Should the Zayak rule be modified?

[Sandpiper]

To me, being more accommodating for the skaters, and being more understandable for the audience, hold greater priority than being simpler for the ISU computer.

So yes, downgrading a revolution is "more complicated" than invalidating an element whenever there's Zayak. So what? It's not too complicated for the computer to handle.

Skaters should indeed skate their planned elements. But here's the thing (and I've said it before, so I admittedly sound like a broken record): Falling isn't zero. Flutzing and lipping aren't zero. Losing a level isn't zero. Doubled jumps, even singled jumps in the LP, are not zero. What I don't understand is why this one error--Zayak--means zero, when nothing else is.

I think this example puts the spotlight on the problem. Suppose there are two skaters in this exact situation, contending for the title. Skater A goes

3T
3A
3Lz+3T
3A+3T
3Lo
3S
3F+2T+2T
2A

Skater B goes

0T with fall
3A
3Lz+3T
3A+3T
3Lo
3S
3F+2T+2T
2A

Skater B wins!

 

[drivingmissdaisy]

Skaters should indeed skate their planned elements. But here's the thing (and I've said it before, so I admittedly sound like a broken record): Falling isn't zero. Flutzing and lipping aren't zero. Losing a level isn't zero. Doubled jumps, even singled jumps in the LP, are not zero. What I don't understand is why this one error--Zayak--means zero, when nothing else is.

Because the skater has already done that element twice. How many times do you think a skater should be able to do the same jump and still get points for it?

 

[Blades of Passion]

Having an outcome that makes sense says nothing about the complexity of the scoring system, as MM points out.

But, again, it wouldn't make the system more complex to fix that. You always have these arguments that go like "oh, but if I stand up I might get tired, I better just stay sitting."

 

[drivingmissdaisy]

You always have these arguments that go like "oh, but if I stand up I might get tired, I better just stay sitting."

I do?

 

[Mathman]

Because the skater has already done that element twice. How many times do you think a skater should be able to do the same jump and still get points for it?

I think the key question is this. Suppose you do 3T+3T, and then 3A+3T. Should you get any points for the 3A?

 

[MalAssada]

I think the key question is this. Suppose you do 3T+3T, and then 3A+3T. Should you get any points for the 3A?

IMO, yes. You didn't Zayak the 3A, so you deserve the points for it.

 

[drivingmissdaisy]

I think the key question is this. Suppose you do 3T+3T, and then 3A+3T. Should you get any points for the 3A?

What if a skater did a backflip into a 3S, do you credit the 3S? To me these are similar, because you have a valid element paired with an invalid element. From a "fairness" perspective, I think you should get credit for everything you do, even if it is 5 triple toes. But it isn't about fairness, it's about doing elements within the constraint of rules. Because I don't think the Zayak is a bad rule, I am ok with invalidating the 3A in your example.

 

[satine]

I think the key question is this. Suppose you do 3T+3T, and then 3A+3T. Should you get any points for the 3A?

Yes. :yes:

 

[Mathman]

What if a skater did a backflip into a 3S, do you credit the 3S?

I don't know what the actual ISU rule is about this. You get a penalty for doing an illegal element. But then does the rule book say "bye-gones are bye-gones," and give credit for a triple Salchow? I don't see why not. What if something fell off your costume as you took off for the Salchow. You get a costume/prop deduction, but the jump is not invalidated.

I am ok with invalidating the 3A in your example.

I think it is illogical to invalidate the 3A. To me, you should get credit for everything you do up to the invalid element. Then the invalid element should be voided.

The ISU's position is that the "invalid element" is the whole combination. I think it would be better to apply that designation only to the illegally repeated jump.

This is the way it used to be, by the way. At 2005 Worlds Irina Slutskaya famously did 3Lo+3Lo and then 3Lo+2Lo. In scoring, the third 3Lo was tossed, but she did get credit for the 2Lo. The next year the rule was changed. I think the pre-2006 version of the rules was better, in this instance.

Edited to add: IMHO the bottom line is this. The purpose of the Zayak rules is to prevent skaters from racking up points by doing 5 triple toes. The solution is embarrassingly simple. You get credit for the first two, no credit for the last three. That's it. :yes:

 

[gkelly]

I don't know what the actual ISU rule is about this. You get a penalty for doing an illegal element. But then does the rule book say "bye-gones are bye-gones," and give credit for a triple Salchow?

A backflip is not a listed element, so the element wouldn't be called (made-up code)BF + 3S. It would just be called 3S and get full credit. (Same as if you did a walley or even a double walley into 3T. You'd get credit for the 3T and the walley would count as a transition.)

The backflip would be considered a transition move. And since it's an illegal move, it would get a deduction from the total score. But if the salchow were landed cleanly it might get an extra GOE point as a result of the difficult entry, which would more or less cancel out the deduction.

Effects on PCS my depend on the individual judges' personal opinions about the inclusion of illegal elements. Are they offended? Angry? Amused? Excited by an exciting element? Would probably vary from judge to judge.

 

[Blades of Passion]

From a "fairness" perspective, I think you should get credit for everything you do, even if it is 5 triple toes. But it isn't about fairness.

Yes this is about fairness and 5 Triple Toes wouldn't be fair. Nor would it be good choreography. That's why we have the zayak rule.

 

[drivingmissdaisy]

Yes this is about fairness and 5 Triple Toes wouldn't be fair. Nor would it be good choreography. That's why we have the zayak rule.

Why are two triple toes fair, but not 5? Why is repeating two different jumps fair but not three? I'm not saying this to be argumentative. It's just you have to think about what assumptions you are making when you argue against these rules. "Fair" is subjective. I don't personally think any limitations on jump, spins, or time are necessarily "fair" but this is a sport and the skaters accept to be bound by the rules when they compete.

I think invaliding a 3A-3T combo for having a third 3T looks especially egregious because the 3A is so difficult. Had Irina lost the 2Lo when she did the 3Lo-2Lo, it doesn't seem as harsh a penalty.

 

[Mathman]

I don't think "fairness" is the issue. Any set of rules is "fair" as long as it applies to all skaters equally.

Would changes in the rules make the sport better, though -- that is another question.

 

[Sabrina]

Some rules are really stupid and no points for some jumps is one of them. I don't think they should be downgraded either...may be some negative GOE for one mistake and more punitive if the rule is abused. And why only 2 double jumps of one kind???

 

[MiRé]

I don't think "fairness" is the issue. Any set of rules is "fair" as long as it applies to all skaters equally.

Would changes in the rules make the sport better, though -- that is another question.

Wasn't the whole purpose of introducing the Zayak rule is to not just limit how triples you are allowed, but also to encourage skaters to attempt variety of jumps? So if that is the case, wouldn't it be better now that the rule encourages skaters to attempt not just 2T combinations, but also 2Lo combinations? Who knows, maybe we'll see a 3Lz+counter rotation 2Lz combinations in the future

 

[gkelly]

Wasn't the whole purpose of introducing the Zayak rule is to not just limit how triples you are allowed, but also to encourage skaters to attempt variety of jumps?

That is my understanding.

So if that is the case, wouldn't it be better now that the rule encourages skaters to attempt not just 2T combinations, but also 2Lo combinations?

Yes, and we've also seen a significant increase in half-loop salchow and half-loop flip combinations (double or triple) as soon as the rules were changed to give them full credit as three-jump combinations instead of 80% credit as sequences.

Who knows, maybe we'll see a 3Lz+counter rotation 2Lz combinations in the future

I bet we would, although not right away because it would take a few years for skaters to master them, IF there were any significant reward for jumps done in the opposite direction.
My suggestion is 1.0 per revolution in addition to the base value.

 

[Interspectator]

That is my understanding.



Yes, and we've also seen a significant increase in half-loop salchow and half-loop flip combinations (double or triple) as soon as the rules were changed to give them full credit as three-jump combinations instead of 80% credit as sequences.



I bet we would, although not right away because it would take a few years for skaters to master them, IF there were any significant reward for jumps done in the opposite direction.
My suggestion is 1.0 per revolution in addition to the base value.

It would be sooo cool if we could see that!

 

[drivingmissdaisy]

Some rules are really stupid and no points for some jumps is one of them. I don't think they should be downgraded either...may be some negative GOE for one mistake and more punitive if the rule is abused. And why only 2 double jumps of one kind???

This is what I mean when I say the implementation of such a rule would add the the confusion of the scoring system and reduce its simplicity. Your proposal is:
- First mistake: -GOE
- Second mistake and beyond, but only mistakes as they apply to Zayaking: More - GOE than first Zayak violation
- Triples should be limited, but doubles should not be limited

This is one of the simplest proposals and yet it still adds quite a bit of complication.

 

[TontoK]

I love the idea about rewarding counter-rotational jumps. I recall seeing an old video from Canadian Nationals where a skater did an opposite-direction combo jump... one jump was CW and the other CCW. It was very unique, and I liked it very much.

Does CoP allow for one-foot jumps? Remember Jill Trenary's one-foot axel/3sal combo? I think she did 3F at the end of it one time.

I haven't seen one of those in years.

Edit: Maybe that combo from Canadians was a one-foot combo.... old age... but it was very original.

 

[CutieP]

No