What rule changes would you like to see next season?

[dorispulaski]

I like a lot of those, but I still want pairs and dance men older, (21). It leads to a safer sport. Young boys mature later than girls. They are better at lifting and throwing when they are bigger.

 

[gkelly]

What I'd like to see in my ideal world and what is actually feasible in practical/financial terms are often miles apart.
Should this thread be more about daydreams or realistic proposals?

Just a few responses to CaroLiza_fan's suggestions:

1. It was a big mistake to decrease the length of the Men’s FS without decreasing the technical requirements,

There was a decrease in the technical requirements of the men's FS, from 8 jump elements to 7. Not that that one jump element accounts for a whole 30 seconds...

1. Have ALL of the four main categories included by default at ALL the Junior Grands Prix and at Senior level at ALL the Challenger events. If it turns out that a category does not meet the minimum requirements, the default option should be to downgrade it. Categories should only get removed as a last resort.

This may often be related to the availability of officials.

Dance officials have completely separate appointments than singles and pairs officials. Some individual judges or technical specialists have appointments in both disciplines, but most do not. So if a competition is going to offer dance events, they will need to bring in a whole separate group of officials. Which is expensive, especially if they are traveling from around the world.

Singles judges can also judge pairs (although some are better/more experienced than others), but tech specialists need to have specific credentials for calling pair events. Offering a pair event also requires bringing in specific officials who might not be needed if the events end up getting canceled.

Not worth doing if there's a possibility that the events will end up being canceled for lack of entries at the last minute, after many of the expenses for bringing in the additional officials have already been paid.

With pairs, it's probably more that there just aren't as many teams out there so if all competitions offered pair events, there might not be enough entries at any one event to make a viable event. If teams want to compete against each other, they would be better served by consolidating their competitive opportunities into the same few events rather than each choosing separately from among many possible events.

For some purposes -- some levels of skaters at some points in their careers or in the current season -- it may be worthwhile for a team to skate in front of officials in order to get feedback from the scores and possibly meet with the officials for critiques. But if they want actual competition and to see how they compare with other teams at their level, and especially if they want their scores to count for world standings etc., there need to be enough teams at the same event to make it count.

At more local competitions, where there are many different levels of competition and not just juniors/seniors, there can be a lot more factors at play in the scheduling. E.g., the senior events, or pair or dance events, need to be scheduled when the officials who are qualified to judge/call those events are available. Some events will have many entries and may need multiple groups with separate medals and/or final rounds -- others may be few enough entries to combine warmup groups with another small event. Lower level events have shorter programs so more skaters doesn't necessarily mean more ice time, and lower level/smaller skaters tend to do less damage to the ice for each minute that they are skating. Etc.

So there are reasons why one size should not fit all.

In general, host clubs at local levels and federations at the national/international levels need to consider how to use the available ice time and officials as efficiently as possible with both cost and safety in mind. "Fairness" between levels or between disciplines would often be at odds with keeping the costs affordable.

 

[Warwick360]

Just thought of this now. If it's already been mentioned, apologies in advance.

I would really love if ISU changed the layback into a choreographic sequence kind of element. Reduce or remove the requirement for the number of position changes, and simply revert to 6.0 style of requirement for it. Personally I find it much overdue since just like spiral sequence when COP system started, all the layback combinations feel very uninspired and all the same. At least the laybacks in the 90s looked varied more than now, most of which end in the Biellmann (Gosh, I miss being excited when I first saw that position; now needs being sent to oblivion). Wish they could introduce that and also bring in one long change of edge spiral requirement. Certainly enjoy watching that when seeing the old 90s videos of Kwan and the likes. Even now when seeing them, they're nothing short of exciting.

 

[Jontor]

Just thought of this now. If it's already been mentioned, apologies in advance.

I would really love if ISU changed the layback into a choreographic sequence kind of element. Reduce or remove the requirement for the number of position changes, and simply revert to 6.0 style of requirement for it. Personally I find it much overdue since just like spiral sequence when COP system started, all the layback combinations feel very uninspired and all the same. At least the laybacks in the 90s looked varied more than now, most of which end in the Biellmann (Gosh, I miss being excited when I first saw that position; now needs being sent to oblivion). Wish they could introduce that and also bring in one long change of edge spiral requirement. Certainly enjoy watching that when seeing the old 90s videos of Kwan and the likes. Even now when seeing them, they're nothing short of exciting.

As I mentioned in my original post, spins are something they need to change the scoring fundamentally imo. All spins tend to get boring now, we don't have variations like in Lucinda Ruh's days.

 

[Warwick360]

As I mentioned in my original post, spins are something they need to change the scoring fundamentally imo. All spins tend to get boring now, we don't have variations like in Lucinda Ruh's days.

I did see that. But I think for me personally, the layback has been such an eye sore, or to be kind I might call it a perennial deja vu, that I do have to set it apart from the other ones. At least with something like camel catch foot, there seems to be some variation, cue the difference in how Sotnikova/Farris, Eun Soo, and Zagitova, to take for case in point.

But layback, even with momentary variation of hyperextension is so tear inducing level of dullness, sometimes I wish I could just switch off/skip automatically at that moment for a few seconds.

 

[CaroLiza_fan]

My goodness. I just discovered that I didn't post the reply I wrote a couple of weeks ago!

That's what happens when you finish writing the message in Word, because you are worried about losing what you have written. You then forget that you haven't actually posted it!

I like a lot of those, but I still want pairs and dance men older, (21). It leads to a safer sport. Young boys mature later than girls. They are better at lifting and throwing when they are bigger.

Yeah, Dance is the category that complicates age rules. Dancers tend to reach their best at an older age than the other categories, largely because they are expected to "sell it" to the audience / judges. And you have to have that bit more age and maturity to be able to do that effectively.

Nevertheless, I do think that the reason I want the maximum age for Juniors lowered remains valid: that it is not fair to have a Junior level in which kids that are barely into their early teens compete against adults in their early 20's. That is why I would like the maximum age for Juniors brought down.

What I'd like to see in my ideal world and what is actually feasible in practical/financial terms are often miles apart.
Should this thread be more about daydreams or realistic proposals?

Just a few responses to CaroLiza_fan's suggestions:

There was a decrease in the technical requirements of the men's FS, from 8 jump elements to 7. Not that that one jump element accounts for a whole 30 seconds...

This may often be related to the availability of officials.

Dance officials have completely separate appointments than singles and pairs officials. Some individual judges or technical specialists have appointments in both disciplines, but most do not. So if a competition is going to offer dance events, they will need to bring in a whole separate group of officials. Which is expensive, especially if they are traveling from around the world.

Singles judges can also judge pairs (although some are better/more experienced than others), but tech specialists need to have specific credentials for calling pair events. Offering a pair event also requires bringing in specific officials who might not be needed if the events end up getting canceled.

Not worth doing if there's a possibility that the events will end up being canceled for lack of entries at the last minute, after many of the expenses for bringing in the additional officials have already been paid.

First and foremost, hello @gkelly! Long time no speak! Hope you are keeping well!

About the Men’s FS technical requirements being decreased. If I remember correctly, that didn’t happen at the same time as the decrease in the length of the programme. There was at least 1 season where they had to do the same number of elements in the shorter time frame. And the number of elements only got decreased after it became obvious that the new requirements weren’t working. The skaters were having to rush things to try to get everything fitted in, and they were really struggling to make it to the end of the programme.

Unfortunately, you are right. Figure skating has always been a sport where the funding is not what is ideally needed.

I did try to keep that in mind when making my suggestions. For example, I reckoned that the cost of having more skaters competing in the Senior GP's / GP Final could be offset by extra ticket sales from having the extra Ice Dance segment and / or extending competitions into the Thursday (depending on whether tickets are being sold on a segment-by-segment basis or on an all day basis).

And the lack of officials was already an issue even before the Russians and Belorussians were no longer in the mix.

Do you think there is anything that could be done to encourage people to become judges or technical specialists or the such?

With pairs, it's probably more that there just aren't as many teams out there so if all competitions offered pair events, there might not be enough entries at any one event to make a viable event. If teams want to compete against each other, they would be better served by consolidating their competitive opportunities into the same few events rather than each choosing separately from among many possible events.

You know, granted there aren't nearly as many competitors in Pairs as there are in other categories, but there aren't as few as some people make out. If you take my Senior GP proposals and give every partnership two slots, then you need 64 partnerships. And if you look at the Season's World Rankings for the season just finished, there were 73 partnerships on it.

Of course, numbers can vary depending on the balance between how many partnerships split / retire and how many partnerships are formed / move up from Juniors. But, they do tend to be in the 60’s or 70’s.

For some purposes -- some levels of skaters at some points in their careers or in the current season -- it may be worthwhile for a team to skate in front of officials in order to get feedback from the scores and possibly meet with the officials for critiques. But if they want actual competition and to see how they compare with other teams at their level, and especially if they want their scores to count for world standings etc., there need to be enough teams at the same event to make it count.

I agree. Getting feedback, particularly early in the season, is vitally important. That is why I want more skaters to get the opportunity to compete in front of the top international judges in the autumn. I am thinking mainly of the Pairs skaters. As it is, a lot of Junior GP's and Challenger events don't include Pairs competitions, and the Senior GP's have fewer slots for Pairs skaters. So, they don't have as many opportunities to get the feedback they need before Nationals in November / December and the Majors in the New Year.

At more local competitions, where there are many different levels of competition and not just juniors/seniors, there can be a lot more factors at play in the scheduling. E.g., the senior events, or pair or dance events, need to be scheduled when the officials who are qualified to judge/call those events are available.

Again, agree. When I was talking about timetables, it was only for the GP's. As somebody who watches a lot of Senior B's (and actually enjoys watching the younger skaters, as it gives an insight into the future), I realise that there are a lot more things to take into consideration when making out timetables for competitions with lots of different levels competing. Indeed, when writing the point about having Free Skates start after the Short Programmes finish (one of the points that was added in this week), I chose my wording very carefully to make clear that I was talking about within the level, to allow for events wanting to hold the Junior and Senior competitions on weekdays and the younger levels at the weekend when the skaters are off school. And also to allow for those younger levels that only have Free Skates to have their competitions held before the Advanced Novices, Juniors and Seniors do their Short Programmes.

Some events will have many entries and may need multiple groups with separate medals and/or final rounds -- others may be few enough entries to combine warmup groups with another small event. Lower level events have shorter programs so more skaters doesn't necessarily mean more ice time, and lower level/smaller skaters tend to do less damage to the ice for each minute that they are skating. Etc.

So there are reasons why one size should not fit all.

I have to admit, I do like it when a competition with a very small number of entries is run with another competition in a combined segment with a combined Warm-Up group. Say, two competitions from the same category (e.g. Basic Novice Ladies and Intermediate Novice Ladies); or two competitions from the same level (e.g. Advanced Novice Ladies and Advanced Novice Men). It is fun playing “spot the boy” during a combined Ladies and Men’s warm-up.

Whilst I accept that the shorter programmes in the younger levels probably do less damage to the ice, for the simple reason that the skaters are on the ice for a shorter amount of time, the whole aim of my ideas is to have the ice in as best a condition as possible for everybody in the competition. So, I make no apologies for wanting as small a number of skaters as is practical between resurfacings.

In general, host clubs at local levels and federations at the national/international levels need to consider how to use the available ice time and officials as efficiently as possible with both cost and safety in mind. "Fairness" between levels or between disciplines would often be at odds with keeping the costs affordable.

Although cost is obviously important, safety and fairness should always take priority over it. If an event that is safe and fair to everybody cannot be held within the budget, then the event should not be taking place until there is sufficient budget to achieve that.

I know that sounds harsh, but there are enough accusations about the integrity of this sport as it is without giving critics the ability to complain about relatively minor things that could be easily solved with little changes.

CaroLiza_fan

 

[Bluediamonds09]

The rules for spins. They're ridiculous! Most spins look the same as the next person's unless a skater is really good at adding their own flair to it (deniss, kamila, mariah's camel spin) but even then, they are limited in what they are allowed to do to gain level 4. I hate that 90% of spin positions require a grab of the blade. And that there's no incentive to make up new positions (karen chen has done the exact same spins for years and its boring). And that scratch spins are deemed unimportant no matter how difficult they truly are and no matter how much the crowd cheers for one.

 

[soccerjc77]

I would like that they comeback the Spiral Sequence in the short program for the woman. I miss that part of skating, it was so creative and beautiful.

 

[macy]

The rules for spins. They're ridiculous! Most spins look the same as the next person's unless a skater is really good at adding their own flair to it (deniss, kamila, mariah's camel spin) but even then, they are limited in what they are allowed to do to gain level 4. I hate that 90% of spin positions require a grab of the blade. And that there's no incentive to make up new positions (karen chen has done the exact same spins for years and its boring). And that scratch spins are deemed unimportant no matter how difficult they truly are and no matter how much the crowd cheers for one.

I don't know the details, but there was a rule change this season as to what is required to receive a level 4.

 

[jayy]

I don't know the details, but there was a rule change this season as to what is required to receive a level 4.

Yea, basically creating a list of features where one of said features must be included in the spin for a level 4 to be awarded.

I assume this was to increase the amount of variety in spins between skaters, but idk how well this will work, because we can see that some of the features are already being used by many skaters. (Such as the change of edge in a spin, or a toe-arabian entry into a flying spin)

The issue i have is that i kinda want the list to be longer. although there is 6, the six do not necessarily work well with every spin, or are even allowed, (for example if the spin does not allow a change of foot, or a change of position) it would be nice to maybe include the regular "difficult entry" because there's so many other cool ways people can get in to spins, and they should rightfully be rewarded for these.

i.e. junior men have a change sit-spin in the short this season, but the only features that seems to be useable are the increase of speed, change of edge, difficult exit, (which tbh, who does this feature and actually gets points.(if you know someone please tell me)) or spin in the other direction.

Lets say i did a nice FCCoSp with 4 features, and none of those features were on that list, i would still be awarded with a level 3 (Base Value 3.00) . If the judges were split 50/50 with half giving me +2 and half giving me +3, i would end up with a score of roughly 3.75 for that spin.

The next guy does a FCCoSp with 4 features, one which is on the list, and was awarded with a level 4 (Base Value 3.50). If the judges all gave him only a +1 GOE, he would still get roughly 3.85 points for that spin.

Regardless, if someone can do a FCCoSp with a high GOE, then they should absolutely do that spin.

It's probably because of the difficulty, but i would hate to see spins get scored lower due to not having a "certain feature" even though they were done very well, if not better, than the more difficult versions.

I Think this was one of the weirdest things the ISU has ever done, but idk we might see some really really interesting and unique things, or the repetition of the same spin features is gonna make us look like robots. IDK

also here's:

(Levels of difficulty and GOEs) Communication 2474

(Scale of Values) Communication 2475

Thank you for reading my skating TED talk have a good day :3

 

[Bluediamonds09]

Yea, basically creating a list of features where one of said features must be included in the spin for a level 4 to be awarded.

I assume this was to increase the amount of variety in spins between skaters, but idk how well this will work, because we can see that some of the features are already being used by many skaters. (Such as the change of edge in a spin, or a toe-arabian entry into a flying spin)

The issue i have is that i kinda want the list to be longer. although there is 6, the six do not necessarily work well with every spin, or are even allowed, (for example if the spin does not allow a change of foot, or a change of position) it would be nice to maybe include the regular "difficult entry" because there's so many other cool ways people can get in to spins, and they should rightfully be rewarded for these.

i.e. junior men have a change sit-spin in the short this season, but the only features that seems to be useable are the increase of speed, change of edge, difficult exit, (which tbh, who does this feature and actually gets points.(if you know someone please tell me)) or spin in the other direction.

Lets say i did a nice FCCoSp with 4 features, and none of those features were on that list, i would still be awarded with a level 3 (Base Value 3.00) . If the judges were split 50/50 with half giving me +2 and half giving me +3, i would end up with a score of roughly 3.75 for that spin.

The next guy does a FCCoSp with 4 features, one which is on the list, and was awarded with a level 4 (Base Value 3.50). If the judges all gave him only a +1 GOE, he would still get roughly 3.85 points for that spin.

Regardless, if someone can do a FCCoSp with a high GOE, then they should absolutely do that spin.

It's probably because of the difficulty, but i would hate to see spins get scored lower due to not having a "certain feature" even though they were done very well, if not better, than the more difficult versions.

I Think this was one of the weirdest things the ISU has ever done, but idk we might see some really really interesting and unique things, or the repetition of the same spin features is gonna make us look like robots. IDK

also here's:

(Levels of difficulty and GOEs) Communication 2474

(Scale of Values) Communication 2475

Thank you for reading my skating TED talk have a good day :3

What is a toe-arabian fly entry into a sit spin? Sorry, I don't get all the intricacies of spin positions. Or the intricacies of step sequences either, it's all so complex and void of real artistry, unless a wonderful choreographer can find ways around the strict rules.

 

[lariko]

I would like junior competitions to be protected from country-wide bans in a perpetuity. Kids should not be blamed.

 

[Ares]

Definitely ban voiceovers, that's my number one request.

Ban I Put A Spell On You & Roxanne from Moulin Rouge while we're at it too!

 

[skatesofgold]

Ban I Put A Spell On You & Roxanne from Moulin Rouge while we're at it too!

I like Roxanne, but the musical version. Aaron Tveit comands the song in a way Ewan McGregor does not.

 

[yume]

New age limit. Delay it to post 2026.
It's incredibly unfair to those who already trained to be in seniors in this olympic cycle.
Current 9-11yo can still spare themselves for 2026-2030.

 

[wakuwaku]

New age limit. Delay it to post 2026.
It's incredibly unfair to those who already trained to be in seniors in this olympic cycle.
Current 9-11yo can still spare themselves for 2026-2030.

It ALWAYS will be unfair to somebody. If you ended up not liking this rule - have honesty to admit it was a mistake and call for its cancelling. On other hand if that rule was implemented right now - Kaori Sakamoto would be third in GPF, right? I mean.. that three not-so-good skates would be best top 3 skates from best adult woman skaters in the world.. at least that's the direction ISU is going with its rules now. Performances riddled with mistakes and double jumps will become new normalcy as new rules will cut pool of young talents from main competitions. Adult women bodies are not fit to maintain the same level of technical prowess juniors are capable of - so degrading of cleanliness and difficulty is unavoidable.
It's the real goal of the rule after all - to protect senior skaters from young hungry competitors, to let them breath more freely in quadless environment and feel motivated to prolong their careers, isn't it? Senior established skaters well-being is more important than new young skaters well-being or quality of performances. We as spectators should forgive and tolerate often drop in quality because we should understand how hard it is to maintain perfect form for a long time for adult women - so we need to give them enough time to adjust, heal their injuries and be thankful for one good skate per season or couple of seasons. And so what if figure skating competitions will become much less exciting as a result or more talented juniors are going to end their careers before becoming seniors? Caring about our veteran stars is more important than fierce competition/survival of the fittest classic sport motto or helping young talents to prosper. We need to abandon our old outdated view of a sport as something result-driven and cruel - and welcome its new more gentle and caring modern vision by ISU. So get used to new reality sooner and try to forget about what was before it - and you are going to enjoy it sooner as well. Or not - then feel free to stop watch this "sport" for good. For ISU their own ideals are more important than popularity - so empty tribunes shouldn't be a problem for them.

 

[yume]

It ALWAYS will be unfair to somebody. If you ended up not liking this rule - have honesty to admit it was a mistake and call for its cancelling.

I don't like this rule but it isn't a mistake. No, it's an half-mistake, since i was ok with 16yo, (17yo is too harsh), for legal reasons.

I already said that i would be ok with a raise of the age limit if it spared all those who already trained hard tricks to be ready for this cycle (maybe i should find the post and put it here to prove my honesty). 8-9yo are young enough in their career to accept to wait longer, they will grow up with idea that you have to be X age to compete, 14 yo are not. Especially when they are already competing with seniors domestically, and beating them. And 8-9yo can in theory (because that's the goal of this rule, right) delay the pratice of risky jumps, 14yo can't anymore.

I personnally think that 3A and quads in junior ladies will stay because ISU decided to treat the problem in surface. What is the utility of an age limit which is supposed to extend careers and "protect children" if even advanced novices are still allowed to jump 3A and quads in their FP in intl competitions? Please. They are just damaging many skaters' careers instead of "protecting" them.
Anyway, that's another debate.

 

[Zora]

On other hand if that rule was implemented right now - Kaori Sakamoto would be third in GPF, right? I mean.. that three not-so-good skates would be best top 3 skates from best adult woman skaters in the world.. at least that's the direction ISU is going with its rules now.

Well, as of now 15 years old skaters can still compete at senior level and the only one who qualified for the GPF was Isabeau and even she had a mediocre skate. The real problem is the Russian skaters missing. They have enough adult skaters who can put out great performances with 3-3s, maybe even triple axels or a quad.

 

[Magill]

It ALWAYS will be unfair to somebody. If you ended up not liking this rule - have honesty to admit it was a mistake and call for its cancelling. On other hand if that rule was implemented right now - Kaori Sakamoto would be third in GPF, right? I mean.. that three not-so-good skates would be best top 3 skates from best adult woman skaters in the world.. at least that's the direction ISU is going with its rules now. Performances riddled with mistakes and double jumps will become new normalcy as new rules will cut pool of young talents from main competitions. Adult women bodies are not fit to maintain the same level of technical prowess juniors are capable of - so degrading of cleanliness and difficulty is unavoidable.
It's the real goal of the rule after all - to protect senior skaters from young hungry competitors, to let them breath more freely in quadless environment and feel motivated to prolong their careers, isn't it? Senior established skaters well-being is more important than new young skaters well-being or quality of performances. We as spectators should forgive and tolerate often drop in quality because we should understand how hard it is to maintain perfect form for a long time for adult women - so we need to give them enough time to adjust, heal their injuries and be thankful for one good skate per season or couple of seasons. And so what if figure skating competitions will become much less exciting as a result or more talented juniors are going to end their careers before becoming seniors? Caring about our veteran stars is more important than fierce competition/survival of the fittest classic sport motto or helping young talents to prosper. We need to abandon our old outdated view of a sport as something result-driven and cruel - and welcome its new more gentle and caring modern vision by ISU. So get used to new reality sooner and try to forget about what was before it - and you are going to enjoy it sooner as well. Or not - then feel free to stop watch this "sport" for good. For ISU their own ideals is more important than popularity - so empty tribunes shouldn't be a problem for them.

1. Under the new rule Kaori would have been 4th here, not 3rd. Still would not have medalled.
2. Fun fact. "What do you think about the new age limit?" "Necessary. Children should compete with children, women with women". Guess who said that? Alyona Kostornaya. I guess one of those who know the business inside out, also, or mainly, in Russia
3. Above all, the 17 y.o.a. age limit is necessary to make skaters accountable for doping and allow them to compete in seniors only after they have been accountable for some time (a year) already. Otherwise, any 15 y.,o. can dope (or be doped even unknowingly by their entourage) and face no legal consequences as a "protected person". This is pretty obviously wrong and it is encouraging making kids dope to make them perform difficult tricks and pretend nobody's at fault when caught. Even if no other factors were in play, this one is enough to have the new rule imposed.

 

[yume]

2. Fun fact. "What do you think about the new age limit?" "Necessary. Children should compete with children, women with women". Guess who said that? Alyona Kostornaya. I guess one of those who know the business inside out, also, or mainly, in Russia

Personnally, on that topic, only the opinion of skaters impacted by the rule matterw to me. Kostornaia knew she was safe, being already 18yo when the decision was made. And it's advantageous for her if she decide to come back. I think she probably would have had a different opinion if she was 14yo.