Proposals to ISU Congress 2018-2019 Season | Page 67 | Golden Skate

Proposals to ISU Congress 2018-2019 Season

Sam-Skwantch

“I solemnly swear I’m up to no good”
Record Breaker
Joined
Dec 29, 2013
Country
United-States
I am neither defending nor criticizing Skate Canada for making the motion.

Just want you to be properly informed of what transpired at the Congress.

Thanks...I watched as much as I could due to time constraints my “real world life” imposed and had asked several times what the reason was behind striking it down and no one responded until now...at least that I saw.

I’m restraining myself from defending or criticizing either...just very curious. I am a bit miffed though that no reasoning was explored especially since she offered one up. It would have been fascinating to hear. Oh well...:confused2:
 

TryMeLater

On the Ice
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Sam, please watch the ISU video.
Your "gripe" is with the ISU and its procedure for the Congress -- and not with Skate Canada.

My recollection of the live streaming (I have not gone back to re-watch):

When making the motion to exclude Urgent Proposal No. 6, Skate Canada CEO Debra Armstrong asked -- with absolutely no prompting from anyone -- (I'm paraphrasing) "Should I give a reason?" She seemed perfectly OK with stating a reason.

She apparently was waved off, so she said nothing more. The ISU moved forward lickety-split with voting on the motion.​

I am neither defending nor criticizing Skate Canada for making the motion.

Just want you to be properly informed of what transpired at the Congress.


For CL_fan and anyone else who perhaps missed it:

The ISU did publish its own summary of decisions of the Congress.

Plus election results from the Congress.

They usually publish the minutes after the congress including a summary of the discussion of each proposal.
 

ice coverage

avatar credit: @miyan5605
Record Breaker
Joined
Feb 27, 2012
Where have they moved the videos of live streaming? I can't find them anymore on ISU youtube channel

Ohhh … I see what you mean.
I had not realized that the archived videos eventually got taken down. :(


Thanks...I watched as much as I could due to time constraints my “real world life” imposed and had asked several times what the reason was behind striking it down and no one responded until now...at least that I saw.

I’m restraining myself from defending or criticizing either...just very curious. I am a bit miffed though that no reasoning was explored especially since she offered one up. It would have been fascinating to hear. Oh well...:confused2:

LOL, I know that you had asked several times ... and finally decided to take the bull by the horns and respond -- even without going back to re-watch the video, which I usually like to do, to be 100.00% sure of what I am recounting.

Thanks to Andrea, I realize that neither you nor I can check the video at this point.

BTW, I am in awe of those who did watch every minute of every day of the Congress. :bow:
I did not … but just happened to see some of the beginning of the first day. (Some of it via live streaming, some of it via archived video when it still was up.)


They usually publish the minutes after the congress including a summary of the discussion of each proposal.

Yes, thanks. :agree:

I was just trying to offer what already is available for this Congress -- which is better than nothing.

ETA:

I suppose that I could/should have mentioned also the daily ISU updates on the Congress (although for me, they had made my eyes glaze over).
A handy-dandy collection of those links are on the page with the summary of decisions.​
 

Andrea82

Medalist
Joined
Feb 16, 2014
Ohhh … I see what you mean.
I had not realized that the archived videos eventually got taken down. :(
.

I hadn't realized it either until today when I tried to find them again.

So all these "magic" moments (most of them involving the Bosnian lady or the coffee break) will remain forever only on our minds to be handed down to posterity!
 

el henry

Go have some cake. And come back with jollity.
Record Breaker
Joined
Mar 3, 2014
Country
United-States
...

If Netherlands and/or another federation submits a proposal in the regular time frame, it should be on the agenda.

I'm not sure everyonethinks it's a common sense idea. In order to pass, I think the supporters will need to identify exactly what the problem is they're trying to solve and show some evidence that their proposal will in fact solve the problems, as well as addressing likely new problems likely to result from the new rule.

If a well-thought out proposal can convince enough other federations that a change in age limits will really have a net positive effect on the sport, then it can pass.

You are right that the proposal did not seem to have a well-written or thought out supporting statement. They should have asked me to write it:laugh2:

But I am hopeful that they will craft a better proposal and that it will get the consideration (I think) it deserves. And, not directed at you @gkelly, I just pop in from time to show support because I like to see both sides represented and whether 85 posters on an internet board think something is a bad idea doesn't mean the ISU will think so.

But we shall see:scratch3:
 

CaroLiza_fan

EZETTIE LATUASV IVAKMHA
Record Breaker
Joined
Oct 25, 2012
Country
Northern-Ireland
For CL_fan and anyone else who perhaps missed it:

The ISU did publish its own summary of decisions of the Congress.

Plus election results from the Congress.

THANK YOU SO MUCH!!!!

Didn't realise that there was a proposal to change the order of the podium presentations to the same as is done in most other sports (3-2-1). I used to be in favour of changing it, but after the reasoning for doing it 1-2-3 in skating was explained (so that the winner doesn't have to step pastskaters on a lower step, risking injuring them if they slipped), I was fully for doing it 1-2-3. So, I am disappointed that this went through.

Finally the ISU have seen sense and allowed more Pairs at Worlds!!!! :cheer: :clap: :rock: :party2: :points:

But, should have been 24 rather than 20. :disapp:

Not sure what proposal 211 about the Olympics means, though.

"Rhythm Dance"?! Where did that one come out of?! Don't really see the point of changing the name. It's not as if it helps make it clearer to people as to what they are watching.

That was something I liked about the suggestion to bring in new names for the divisions within Novice Level. Unlike "Rhythm Dance", those name changes would have been made things clearer.

I take it that this and everything else that wasn't mentioned in the article didn't get passed.

Anyway, thank you so much for the link. I am always in awe of how you can find these things. :bow:

CaroLiza_fan
 

Ice Dance

Record Breaker
Joined
Jan 26, 2014
"Rhythm Dance"?! Where did that one come out of?! Don't really see the point of changing the name. It's not as if it helps make it clearer to people as to what they are watching.

That was something I liked about the suggestion to bring in new names for the divisions within Novice Level. Unlike "Rhythm Dance", those name changes would have been made things clearer.

How does "rhythm dance" not make things clearer? It's an assigned rhythm. The point is to reflect the assigned rhythm and skate to it. Unlike the short programs in the other disciplines, this is a vital part of the dance. It's about more than executing the required elements.
 

Andrea82

Medalist
Joined
Feb 16, 2014
T
Not sure what proposal 211 about the Olympics means, though.

The new system to allocate Olympic spots is the following (bold parts are the addition from proposal 211):

2. ISU Members who have participated in the immediately preceding World Senior Championships accumulate points according to Rule 378, paragraph 2.b) and c).
3. Twenty-four (24) entries for Ladies and Men, sixteen (16) entries for Pairs and nineteen (19) entries for Ice Dance will be determined according to the classification outlined in paragraph 2 above.
ISU Members who have earned the necessary points according to Rule 378, paragraph 2b) and c) will have the right for two (2) or three (3) entries if, in addition, they had two (2), respectively three (3) Competitors qualified for the Free Skating/Free Dance in the World Senior Championships immediately preceding the OWG. . The remaining entries under this paragraph 3 will be attributed to the ISU Members with the best placed and qualified for the Free Skating/Free Dance Skaters at the World Senior Championships immediately preceding the OWG.

The remaining open entries available will be filled by ISU Members in order of their placements at a Senior International Competition designated by the ISU as qualifying event and conducted in the autumn of the calendar year immediately preceding the Olympic Winter Games. The open entries are available only to:
a) ISU Members which have not previously earned an entry, for only one entry per such ISU Member.
b) ISU Members which have earned the necessary points for two (2) or three (3) entries but did not have two (2) respectively three (3) skaters qualified for the Free Skating/Free Dance at the World Senior Championships immediately preceding the OWG. Such ISU Members are entitled to enter one skater in the qualifying event who, however, cannot be a skater that had qualified for the Free Skating/Free Dance at the World Senior Championships immediately preceding the OWG.

For example, take Spain

Fernandez was 4th at 2017 Worlds and Raya was 27th after SP. Spain earned 2 Olympic spots because of these results.
With the new rule, Spain would have been entitled to 2 spots but as only one skater qualified for FS, they would got 1 Olympic spot from Worlds + the right to send a second skater to Nebelhorn.

Belgium (first country missing the Olympic spot at Worlds) would have got the Olympic spot after Worlds instead of going to Nebelhorn.
 

ladyjane

Medalist
Joined
Jun 26, 2012
Country
Netherlands
Haha, I'm sure Jorik wouldn't agree with me (as he had to go to Nebelhorn to get his spot), but I rather liked it that he did enter Nebelhorn, and got to perform some good skates there and become first! I would have missed that otherwise. Leaving that particular skater and his results aside, I'm rather in favour of this one. If I'm correctly interpreting this, it would also have meant that the US could have entered a pair for a second placement. We'll never know if this would have been succesfull (as they didn't even have a go), but I would certainly have liked that (and I'm not even American).
 

karne

in Emergency Backup Mode
Record Breaker
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Country
Australia
I'm a huge fan of 211. It would have changed the landscape of the Korea qualification quite dramatically.
 

skater7866

Rinkside
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
The new system to allocate Olympic spots is the following (bold parts are the addition from proposal 211):

2. ISU Members who have participated in the immediately preceding World Senior Championships accumulate points according to Rule 378, paragraph 2.b) and c).
3. Twenty-four (24) entries for Ladies and Men, sixteen (16) entries for Pairs and nineteen (19) entries for Ice Dance will be determined according to the classification outlined in paragraph 2 above.
ISU Members who have earned the necessary points according to Rule 378, paragraph 2b) and c) will have the right for two (2) or three (3) entries if, in addition, they had two (2), respectively three (3) Competitors qualified for the Free Skating/Free Dance in the World Senior Championships immediately preceding the OWG. . The remaining entries under this paragraph 3 will be attributed to the ISU Members with the best placed and qualified for the Free Skating/Free Dance Skaters at the World Senior Championships immediately preceding the OWG.

The remaining open entries available will be filled by ISU Members in order of their placements at a Senior International Competition designated by the ISU as qualifying event and conducted in the autumn of the calendar year immediately preceding the Olympic Winter Games. The open entries are available only to:
a) ISU Members which have not previously earned an entry, for only one entry per such ISU Member.
b) ISU Members which have earned the necessary points for two (2) or three (3) entries but did not have two (2) respectively three (3) skaters qualified for the Free Skating/Free Dance at the World Senior Championships immediately preceding the OWG. Such ISU Members are entitled to enter one skater in the qualifying event who, however, cannot be a skater that had qualified for the Free Skating/Free Dance at the World Senior Championships immediately preceding the OWG.

For example, take Spain

Fernandez was 4th at 2017 Worlds and Raya was 27th after SP. Spain earned 2 Olympic spots because of these results.
With the new rule, Spain would have been entitled to 2 spots but as only one skater qualified for FS, they would got 1 Olympic spot from Worlds + the right to send a second skater to Nebelhorn.

Belgium (first country missing the Olympic spot at Worlds) would have got the Olympic spot after Worlds instead of going to Nebelhorn.

I'm so much in favor of this new rule too. Now more different countries will have a better shot at the Olympics, and the countries that earn 2 or 3 spots but with less than 2 or 3 skaters qualified for the FS at the worlds will have to send another skater at Nebelhorn during the olympic season to fight for that spot and to prove that his country deserved that 2nd or 3rd spot.

That said, I was practicing myself with this new rule to understand it better with the results of the Worlds in Helsinki in 2017 to see what it would have looked like. But, I think something must be revised because they say there's still going to be 24 spots determined at the Worlds preceding the Olympics, but if we apply this new rule for the Ladies event of the 2017 Worlds, we would only get a maximum of 22 entries qualified for the Olympics, with countries like CAN, ITA, KAZ and KOR having to send another skater at Nebelhorn to fight for one additionnal spot. What would happen in that case if only 22 entries qualify at Worlds? In that case, would they make 8 countries qualify at Nebelhorn instead of 6 to get those 30 quota spots allowed at the Olympics?

Thanks for answering! :)
 

cohen-esque

Final Flight
Joined
Jan 27, 2014
^^Yes, basically. believe it would work like this. There a *maximum* 24 spots to be earned at Worlds. The normal qualification rules apply, except that to earn two or three spots, a country needs that many skaters to make the free.

So we get 22 spots for women from Worlds and that exhausts the skaters who made the FS. 8 spots are left for for the women in 2017 at Nebelhorn but since none of the 4 countries who earned unused spots had a team there:
  • Sweden (1 spot)
  • Switzerland (1 spot)
  • Brazil (1 spot)
  • Finland (1 spot)
  • Ukraine (1 spot)
  • Singapore (1 spot)
  • Chinese Taipei (1 spot)
  • Phillipines (1 spot)


Pairs is probably a better example of the rule in action, though. There’s a maximum 16 spots from Worlds that are filled like so:
  • China (1+4+NA) 2 spots
  • Germany (2+19) 1 spot
  • Russia (3+5+12) 3 spots
  • Canada (6+7+11) 3 spots
  • France (8+27) 1 spot
  • Italy (9+13) 2 spots
  • USA (10+20) 1 spot for real and not because of a stupid, misapplied technicality that makes me question the ISU’s reading comprehension of their own damned Communication
  • Czech Republic (14) 1 spot
  • North Korea (15) 1 spot
  • Australia (16) 1 spot

That’s 16 spots all filled, which leaves 4 for Nebelhorn. These countries would all qualify one spot:
  • Germany (now has 2 spots)
  • United States (now has 2 spots)
  • Austria
  • Israel

And additionally South Korea qualifies one host spot.
 

skater7866

Rinkside
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
^^Yes, basically. believe it would work like this. There a *maximum* 24 spots to be earned at Worlds. The normal qualification rules apply, except that to earn two or three spots, a country needs that many skaters to make the free.

So we get 22 spots for women from Worlds and that exhausts the skaters who made the FS. 8 spots are left for for the women in 2017 at Nebelhorn but since none of the 4 countries who earned unused spots had a team there:
  • Sweden (1 spot)
  • Switzerland (1 spot)
  • Brazil (1 spot)
  • Finland (1 spot)
  • Ukraine (1 spot)
  • Singapore (1 spot)
  • Chinese Taipei (1 spot)
  • Phillipines (1 spot)


Pairs is probably a better example of the rule in action, though. There’s a maximum 16 spots from Worlds that are filled like so:
  • China (1+4+NA) 2 spots
  • Germany (2+19) 1 spot
  • Russia (3+5+12) 3 spots
  • Canada (6+7+11) 3 spots
  • France (8+27) 1 spot
  • Italy (9+13) 2 spots
  • USA (10+20) 1 spot for real and not because of a stupid, misapplied technicality that makes me question the ISU’s reading comprehension of their own damned Communication
  • Czech Republic (14) 1 spot
  • North Korea (15) 1 spot
  • Australia (16) 1 spot

That’s 16 spots all filled, which leaves 4 for Nebelhorn. These countries would all qualify one spot:
  • Germany (now has 2 spots)
  • United States (now has 2 spots)
  • Austria
  • Israel

And additionally South Korea qualifies one host spot.

But if that new rule was really applied, China would have likely sent a 3rd pair at Nebelhorn to get their 3rd spot confirmed, and with that, it means the israeli pair would probably have not qualified. That would have had a big impact because this would have mean no team event competition for them!

Also what will happen now with the qualification system for pairs at the Olympics? Since we know now with the new rule that 20 pairs will make it to the freeskate in the World Championships (which is good), I bet this is going to be the same for the Olympics, but there are only 20 pairs at an Olympics so everyone will qualify for the long? Or maybe they should increase the number to 24? What do you all think? :)
 

Yuzuruu

the silent assassin
Medalist
Joined
Nov 21, 2017
I have to say I am not happy about the choreo removal :( I was just writing an article about the congress and wanted to thank you guys for this thread, it helped me understand a few proposals a little better :pray:

It was so hard to keep my biased thoughts about these things to myself :drama:
 

xeyra

Constant state
Record Breaker
Joined
Jan 10, 2017
I have to say I am not happy about the choreo removal :( I was just writing an article about the congress and wanted to thank you guys for this thread, it helped me understand a few proposals a little better :pray:

It was so hard to keep my biased thoughts about these things to myself :drama:

What do you mean with choreo removal? You mean the choreographic sequence? It hasn't been removed, in neither singles nor pairs. In pairs, they decided to remove one of the two spins from the FS instead.
 

Yuzuruu

the silent assassin
Medalist
Joined
Nov 21, 2017
What do you mean with choreo removal? You mean the choreographic sequence? It hasn't been removed, in neither singles nor pairs. In pairs, they decided to remove one of the two spins from the FS instead.


WOW, I am clearly going blind! I did not notice it in the new SOV because the table pushed it to page 8, it ended up at the very top and I missed it :laugh::drama: And I knew it was in the proposal and thought its gone! Thanks for turning my attention to it :)
 
Last edited:

Andrea82

Medalist
Joined
Feb 16, 2014
Some decisions by ISU Council during their Seville meetings:

- Judges Draw for the 2019 ISU Figure Skating Championships shall be held on the morning of Thursday October 11, 2018 in Geneva, Switzerland

- Minimum TES for 2019 4CCs/Euros/Worlds will be decided during October 12-14 meeting because they first want to see the scores of first Senior Bs
 

ladyjane

Medalist
Joined
Jun 26, 2012
Country
Netherlands
But if that new rule was really applied, China would have likely sent a 3rd pair at Nebelhorn to get their 3rd spot confirmed, and with that, it means the israeli pair would probably have not qualified. That would have had a big impact because this would have mean no team event competition for them!

Also what will happen now with the qualification system for pairs at the Olympics? Since we know now with the new rule that 20 pairs will make it to the freeskate in the World Championships (which is good), I bet this is going to be the same for the Olympics, but there are only 20 pairs at an Olympics so everyone will qualify for the long? Or maybe they should increase the number to 24? What do you all think? :)

I think I understood the whole qualification system wrongly at first (see my earlier post), but on this particular issue: I'm all for increasing the number to 24 at the Olympics and 20 pairs going through. Four additional pairs teams in the competition. Yay! (I rather liked it that there were 22 this year instead of 20, whatever the reasons that this happened).
 
Top