- Joined
- Dec 22, 2017
For the loop jump 180 degrees prerotation is normal. But the girls in the video jump lutzes and flips with that amount of prerotation and even more than 180 degrees .
2019 Judging and Tech calls discussion
- Thread starter GS Forum Staff
- Start date
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2017
What it has to do with this topic? Also, you do realize that loop jumps are jumped from one foot while toe jumps using both, do you? These jumps are totally different and can't be "disgused" in principle - despite varying range between ice and blade during takeoff with different skaters.
It's pretty obvious that defamation videos are your favorites - there wasn't need to clarify that.
And there would be nothing to penalize. In all cases there is clearly discernible air gap between blade and ice. All these "fullblade" preachers are basically liars. In fact, for this rule to work - you should propose for ISU to implement a table of permissible ranges between ice and blade during takeoff on toe jumps. And that would have zero rationale to implement new rule - because no one could answer logically on a question Why range between ice and blade should be limited to a certain number.
There are people disagree with you though
Do they want that Hanyu and other loop jumpers would get penalties this badly, I wonder?
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2017
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2017
Usacheva's "unclear edge" call on the flip from JWC free (the same call was in the short also)
https://neochan.ru/figs/src/1583603679529-0.jpg
https://neochan.ru/figs/src/1583603679529-1.jpg
:scratch3:
https://neochan.ru/figs/src/1583603679529-0.jpg
https://neochan.ru/figs/src/1583603679529-1.jpg
:scratch3:
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
The only place pre-rotation could be penalized is "poor takeoff" which is a reduction in GOE. And that of course is a more subjective GOE reduction since "poor" isn't defined and can be interpreted to varying degrees depending on the judge.However, it is not the same as a cheated takeoff, and the pre-rotation fanatics continue to conflate the two.
Panels do have the footage to review this, but it has to be in real-time.
Some people are getting so pedantic about pre-rotation, that it's almost comical. Yes, poor jump takeoffs reduce the overall quality of the jump and GOE should be lowered to affect that, but dropping BV? Come on. Figure skating jumps have been primarily about the quality of the landings compared to ideal takeoffs. You have less-than-desirable flip takeoffs from champions like Kurt Browning and Shizuka Arakawa, flutzing from Kwan and Asada, telegraphing, mule kicks, weird air positions/leg wraps, but at the end of the day, generally if a skater has a nice landing the judges are like - check! Not saying that skaters shouldn't be scrutinized for poor technique, but it's rather silly to give parity to the takeoff compared to the landing, stating each are equally important. The PR purists are trying their darndest to draw attention to somethingthat would penalize the vast majority of skaters were it actually heavily penalized. Which is their prerogative but the system will never pander to that as it would affect a lot of skaters, and tbh poor takeoffs is a "who cares" sort of deal (I mean, the derisory terms like floops, lutzberger, etc. rhetoric are downright juvenile... Nancy Pelosi-esque slow clap for being able to make cute portmanteaus though
).
The only place pre-rotation could be penalized is "poor takeoff" which is a reduction in GOE. And that of course is a more subjective GOE reduction since "poor" isn't defined and can be interpreted to varying degrees depending on the judge.However, it is not the same as a cheated takeoff, and the pre-rotation fanatics continue to conflate the two.
Panels do have the footage to review this, but it has to be in real-time.
Some people are getting so pedantic about pre-rotation, that it's almost comical. Yes, poor jump takeoffs reduce the overall quality of the jump and GOE should be lowered to affect that, but dropping BV? Come on. Figure skating jumps have been primarily about the quality of the landings compared to ideal takeoffs. You have less-than-desirable flip takeoffs from champions like Kurt Browning and Shizuka Arakawa, flutzing from Kwan and Asada, telegraphing, mule kicks, weird air positions/leg wraps, but at the end of the day, generally if a skater has a nice landing the judges are like - check! Not saying that skaters shouldn't be scrutinized for poor technique, but it's rather silly to give parity to the takeoff compared to the landing, stating each are equally important. The PR purists are trying their darndest to draw attention to somethingthat would penalize the vast majority of skaters were it actually heavily penalized. Which is their prerogative but the system will never pander to that as it would affect a lot of skaters, and tbh poor takeoffs is a "who cares" sort of deal (I mean, the derisory terms like floops, lutzberger, etc. rhetoric are downright juvenile... Nancy Pelosi-esque slow clap for being able to make cute portmanteaus though
How much pre-rotation is acceptable though? Alysa Liu's SP 3T in her combination was so pre-rotated that her toe was still on the ice after a full turn. Should that be given full credit as a 3T? Visually, one can tell that she's lacking rotation, and clearly something is majorly wrong with the technique. That should at least warrant an underrotation and a poor takeoff.
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2017
Also Plushenko and Yagudin prerotated their lutz, flip and toe loop. Michelle Kwan as well.The only place pre-rotation could be penalized is "poor takeoff" which is a reduction in GOE. And that of course is a more subjective GOE reduction since "poor" isn't defined and can be interpreted to varying degrees depending on the judge.However, it is not the same as a cheated takeoff, and the pre-rotation fanatics continue to conflate the two.
Panels do have the footage to review this, but it has to be in real-time.
Some people are getting so pedantic about pre-rotation, that it's almost comical. Yes, poor jump takeoffs reduce the overall quality of the jump and GOE should be lowered to affect that, but dropping BV? Come on. Figure skating jumps have been primarily about the quality of the landings compared to ideal takeoffs. You have less-than-desirable flip takeoffs from champions like Kurt Browning and Shizuka Arakawa, flutzing from Kwan and Asada, telegraphing, mule kicks, weird air positions/leg wraps, but at the end of the day, generally if a skater has a nice landing the judges are like - check! Not saying that skaters shouldn't be scrutinized for poor technique, but it's rather silly to give parity to the takeoff compared to the landing, stating each are equally important. The PR purists are trying their darndest to draw attention to somethingthat would penalize the vast majority of skaters were it actually heavily penalized. Which is their prerogative but the system will never pander to that as it would affect a lot of skaters, and tbh poor takeoffs is a "who cares" sort of deal (I mean, the derisory terms like floops, lutzberger, etc. rhetoric are downright juvenile... Nancy Pelosi-esque slow clap for being able to make cute portmanteaus though
Not every skater is Yuna Kim, Carolina Kostner, Yuzuru Hanyu or Nathan Chen. Or Elizaveta Tuktamysheva, Maria Artemieva, Polina Edmunds, Alexia Paganini, Alaine Chartrand, Tomoe Kawabata...
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2006
- Country
-
Having just watched some 10 hours of two tech panels working at the JWC on Friday - I was sitting almost directly behind them - I can only say that those videos went faster and slower whenever and whatever was needed. They looked at the landings most of the time, there were some edge calls for both ladies SP, but cannot remember them scrutinizing the take offs that much. The two panels worked a little differently, the all female panel with Japanese and Finnish leads (controller and specialist) for the mens FS were checking a lot of stuff and few of the skaters escaped any flagging. They even dug out the rule book to check some detail! And discussed the finer points and argued for the decisions at length - with the most flawed skates, the time was barely enough for them to go through it all. Of course, not every flag leads to a negative result. The ladies SP panel flagged jumps and spins in almost equal frequency. They did have less elements to evaluate of course, so it was possible to concentrate on different things.
Prerotation would be something the tech panel would review if it was actually something that got reviewed, but these two panels at least had no interest in it as far as I could see (and I did pay attention to what they were doing because the 45+ skater SP was exhausting and I needed something to keep me awake and alert).
The video the judges see shows always the entire skater and but a little of the surroundings, no long distance views or, of course, varying camera angles. I cannot say anything of the quality, but a national level judge I talked with at Graz said that quality is not a problem. I forgot to watch how the judges use the videos (and they were sitting a bit low compared to where I was, so it was difficult to see what they were doing). They can watch easily enough, but am not sure if they can go slower if they want.
E
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2019
Thanks for your reports.
Studying the tech panels at work is a study in itself ....
With the level of skating content this high, technology reinforcement is needed. But how to manage even more footage with the same number of specialists in the same amount of time?
We do want fair and even calling and judging across the duration of the event, and the same measure of objectivity and scrutiny across different events.
Are there any proposals with regards to calling and judging standards brought in for discussion/evaluation/assessment at the coming ISU congress? It seems to be concentrated on age limit vs content approval, while the inadequacy of the current calling and judging system should be easier to solve??
Studying the tech panels at work is a study in itself ....
With the level of skating content this high, technology reinforcement is needed. But how to manage even more footage with the same number of specialists in the same amount of time?
We do want fair and even calling and judging across the duration of the event, and the same measure of objectivity and scrutiny across different events.
Are there any proposals with regards to calling and judging standards brought in for discussion/evaluation/assessment at the coming ISU congress? It seems to be concentrated on age limit vs content approval, while the inadequacy of the current calling and judging system should be easier to solve??
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2017
- Country
-
One way to do that, at least at championship level, might be to create a set of reserve tech specialists who function as 'third umpires' by video (you could even use some of the 'leftover' judges if they have the relevant skills). The tech panel and judging panel issue a 'provisional' score after the skater's performance - as is done in gymnastics - and then any individual elements flagged for further review go to the reserve specialists for a final judgment call based on video alone. One element per specialist, and that specialist doesn't get any information about the tech panel's call/debate; they just assess it, issue a final call (eg levels, V/not V on a spin), and whichever of the tech panel's options it matches stands on the final protocol. Only restriction: no specialist ever gets to assess an element performed by skater from their own country.
Final scores for each pair of flights could be announced during ice resurfacings, so that the skaters and audiences can stay up to date as easily as possible.
I'd suggest using the four judges per discipline who aren't on any given judging panel, but most of them probably wouldn't have the right skillset.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
Until there are definitive rules proscribing against specificially pre-rotation in the ISU Technical Handbook, technically ANY amount of pre-rotation is acceptable.
Even poor takeoff doesn't specifically say pre-rotation constitutes that, although logically speaking it does. Same with a mule kick - it's not an aesthetic takeoff, but is that considered a poor takeoff? Or (some people's favourite), a take-off with more of the blade used on a pick jump...
Nowhere in the rules does it state these are specific grounds for GOE reduction - and certainly nowhere in the rules is pre-rotation mentioned in terms of BV reduction (i.e. calling it as an under-rotation)... yet again, pre-rotation and cheated takeoffs are NOT the same thing.
I agree that poor technique should be penalized, and as long as the judges are dropping GOE by -1 to -2 for pre-rotation (or not awarding the skater the good takeoff/landing bullet), then it's fulfilling their job as it arguably constitutes poor takeoff.
To reiterate though - nobody except certain sticklers care as much about the takeoff as they do the landing. The only thing the tech panel really cares about on takeoff is edge calls for flip and lutz, which in itself is a subjective thing.
Ain't nobody pulling out their protractors to slash a skater's base value because their pick stays on the ice longer.
I love how some people are like "Pre-rotation is wrong and should be penalized!" and then others are quick to point out "But jumps do have some amount of pre-rotation as part of the technique." So which one is it then? Are we deducting the skaters or not? And is it for 45 degrees PR, 90 degrees PR, 105 degrees? And how much for each type of jump? If pre-rotation deductions ever become a thing (I think "That's so fetch" will happen sooner), these are all the minutia and questions that need to be incorporated into the rules and the long-as-hell KnC waits that are bound to happen as tech panels quarrel over how much PR there was and what angle the blade was to the ice when picking, and alllll that stuff.
So people need to stop saying "so and so should have been deducted/reduced for PR" -- it's not even IN the rulebook, let alone in the rulebook with specific rules as to what constitutes egregious PR and what is "normal" for the jump. It's fine to advocate against PR and for better technique, but some people have gaslighted themselves into thinking the rules actually prescribe considerable deductions or reductions. They hang their hat on "cheated take-off" without even understanding that such a term is distinct from pre-rotation. They're essentially assessing programs with a different rulebook that they've concocted in their own minds and are seemingly trying to proclaim as accurate to what the ISU uses to assess competitive skaters.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
Thanks for the insight! I am not surprised that in a 45+ skater field, the tech panel aren't scrutinizing over the amount of pre-rotation, or angle of the blade to the ice on every toe jump takeoff, etc. They just flag shifty jumps where an error seems to have occurred, and check them again.
Tech panels need to do stuff in a timely manner. They don't have the hours and hours that some of the more... dedicated fans have to scrutinize every frame, and then compile an ensuing rant/Youtube vid of how the panel messed up.
Side note: I wonder if diving fans are such sticklers like figure skating's PR purists - do they rewatch the entries of every single dive (which judges are supposed to call in real-time without replay), and then rake them over the coals for giving a 9.5 instead of an 8.5, because a diver's feet were at 85 degrees instead of 90 degrees.
Or do they advocate for technology to measure the angle of entry and deduct a diver points if it isn't perfect?Ok, simpler question. How do you define a triple toe loop? If the skater does less than 2 revolutions in the air, can you even conceive of calling it a triple toe loop? Alysa turned a full turn and underrotated the jump.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
A triple toe loop is a skater picking while still in a backward direction (versus a toe axel placing the toe pick on the ice in the forward direction) and they launch themselves into the air, do about 2.5 airborne rotations and then land with their blade meeting the ice at less than 90 degrees. Note that’s what it is under the current rules (under 6.0 there were plenty of triple toes that wouldn’t be given the same credit as today’s 3Ts, and really “going for it” was sufficient as having “done a triple-triple”.
While turning on the ice isn’t good (and let’s lose the hyperbole - it wasn’t a FULL 360 turn on the ice) the mechanics of what she attempted was a triple jump. Yes it was UR but the takeoff doesn’t somehow downgrade it because it was a prerotated takeoff and not a cheater takeoff.
It’s getting a bit pedantic though. It seems like a triple toe is a triple toe attempted and landed without underrotation on the landing.
Here’s a better question, is what you describe Alyssa doing the same thing as a 2T<, since you seem to think she only took off after a full rotation on the ice and then under rotated it?
I think either calling it a 2T or a 3T<< would be fair. The rules call for a downgrade if it's a forward takeoff. Well, this is arguably worse than a toe axel. Rewatching it in slow motion suggests it's about 300 degrees prerotated, which is still ridiculously close to a full 360. If you count the airborne rotations, she doesn't even make 2 in the air, more like 1.75. That's more than half a turn short than your suggestion of 2.5, which also means downgrade.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
I see it as 270 but people’s opinions vary. Regardless the mechanics of what she is doing is an attempted triple toe.
Tbh, I look at where the skater places their pick and pre-rotation as poorer technique but still in the mechanics of the intended jump. A forwards takeoff is referring to a toe axel which is where the skater deliberately *places* their toe pick forwards.
Question for you: a salchow and a loop have 180 prerotation as part of the technique. The moment most skaters leave the ice on a salchow/loop, they are facing forwards. Does that mean most salchows and loops should get a downgrade because it is a forwards takeoff?
And if they did scrutinize the takeoffs, they would have to do so in real time, not slow motion.
Per the technical panel handbook,
I wonder...
The ISU has not spelled this out in writing, but perhaps the accepted understanding is that a takeoff is cheated if the skater is facing forward (backward for an axel) before they start to leave the ice, rather than where they're facing at the point where the blade finally loses all contact with the ice, i.e., the end of the takeoff phase.
But in between the start of the takeoff and being completely airborne, there will be many milliseconds when the takeoff has already begun, the skater's weight is no longer on the ice, but some part of the blade is still touching the ice.
And it doesn't seem that the ISU has any intention to penalize rotation that occurs during those milliseconds.
Here's a photo showing the end of a takeoff phase. Of course there's no rotation involved here, and, unlike with human feet, the front leaves the ground first followed by the rear.
But, assuming there is still some contact with the ground, if you were going to define the precise moment when the takeoff occurred, as a point of no return, wouldn't it be before this image was captured?
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2006
- Country
-
I have wondered about that also, because it seems a weirdly antiquated guideline (not a real rule as such, I guess, because it is in a handbook and not in the rules?) - they must have had the slow-mo/speed-up technology for some time now.
I cannot be sure what the panels I observed working were looking in the takeoffs - I could not hear the discussion and did not make notes to compare with protocols afterwards (next time, mental note). Usually they went through the takeoff in normal speed, slowed towards the end and rolled the landing backwards and forwards in slow-mo if they were not quite sure the first time. BUT I am quite sure that also some takeoffs were watched in slow-mo.
I wish I would remember better the previous times I have been watching TPs and judges work - I generally try to get a seat as close to central line in the judges' side to get the best view of how the programs were intended to be seen by the judges. That sometimes gives good positions to watch also the judges. Bratislava Euros in 2016 were also good because I sat next to a lady who is a judge at national level (and I met her again in Graz this year) and getting her insights into how things actually happen in the panels was very interesting. But next time then...
Just added this as an afterthought: I would not support a system where only 1 person decides levels or the outcome of evaluation of any element. That would not be good. Each panel probably works differently and am sure that different personalities can take over the decision making to a certain extent, but at least in these two panels each decision seems to have been as a consensus between the three members of the panel. And this just from watching how they interacted, who talked, etc. without hearing what was said. If 3 persons agree on a decision, that is IMO better than having just one person making the decisions!
E
And they use that technology for scrutinizing landings, takeoff edges, etc.
E.g., for lutz/flip takeoff edges, the handbook states "The TP may watch the replay in slow motion." So those may be the takeoffs you saw being watched in slow mo.
There would be no need to explicitly state that the TP may not use slow motion to look for cheated takeoffs unless that technology were readily available.
The point is that they specifically do not want the tech panel to slow down video to measure prerotation -- they only want that call to be made if it is obvious in real time.
There is nothing to say what judges may or may not do with their video. But judges don't have the power to downgrade jumps, only to reduce the GOE.
Similar threads
