Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Single and Pairs guidelines for 2019/20 seasons including updated BVs

  1. #1
    Medalist
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,150
    Country: Italy

    4 Not allowed!

    Single & Pairs GOE guidelines for 2019/20 season including updated BVs

    ISU have published the 2019/20 guidelines for Single/Pairs

    Changes are the parts underlined in the 2 following documents

    https://www.isu.org/figure-skating/r...v-2019-20/file
    https://www.isu.org/figure-skating/r...e-2019-20/file

    The 2018-19 version can be found here: https://www.isu.org/figure-skating/r...cing-2168/file

    Base Values for under-rotated jumps have been changed. They have been increased.
    The GOE reduction because of UR has been also reduced from -2/-3 to -1/-2

    Other changes include PCS for programs with serious mistakes:

    If a program contains a Fall or a Serious error, the maximum scores are
    Skating Skills, Transitions, Composition: Maximum score 9.75.
    Performance and Interpretation: Maximum score 9.50.
    Last season only 10s were not allowed

    If a program contains Falls or Serious errors, the maximum scores are
    Skating Skills, Transitions, Composition: Maximum score 9.25.
    Performance and Interpretation: Maximum score 8.75.
    Last season it was 9.5 in SS; Transitions and Composition and 9.0 in Performance and Interpretation were not allowed.

  2. #2
    Observer 4everchan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    15,707

    1 Not allowed!
    they really want to kill the technical level in pairs don't they?

    Last year, we noticed that the BOV of throws were getting closer to another, making it unlikely to ever see quads... but now, they have lowered the throw lutz/flip from 5.5 to 5.3 making it even closer to the loop (5.0)... at this point, we may even see teams putting the 2a throw in their programs LOL... at 4.0 compared to 4.4 for a throw triple salchow... why not?

  3. #3
    GS Supporter ladyjane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    737
    Country: Netherlands

    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by 4everchan View Post
    they really want to kill the technical level in pairs don't they?

    Last year, we noticed that the BOV of throws were getting closer to another, making it unlikely to ever see quads... but now, they have lowered the throw lutz/flip from 5.5 to 5.3 making it even closer to the loop (5.0)... at this point, we may even see teams putting the 2a throw in their programs LOL... at 4.0 compared to 4.4 for a throw triple salchow... why not?
    Especially if the double axel is executed well, and the triple salchow is executed so-so....

  4. #4
    On the Ice
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    347

    0 Not allowed!
    It's good for Vincent as he usually lands on toepick with UR but no fall. Also good for Yuzu to try 4A<.

    18-19 19-20 %Increase
    3A< 6.00 6.40 6.67
    4T< 7.13 7.60 6.59
    4S< 7.28 7.76 6.59
    4Lo< 7.88 8.40 6.60
    4F< 8.25 8.80 6.67
    4Lz< 8.63 9.20 6.60
    4A< 9.38 10.00 6.61

  5. #5
    Eyes on Fire! Elucidus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    1,070

    0 Not allowed!
    Not only UR jumps has less BV value reduction now - they have less negative GOE as well. It's only -1 to -2 now (previously it was -2 to -3). I suppose Jason Brown winning over quadsters made them change the rules

  6. #6
    陈巍 oatmella's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    3,899

    0 Not allowed!
    I doubt these new BV are because of Jason.

    I think it’s more likely they are related to ladies quads and more ladies attempting 3A in the coming seasons.

  7. #7
    Eyes on Fire! Elucidus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    1,070

    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by oatmella View Post
    I think it’s more likely they are related to ladies quads and more ladies attempting 3A in the coming seasons.
    Hm, maybe it played its role too. Anyway, situation when UR jumps can have final positive GOE - will become more common now.

  8. #8
    Tripping on the Podium
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    521

    0 Not allowed!
    I think they thought that this season was probably an overkill, when it came to punishments.
    As Mishin said, he was opposed to stricter rules to begin with, as he thinks it discourages people from trying to learn new jumps.
    I like Jason, he‘s wonderful, but I also don’t want to see him above someone (in tes) with Urd quad.
    I do agree it can result in a lot of attempts in jumps for both ladies and men.
    I.e. Rika‘s 4sal looks URd at all attempts, but with this regulation in place she‘ll definitely will have more incentive to use it in programs, even if she won’t be able to rotate it in the end. And with increased competition many more girls will come up with quads.

  9. #9
    Observer 4everchan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    15,707

    0 Not allowed!
    for singles, it will make the competition tighter altogether.. but the winners will still be the ones who land fully-rotated jumps

    i think more ladies for instance will try 3-3 since the penalty is less damaging.... alaine chartrand must be very happy

  10. #10
    Tripping on the Podium
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    506

    1 Not allowed!
    Think this is a really good set of updates. UR's seemed to be punished too much IMO, now it should be much better. N.B. I get the benefit to the skater being 0.38 points for a 2A< through to 1.35 for a 4Lz<, everything else being equal. Hopefully the smaller penalty will mean panels are much more willing to call URs - it was very noticeable at the World Champs how they wanted controversial non-calls rather than controversial ones.

    Interestingly the penalty for URs i.e. -1 or -2 is now the same as that for a jump lacking a sign i.e. one that is visible to the naked eye to the judges. Are they going to do away with the penalty for panel called UR's in the future? They could just go with the panel calling the UR i.e. the base value, and then just use what the judges have seen with the naked eye for the rest. Of course this has the problem if a judge doesn't happen to see a UR in real time as there'd be no more re-marking, but it would speed up review times, and the long delays you sometimes get between skaters.

    Also like the bigger penalties in things like steps and choreo sequences. Some of these you very rarely get -ve GOEs especially Choreos. Now it's much more likely whereas at the moment you often get very little spread between the best and worst with skaters often getting 3 or 4 points for not doing an awful lot.
    Last edited by Miller; 05-22-2019 at 08:51 AM. Reason: Wrong calculation

  11. #11
    Medalist
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    1,419
    Country: Australia

    3 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Andrea82 View Post
    Base Values for under-rotated jumps have been changed. They have been increased.
    The GOE reduction because of UR has been also reduced from -2/-3 to -1/-2
    Though of course, because the BV of underrotated jumps has increased, so has the deduction amount for each negative BOV number. UR jumps will have to be well performed overall apart from the lack of rotation if skaters want to get the benefit of the increased BV. So it's still aimed at promoting quality of work.

    Another addition that interests me is the new comment on GOE evaluation, which says that

    In the case of the following errors, the starting GOE for the evaluation cannot be higher than +2:

    Fall, landing on two feet, stepping out of landing, wrong edge (e), downgraded (<<), serious problems on the descent of the lift, serious problems on the catch of the Twist, Step Sequences and Choreographic Sequences do not correspond to the music.
    I can't find any corresponding comment in the previous guidelines, implying that judges could start from +5 and count back for deductions if they so chose (though maybe it's there and I'm missing it; it's late here). Looks like that system didn't serve the purpose, as we did see some jumps, throws, twists etc with visible flaws still getting 0 or even + GOE. So they're still working out ways to penalise errors effectively with the new, wider range of GOE, which makes sense - sometimes you can't predict everything about how a system will work in advance and need to figure it out from seeing what doesn't work. The one unpredictable element in the system is how the overall body of judges will put the thing into practice, after all.

    ETA: [deleted because I was working off an outdated document, but I was on the right track!]

    What's notable to me now is that there are no such limiting errors specified for spins or death spirals; perhaps there have been fewer problems with starting GOEs and reductions for those elements over the course of the season.

  12. #12
    Medalist
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,150
    Country: Italy

    2 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Harriet View Post

    Another addition that interests me is the new comment on GOE evaluation, which says that



    I can't find any corresponding comment in the previous guidelines, implying that judges could start from +5 and count back for deductions if they so chose (though maybe it's there and I'm missing it; it's late here). Looks like that system didn't serve the purpose, as we did see some jumps, throws, twists etc with visible flaws still getting 0 or even + GOE. So they're still working out ways to penalise errors effectively with the new, wider range of GOE, which makes sense - sometimes you can't predict everything about how a system will work in advance and need to figure it out from seeing what doesn't work. The one unpredictable element in the system is how the overall body of judges will put the thing into practice, after all.
    There was this (last lines of the 2018-19 document): In case of significant error (e.g. fall, landing on two feet, stepping out of landing, wrong edge (e), downgraded (<<), serious problems on the descent of the lift, serious problems on the catch of the Twist) the starting GOE for the evaluation cannot be higher than +2.


    So it seems they added "Step Sequences and Choreographic Sequences do not correspond to the music" to the list of serous errors.

  13. #13
    Medalist
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    1,419
    Country: Australia

    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Andrea82 View Post
    There was this (last lines of the 2018-19 document): In case of significant error (e.g. fall, landing on two feet, stepping out of landing, wrong edge (e), downgraded (<<), serious problems on the descent of the lift, serious problems on the catch of the Twist) the starting GOE for the evaluation cannot be higher than +2.
    Ah, that must have been added after I printed my copy out (I still have the one with the 4A BV error and no BV for Eulers, LOL).

  14. #14
    Bona Fide Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    11,912
    Country: Canada

    0 Not allowed!
    Glad to see PCS rules are getting more astringent, but I still think 9.75/9.5 is generous for a skater with a fall. A skater with multiple

    I did notice that step/choreo sequences can get deducted for not matching the music. Same thing with "continuous" for the difficult-turn-sequence, which could be open to interpretation, affecting the level achieved for a StSq. This is a super subjective thing though, and I can picture certain skaters getting dinged while others get a pass on it. I prefer deductions to be on more tangible, objective things.

    URs are only 20% deduction, which, TBH is fine with me. That tends to be such a subjective call anyways, that I'd prefer the deduction to be less in order to minimize the power of the tech panel. I also think a jump that is URed is essentially close enough to being executed well, but still deserves a deduction for not being clean. I think this will push skaters to try harder elements, which is good for the sport IMO. But I also hope this doesn't turn into a splatfest/injury fest with skaters doing YOLO quads and 3As for increased base value, even if they're URing/falling.

  15. #15
    Medalist
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,150
    Country: Italy

    1 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Harriet View Post
    Ah, that must have been added after I printed my copy out (I still have the one with the 4A BV error and no BV for Eulers, LOL).
    yes, IIRC they added it in July rather than in the first Spring version of the guidelines.

  16. #16
    Rinkside maggieanne's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    74
    Country: United States of America

    0 Not allowed!
    I think raising the bv for ur jumps is probably a good thing, I thought the penalties were a little too much last year. But, if I understand correctly, skaters could be getting positive goe on ur jumps? I definitely think that’s bad. If a jump has big flaws like that is should always have negative goe.

  17. #17
    Bona Fide Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    11,912
    Country: Canada

    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by maggieanne View Post
    I think raising the bv for ur jumps is probably a good thing, I thought the penalties were a little too much last year. But, if I understand correctly, skaters could be getting positive goe on ur jumps? I definitely think that’s bad. If a jump has big flaws like that is should always have negative goe.
    Agreed. UR jumps should be added to the section about starting GOE being no higher than +2.

  18. #18
    Bona Fide Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    7,930

    1 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by CanadianSkaterGuy View Post
    URs are only 20% deduction, which, TBH is fine with me. That tends to be such a subjective call anyways, that I'd prefer the deduction to be less in order to minimize the power of the tech panel. I also think a jump that is URed is essentially close enough to being executed well, but still deserves a deduction for not being clean. I think this will push skaters to try harder elements, which is good for the sport IMO.
    I also like the change. The biggest problem with < calls is that the penalty was so large that, when those calls are missed, they give skaters prone to those a significant advantage. Someone like Karen could skate the same programs and finish on the podium at one event and outside the top 10 at another, simply based on how strict the panel is. At least now missed calls won't have as big of an impact on results.

  19. #19
    Bona Fide Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    6,638

    1 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Harriet View Post
    What's notable to me now is that there are no such limiting errors specified for spins or death spirals; perhaps there have been fewer problems with starting GOEs and reductions for those elements over the course of the season.
    Well, "Fall" applies to those elements as well.

    It seems that all the serious errors that require the starting GOE to be capped at +2 before the reduction have actual reductions of at least -3, or -2 to -4 in a few cases. The only thing penalized that much in GOEs for spins or death spirals is Poor pivot position (losing toepick etc.). The other errors listed for these elements are less severe.

    However, for both spins and death spirals failing to achieve the necessary positions can result in lower base values (losing levels, getting "V" call) or losing credit for the whole element in most egregious cases. So can errors such as stumbling on a change of foot, etc. In those cases, the GOE may not be punished very severely, but the loss of base value can be more severe than the difference between, say, 0 and -3. And if the element ends up not counting at all, then the GOE becomes moot -- even if judges award positive GOE, the skater wouldn't collect those points.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •