in the Zayak rule is to force skaters to master the fullest range of jumps possible, rather than to rely on 2T/3T/4Ts all the time. This kind of skill, though not obvious to the naked eye nor the lay person, makes one skater no less of a competitor than another skater who can always stay on his/her feet. Plus, if you're so unsure about your 4T being properly called, then either 1) have a backup plan, which seems like it would have to be used often; or 2) your 4T is not ready for competition yet.

 

[fallingsk8er]

I say the Zayak rule should be modified so that no jump (2 rotations or more) can be repeated more than once and skaters should be allowed to do as many combinations as they want in the free program.
So a lady could do this layout for maximum points

3Z-3T
2A-3T
3F-2L
3S-2T
3L
3Z-2T-2L
2A

 

[NanaPat]

I think the solution is simple: Anything Zayaked gets the value of one revolution less. Repeat an extra 3S? You get the value of a 2S. Nobody will stupidly repeat a 3S when they can do a much easier 2S, but if you make a mistake, it's not like you get no BV and no GOE.

Downgrading 2T/2Lo in combinations to 1T/1Lo is pretty much equal to a zero, but the rest of the combo should count. Why on earth should the perfectly good 3Lz/3F/3Lo in the beginning of the combo get nothing?

I don't know why it never got fixed, or why they've actually made things worse this season...

I agree. I thought of this when the commentators were saying about Javi "If only he'd done a double instead of a triple, he would have gotten points and won the medal." In what universe should a triple count for LESS than a double? And if leads to too many problems, how about a double-downgrade for the second or later Zayak of the same jump?

 

[gkelly]

As I recall, in the early 1990s the rules required at least one jump combination or sequence.

What was happening, at lower levels especially, was that many skaters were tacking double toes and/or double loops onto almost every jump they attempted and not landing those jumps very well. Judges got tired of seeing sloppy programs with bad landings on almost all the jumping passes.

So they changed the rule to require at least one but no more than three jump combinations or sequences. That ensured that skaters would attempt some solo jumps, which were more likely to have nice landings.

 

[Wo|flax]

Skaters are getting the hang of it though. It seems to me that there is less zayaking this year...?

I can remember 3, Voronov felled by the new rules, Javi @ JO, but those were B competitions. In the GP I can only remember Misha Ge, though I feel like I'm forgetting someone? Anyone remember last season?

I like Sandpiper's proposed rules, for changes. However, in a competition under the rules, I wouldn't say for example, 'X' deserved to win/podium because his only mistake was Zayak. It's still a mistake, they know the rules, their strategy, their decisions, their ability to think under pressure, their training. They're athletes. It's part of sport. But that is as far as Melon's argument extends I think. We're still free to discuss improvements/changes.

I also sort of want quads to be separated from triples, if doubles are separated from triples, then quads should be too.

On the other hand, the new double rules, and the old zayak rule, do encourage skaters to do all types of jumps, and it'd be interesting to see how many more 2Lo we see as time goes on.

 

[Wo|flax]

I say the Zayak rule should be modified so that no jump (2 rotations or more) can be repeated more than once and skaters should be allowed to do as many combinations as they want in the free program.
So a lady could do this layout for maximum points

3Z-3T
2A-3T
3F-2L
3S-2T
3L
3Z-2T-2L
2A

:/ I don't like that. too many combos, and combos frequently take a lot out of the running edge, and decreases variety majorly.

 

[gkelly]

I also sort of want quads to be separated from triples, if doubles are separated from triples, then quads should be too.

Repeats of quads are separate from repeats of triples.

It's fairly common for skaters to plan two 3T and one 4T or vice versa, and occasionally two of each.

Quad salchows are less common in general and triple salchows are less useful in combinations, but we've definitely seen skaters plan two 3S and one 4S or vice versa. Tim Goebel comes to mind.

 

[Wo|flax]

Repeats of quads are separate from repeats of triples.

It's fairly common for skaters to plan two 3T and one 4T or vice versa, and occasionally two of each.

Quad salchows are less common in general and triple salchows are less useful in combinations, but we've definitely seen skaters plan two 3S and one 4S or vice versa. Tim Goebel comes to mind.

I meant in the sense that you cant do two quads of the same type, and two flips and two lutzs for e.g. (but I see what you mean, and I'm also not 100% certain I want this because it would probably decrease the potential initiative to do two types of quads) (on the other hand, in a wonderful far off future, it would be great to see two repeated quad types (4S, 4S, 4T, 4T, and say 3A, 3A) (4S2T[/3Lo]), 4S, 4T, | 4T3T, 3ALo3S, 3A, 3Ltz, 3F)<-ultimate layout without requiring new quad types ok I'm being silly.

 

[Interspectator]

Ah! I remember now...Amodio did some MAJOR zayaking with the 3 salchow this year. Some skaters are prone to 'panic salchows' when things don't go right in their program. Fernandez and Amodio are the main ones.

 

[Mathman]

Rules are rules no matter what.

? Of course rules are rules no matter what. What does that have to do with the topic of the thread? Which is, are the current rules the best we can come up with or would the sport be improved by tweaking the rules a little?

Part of this involves planning. If you may repeat a jump three times, you should be ready to execute a back-up plan.

Yes, you should do that. Now, let's get back to the question of whether the ISU should amend the Zayak rules.

Rules are what keeps sports competitive. For example, You can't have more than 11 people on one team in a soccer game.

How would football be less competitive if they changed the rule to have 10 people on a team instead of 11? What is so "competitive" about the number 11?