Pre-rotation | Page 8 | Golden Skate

Pre-rotation

Blades of Passion

Skating is Art, if you let it be
Record Breaker
Joined
Sep 14, 2008
Country
France
But general audience in the arena don't see that, nor we have replays in the arena.

There most certainly are replays in the arena, every competition with a jumbotron shows replays to the audience after the performance.

Your argument in this regard about what the general audience sees is out of place though, as there many things a casual audience member isn't really looking at or having knowledge of. Otherwise why do we have edge calls and such at all, as others posters have wisely noted.

Also, there are qualities of figure skating that people perceive even if they aren't actively looking for it or know what it is. An audience member doesn't know what a counter turn or bracket is, but they do know they are bored by clunky and uninteresting movement. Similarly, people are more excited by powerfully executed jumps. Excessively pre-rotated jumps tend to look worse and people can perceive this, at times, even if they don't know exactly why something is less impactful to them.

I remember many years ago a friend told me she didn't love Sarah Hughes' skating much because "she stuck her butt out on landings". Years later I realized this was because of Hughes' jumps being underrotated; it caused her to have to compensate on the landings by digging into the ice more. Measuring jump rotation isn't something my friend was trying to do in watching skating, but she instinctively could perceive something was "off" about what she was seeing.
 

Baron Vladimir

Record Breaker
Joined
Dec 18, 2014
Might as well not call underrotations then either, as those aren't visible to most spectators except diehard fans who look out for them. But this is a sport, not a beauty contest--it's not only appearance that matters, but what athletes actually do. I mean, if the scoring system is just going to cater to casual watchers, we might as well not have extra points for quads, because casual watchers are often unable to distinguish quads and triples (and I don't blame them--some cheated quads *do* look like triples) and are consequently confused why so-and-so who only jumped triples got a score so much lower than so-and-so who maybe skates uglier but jumps quads.

The running analogy is apt--an athlete who ran 90m should not get the same credit as an athlete who ran 100m, whether or not the audience can tell the distance run.

You are banalizing my words too much. It's one thing to note UR and wrong edge if it's visible/suspectible as judges do, and the other thing is to review every jump in a search of UR or wrong edge. As it is one thing to be a 'common fan' and other thing is to be a 'die-hard' with only concern to searching for (exact degree of) 'pre-rotation' in jumps. Some judges are harsher with their calls, some are more lenient. For example - at last Junior Worlds they were more harsh in judging a flip jump and more lenient with combos, but that was applied for all the skaters equally.
 

Baron Vladimir

Record Breaker
Joined
Dec 18, 2014
There most certainly are replays in the arena, every competition with a jumbotron shows replays to the audience after the performance.

Your argument in this regard about what the general audience sees is out of place though, as there many things a casual audience member isn't really looking at or having knowledge of. Otherwise why do we have edge calls and such at all, as others posters have wisely noted.

Also, there are qualities of figure skating that people perceive even if they aren't actively looking for it or know what it is. An audience member doesn't know what a counter turn or bracket is, but they do know they are bored by clunky and uninteresting movement. Similarly, people are more excited by powerfully executed jumps. Excessively pre-rotated jumps tend to look worse and people can perceive this, at times, even if they don't know exactly why something is less impactful to them.

I remember many years ago a friend told me she didn't love Sarah Hughes' skating much because "she stuck her butt out on landings". Years later I realized this was because of Hughes' jumps being underrotated; it caused her to have to compensate on the landings by digging into the ice more. Measuring jump rotation isn't something my friend was trying to do in watching skating, but she instinctively could perceive something was "off" about what she was seeing.

Yes, and jumps like that are judged with different GOE because they don't have the same 'quality', as i already noted. Judges don't need to measure exact jumps rotation to percieve if something is off about the jump. It will be fine too if they can, but they can make a difference between jumps even without that, as those 'common fans' can do. While 'excessively pre-rotated jumps' are judged with <, as that judge noted in her comments.
 

Miller

Final Flight
Joined
Dec 29, 2016
I would say that each type of jump needs to given an acceptable amount of pre-rotation, then if something is ‘not quite right’ (more training may be required) it should be reviewed.

This should take the format of a single review in slow motion, plus freeze-frame at the end. If the jump is pre-rotated too much it’s called under, but any benefit of the doubt should go to the skater. There should be no need to review more than once, the freeze-frame should tell all.

The problem with this is you may get a skater minimally pre-rotating, but landing under, and they may end up doing more rotations in the air than someone that is right at the limits of what is acceptable both at pre-rotation and under-rotation. However until you get some sort of technological solution that is quick – you have up to 11 jumps theoretically to review in about 3 minutes, though I guess you can extend this a bit for individual skaters, but you certainly don’t have the time to review every single jump for every single skater given current schedules – then you just have to kind of live with it. Unlucky for the individual skater involved, but hopefully a technological solution could come along soon.

Similarly I don’t think you’d be able to define jumps as being fully rotated by the actual number of rotations in the air, unless some really quick technological solution came along e.g. a jump is close to the limits both pre-rotation wise and under, but ends up being less than the number of rotations required to be deemed fully–rotated.

Such jumps would probably be possible to be identified, but I think it would be beyond the capability of the technical panel to work out the exact number of rotations in the air by hand given the time constraints, but a technological solution could do the trick, and could also be used for the above example of a minimally pre-rotated jump that is just under, but which should be treated the same as ones that are deemed acceptable because they are just within the limits of what is acceptable pre-rotation wise and under.
 

doublequad

On the Ice
Joined
Aug 4, 2018
all of this is subjective
especially pre this year, there were plenty of 90 degree UR jumps that were not called
not to mention the camera angle also can affect the call
 

CanadianSkaterGuy

Record Breaker
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
So what? That's the point of the scoring system. And if they were getting called, then they would change their technique and/or overall competitive approach. Which is a good thing.

Not necessarily. The point of the scoring system is to assess skaters, yes. But there needs to be some leeway because nobody's perfect and most skaters aren't even close to it. Most skaters don't jump with the takeoff of a Yu Na Kim on their lutz, or have as fully-rotated a landing as a Gracie Gold.

So should we be deducting their jumps until it literally is the best it can be? i.e. not even allow any pre-rotation on the takeoff of toe jumps, or give every jump that doesn't land completely backwards (as well as has been exhibited by other skaters) less than maximum base value? Do we find the ideal jump ever done, and hold that as the 10/10 standard and deduct anyone who doesn't measure up to that in every aspect of it?

Some skaters can get flagged by the tech panel on their jumps and still don't exhibit a marked improvement in their technique - e.g. Mao Asada's flutz or Karen Chen's URs. As Mona said, they do give a little leeway, and they have to (of course, to a certain extent).
 

Blades of Passion

Skating is Art, if you let it be
Record Breaker
Joined
Sep 14, 2008
Country
France
Yes, and jumps like that are judged with different GOE because they don't have the same 'quality', as i already noted. Judges don't need to measure exact jumps rotation to perceive if something is off about the jump. It will be fine too if they can, but they can make a difference between jumps even without that, as those 'common fans' can do. While 'excessively pre-rotated jumps' are judged with <, as that judge noted in her comments.

This is incorrect on multiple levels. Excessively pre-rotated jumps aren't being hit with the < calls they deserve and judges aren't scoring this flawed technique correctly in the GOE (look at Medvedeva in recent years getting max GOE and no call on flawed jump combos). You are contradicting yourself in the first place saying that jump rotation shouldn't be measured, since it is already partially being measured and you are in favor of < calls. The problem is that it's being measured incorrectly. People don't always see something wrong with an underrotated landing, so why have a rule that applies only to landings, while ignoring the same fault at the start of the jump? Double, Triple, etc jumps are named as such exactly because of their rotation. If you cheat the entrance and take off further around on the ice than where the jump is "supposed" to start, you are no longer doing the same jump.

Most skaters don't jump with the takeoff of a Yu Na Kim on their lutz, or have as fully-rotated a landing.

They used to, and people still should be trained to get a close to this standard as they can. Over time, as jumps became more important and more studied (and then as "transitions" became more important), skaters starting taking shortcuts, and these shortcuts have not been addressed by judges and the scoring system. If the system actually valued correct technique, and if people were actually trained to jump without the cheats that have arisen in the past decade(s), then that is what we would see in competitions.

So should we be deducting their jumps until it literally is the best it can be? i.e. not even allow any pre-rotation on the takeoff of toe jumps, or give every jump that doesn't land completely backwards (as well as has been exhibited by other skaters) less than maximum base value? Do we find the ideal jump ever done, and hold that as the 10/10 standard and deduct anyone who doesn't measure up to that in every aspect of it?

Yes, that is how the scoring system should operate. Otherwise why have a system that is allegedly scoring every element for its exact value? The GOE values exist for a reason and they have been expanded to the +5 range to allow for better separation within the judging. The best jump ever performed should be viewed as the +5 GOE standard and if something doesn't reach that level, or extremely close to it, then it should not be given a +5 GOE. The word "deduct" you use is an unnecessarily negative one, as nobody is ever going to do a performance with all +5 GOE elements. A maximum GOE score should be a representation of something that is very special and difficult to achieve, something that happens infrequently and represents a specialty that a skater has worked hard to perfect.
 

CanadianSkaterGuy

Record Breaker
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
This is incorrect on multiple levels. Excessively pre-rotated jumps aren't being hit with the < calls they deserve and judges aren't scoring this flawed technique correctly in the GOE (look at Medvedeva in recent years getting max GOE and no call on flawed jump combos). You are contradicting yourself in the first place saying that jump rotation shouldn't be measured, since it is already partially being measured and you are in favor of < calls. The problem is that it's being measured incorrectly. People don't always see something wrong with an underrotated landing, so why have a rule that applies only to landings, while ignoring the same fault at the start of the jump? Double, Triple, etc jumps are named as such exactly because of their rotation. If you cheat the entrance and take off further around on the ice than where the jump is "supposed" to start, you are no longer doing the same jump.

Actually, this is incorrect. Pre-rotated jumps would never get hit with a < call. They can only get hit with a << if they are deemed a cheated takeoff (at least 180 degrees, as noted in regular time). Unless you're simply opining using your own set of rules to give < calls to jumps with excessive pre-rotation (which may or may not be 180 degrees depending on your personal preference, of course).

They used to, and people still should be trained to get a close to this standard as they can. Over time, as jumps became more important and more studied (and then as "transitions" became more important), skaters starting taking shortcuts, and these shortcuts have not been addressed by judges and the scoring system. If the system actually valued correct technique, and if people were actually trained to jump without the cheats that have arisen in the past decade(s), then that is what we would see in competitions.



Yes, that is how the scoring system should operate. Otherwise why have a system that is allegedly scoring every element for its exact value? The GOE values exist for a reason and they have been expanded to the +5 range to allow for better separation within the judging. The best jump ever performed should be viewed as the +5 GOE standard and if something doesn't reach that level, or extremely close to it, then it should not be given a +5 GOE. The word "deduct" you use is an unnecessarily negative one, as nobody is ever going to do a performance with all +5 GOE elements. A maximum GOE score should be a representation of something that is very special and difficult to achieve, something that happens infrequently and represents a specialty that a skater has worked hard to perfect.

GOE is not based on the best execution of an element ever performed, but rather the actual GOE bullet attributes of the jump being achieved. The best jump ever performed can meet 6/6 GOE bullets, while another jump can achieve 5/6 (e.g. if the skater has average body position throughout, or the element is not matching the music, or a lack of creative steps preceding the jump) - both would still get +5 even though one is more "perfect" than the other.

Here's the scale of values with GOE bullets, and you can see that there's leeway in what constitutes a perfect jump and what doesn't. https://www.isu.org/docman-document...munications/17142-isu-communication-2168/file

I do however agree that maximum GOE should be reserved for only the highest quality jumps, the same way I feel that 9's should be reserved for the highest-quality programs, and 10.00's only for an absolutely flawless program. Pre-rotation under the current rules is basically a non-error... only if it's egregious enough that it's a full-on cheat should a skater be heavily penalized. A good judge will also take pre-rotation into account even if there is nowhere in the rules that specifically says "pre-rotation merits X reduction". Nowhere in the rules is rotation based on the number of rotations the skater is actually airborne, etc. etc. etc.

Alysa Liu's 3S for example is actually "fine" because generally it's accepted that a 3S has minimum 1/4 to 1/2 pre-rotation on takeoff, and she wasn't really more than 3/4 on takeoff... and the rules state it must be at least 1/2 rotation pre-rotation before a <<... but as a judge, I would limit her GOE in light of pre-rotating more than the typical pre-rotation generally allowed for a salchow/loop (but again, isn't actually stated anywhere in the rules).
 

Baron Vladimir

Record Breaker
Joined
Dec 18, 2014
This is incorrect on multiple levels. Excessively pre-rotated jumps aren't being hit with the < calls they deserve and judges aren't scoring this flawed technique correctly in the GOE (look at Medvedeva in recent years getting max GOE and no call on flawed jump combos). You are contradicting yourself in the first place saying that jump rotation shouldn't be measured, since it is already partially being measured and you are in favor of < calls. The problem is that it's being measured incorrectly. People don't always see something wrong with an underrotated landing, so why have a rule that applies only to landings, while ignoring the same fault at the start of the jump? Double, Triple, etc jumps are named as such exactly because of their rotation. If you cheat the entrance and take off further around on the ice than where the jump is "supposed" to start, you are no longer doing the same jump.

It is being measured incorrect according to you. But what you are claiming is not the actual reality. ISU has different regulations they are following, which their judge already noted. There is no need to quote her words again cause you are obviously not following them. But that is not my problem, really. Implications are that you can 'cheat the entrance' but only to some degree and get fully rotated jump for that. You will probably not get positive GOE for take off, and some judges may give negative bullet for that. As we saw with judging of Medvedeva's jumps - they were not awarded with max GOE most of the time, which means that judges are not awarding every part of her jumps. The same is with Satoko's jumps. It is also said that excessively pre-rotated jumps may be judged with <, you can read her interview on this forum. The judges just think that most of the jumps are not excessively pre-rotated, you like that or not.
 

CanadianSkaterGuy

Record Breaker
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
It is being measured incorrect according to you. But what you are claiming is not the actual reality. ISU has different regulations they are following, which their judge already noted. There is no need to quote her words again cause you are obviously not following them. But that is not my problem, really. Implications are that you can 'cheat the entrance' but only to some degree and get fully rotated jump for that. You will probably not get positive GOE for take off, and some judges may give negative bullet for that. As we saw with judging of Medvedeva's jumps - they were not awarded with max GOE most of the time, which means that judges are not awarding every part of her jumps. The same is with Satoko's jumps. It is also said that excessively pre-rotated jumps may be judged with <, you can read her interview on this forum. The judges just think that most of the jumps jumps are not excessively pre-rotated, you like it or not.

This. There's the set of rules that are in place and the set of rules that each of us interprets in our own way. The judge noted there is leeway in the assessment of pre-rotation -- and it's a cheated take-off at that. There literally is no mention of the word pre-rotation in the current rules so for people to say that a skater should have been docked for it, is kinda trivial if we're talking about results, since it's not actually going to be deducted the way more pickier people would like it applied. If we're talking about generally saying pre-rotation should be reducted, then that's a different discussion, but the currently rules state as is.

The rules should perhaps be less ambiguous and more specific about certain things (like "poor takeoff", for example) but right now, griping as if the judges not assessing something the way YOU want it assessed is almost like saying "That Biellmann only had one hand on the blade and the other hand on the forearm, instead of both hands on the blade like a proper Biellmann, so it should only be a level 3 layback"... or "That spiral wasn't fully extended to 180 degrees like Cohen, so max GOE allowed should only be +4 for that ChSt".

It's fine if someone thinks that, and they're entitled to a more strict or more lenient opinion about how elements should be executed, but they should also be cognizant if said opinion doesn't actually match what the rules state and the leeway that is ingrained in them.
 

Blades of Passion

Skating is Art, if you let it be
Record Breaker
Joined
Sep 14, 2008
Country
France
GOE is not based on the best execution of an element ever performed, but rather the actual GOE bullet attributes of the jump being achieved. The best jump ever performed can meet 6/6 GOE bullets, while another jump can achieve 5/6 (e.g. if the skater has average body position throughout, or the element is not matching the music, or a lack of creative steps preceding the jump) - both would still get +5 even though one is more "perfect" than the other.

LOL, this is why the system/judging is flawed and needs to be changed! If one skater does an element better than another skater, but they are getting the same points for it, then it goes against the purpose of having this scoring system at all! The "bullet points" are actually only a guideline as well, but they need to be re-written, because they are currently a very poor guideline for properly assessing jumps (ie - only one bullet point for both height and distance of jump, when jump amplitude should be a large part of the granularity in scoring them).

Alysa Liu's 3S for example is actually "fine" because generally it's accepted that a 3S has minimum 1/4 to 1/2 pre-rotation on takeoff, and she wasn't really more than 3/4 on takeoff... and the rules state it must be at least 1/2 rotation pre-rotation before a <<

This isn't at all how it works or what the rules state. The rules currently only say that a forward takeoff will be deducted...this is of course ludicrous because many jumps normally take off "forwards" by the time they leave the ice (ie, 1/2 turn pre-rotation). The rules are simply nonsensical and I don't know why you always keep trying to ignore it.

Alysa Liu's 3S was not fine at all, she was more than 3/4 pre-rotated on takeoff. 3/4 pre-rotation in itself is already a significant flaw and a skater better be landing that jump perfectly "backwards", otherwise the scoring system SHOULD view it as underrotated. Her 3S was hardly even more than 2 rotations in the air, it was without a doubt clearly underrotated and almost <<.

---

It is being measured incorrect according to you. But what you are claiming is not the actual reality. ISU has different regulations they are following, which their judge already noted.

You are incorrectly correlating what was stated in the quote, which specifically says they do try to determine jump takeoff based on position of the toepick on the ice. The issue is that the judges are FAILING to correctly see/understand the takeoffs, both because they are not trained well enough and because of not using slow-motion for takeoffs.

Please don't talk about notions of reality when what you write doesn't seem to understand it at all. If someone puts down on a piece of paper that the world is flat, it doesn't suddenly make it so. The ISU regulations are wrong with regards to the factual mechanics of how jumps work, and thus how they should be scored. Rules are supposed to be changed when they are viewed as flawed; many rules have been changed in figure skating and this is yet another one that needs to be addressed.

It is also said that excessively pre-rotated jumps may be judged with <. The judges just think that most of the jumps are not excessively pre-rotated, you like that or not.

Saying "you like that or not" is not a valid argument. Do you understand how judges can be wrong and frequently ARE wrong? That is the point of this discussion. The judges are not giving good assessments.

When a person's viewpoint has a lack of education and lack of perspective, they are not suddenly infallible or correct just because of the position they are appointed to. If a judge is trained incorrectly or working within an inherently abhorrent mode, then they are going to be enacting bad judgements. Look at all of the racist laws and judgements throughout human history, that most people now see as wrong, for example. An ISU judge is not someone with an inherently more respectable opinion, they are simply a person who has spent a large amount of time networking to be in the position.
 

Baron Vladimir

Record Breaker
Joined
Dec 18, 2014
Well no, my point of discussion is not about if the recommendations are right or wrong. My point was that judges follow some kind of recommendations, and how those recommendations are not in line with your narrative. It is like my potential complaining of dresses being 'too short' or music being 'too loud'. It is just a complain of current state of things, nothing more than that. If you don't respect judges opinion and recommendations they are following, then it's on you. Nobody say you must agree with them. But you can't argue they are not existing the way they are, nor they are not applied by the judges in that same or similar way...
 

CanadianSkaterGuy

Record Breaker
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
LOL, this is why the system/judging is flawed and needs to be changed! If one skater does an element better than another skater, but they are getting the same points for it, then it goes against the purpose of having this scoring system at all! The "bullet points" are actually only a guideline as well, but they need to be re-written, because they are currently a very poor guideline for properly assessing jumps (ie - only one bullet point for both height and distance of jump, when jump amplitude should be a large part of the granularity in scoring them).



This isn't at all how it works or what the rules state. The rules currently only say that a forward takeoff will be deducted...this is of course ludicrous because many jumps normally take off "forwards" by the time they leave the ice (ie, 1/2 turn pre-rotation). The rules are simply nonsensical and I don't know why you always keep trying to ignore it.

Alysa Liu's 3S was not fine at all, she was more than 3/4 pre-rotated on takeoff. 3/4 pre-rotation in itself is already a significant flaw and a skater better be landing that jump perfectly "backwards", otherwise the scoring system SHOULD view it as underrotated. Her 3S was hardly even more than 2 rotations in the air, it was without a doubt clearly underrotated and almost <<.

---



You are incorrectly correlating what was stated in the quote, which specifically says they do try to determine jump takeoff based on position of the toepick on the ice. The issue is that the judges are FAILING to correctly see/understand the takeoffs, both because they are not trained well enough and because of not using slow-motion for takeoffs.

Please don't talk about notions of reality when what you write doesn't seem to understand it at all. If someone puts down on a piece of paper that the world is flat, it doesn't suddenly make it so. The ISU regulations are wrong with regards to the factual mechanics of how jumps work, and thus how they should be scored. Rules are supposed to be changed when they are viewed as flawed; many rules have been changed in figure skating and this is yet another one that needs to be addressed.



Saying "you like that or not" is not a valid argument. Do you understand how judges can be wrong and frequently ARE wrong? That is the point of this discussion. The judges are not giving good assessments.

When a person's viewpoint has a lack of education and lack of perspective, they are not suddenly infallible or correct just because of the position they are appointed to. If a judge is trained incorrectly or working within an inherently abhorrent mode, then they are going to be enacting bad judgements. Look at all of the racist laws and judgements throughout human history, that most people now see as wrong, for example. An ISU judge is not someone with an inherently more respectable opinion, they are simply a person who has spent a large amount of time networking to be in the position.

Wow. :unsure: That's *quite* the false equivalency - comparing UR/pre-rotation rules or lackthereof to racial laws.

I also don't get when something is factual - as in people have to agree with you? We are all entitled to our opinions. Yours are consistently incongruous with the ISU, which is fine. But presenting it as a fact simply because you believe it isn't accurate either. Facts are empirically proven but they are also generally agreed upon. What's to say the way the ISU assesses something isn't the world being round and what you're suggesting as the world being flat? It's merely your opinion, though the ISU isn't necessarily right either - but it's the law of the land and what skaters abide by and win/lose by. In that regard, what you or I say is inconsequential by comparison, albeit fun to discuss and debate about.

Also it's easier to convince people more by laying out arguments than dismiss them as factually wrong (based on your definition of what's factually correct at that). Have there been many who have supported your assessment of rotation? And I'm talking about in the ISU - although I suppose already you've dismissed them as unqualified to assess rotation properly?
 

Roast Toast

Medalist
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Look at all of the racist laws and judgements throughout human history, that most people now see as wrong, for example. An ISU judge is not someone with an inherently more respectable opinion, they are simply a person who has spent a large amount of time networking to be in the position.

I actually agree with your position in this discussion, but like... let's not. We are talking about FIGURE SKATING here. :think:
 

CanadianSkaterGuy

Record Breaker
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
I actually agree with your position in this discussion, but like... let's not. We are talking about FIGURE SKATING here. :think:

100%. People's rights to human decency and not being discriminated shouldn't be conflated with a skater's "right" to have their jump rotation accurately assessed (or, in this case, the "right" to have their opponent's rotation assessed - so that said opponent doesn't score as high for technical flaws).
 

largeman

choice beef
Medalist
Joined
Mar 15, 2014
:eek:topic:

Welcome back, Blades of Passion :)

I know right? A few days away from these forums, and I come back to find multiple posts from BoP on the topic of prerotation. It's like Christmas came early :luv17:
 

narcissa

Record Breaker
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
In the ideal world, PR past 90 degrees for toe jumps and axels and past 180 degrees for edge jumps and UR should be added together and an allowance of 90 degrees (or some other standard number) should be allowed. It makes no sense for one to be penalized so harshly and the other to be ignored because I think skaters do trade them off against each other. Personally, aesthetically I think UR looks better than PR.

Skaters like Trusova seem to pre-rotate their quads about 180 degrees but when landed well they don't seem to have ANY under-rotation! :eeking: So they are still full-credit quads.
 

doublequad

On the Ice
Joined
Aug 4, 2018
In the ideal world, PR past 90 degrees for toe jumps and axels and past 180 degrees for edge jumps and UR should be added together and an allowance of 90 degrees (or some other standard number) should be allowed. It makes no sense for one to be penalized so harshly and the other to be ignored because I think skaters do trade them off against each other. Personally, aesthetically I think UR looks better than PR.

Skaters like Trusova seem to pre-rotate their quads about 180 degrees but when landed well they don't seem to have ANY under-rotation! :eeking: So they are still full-credit quads.

that is an excellent point
 

Blades of Passion

Skating is Art, if you let it be
Record Breaker
Joined
Sep 14, 2008
Country
France
Well no, my point of discussion is not about if the recommendations are right or wrong. My point was that judges follow some kind of recommendations, and how those recommendations are not in line with your narrative.

Again, the quote you refer to specifically says they look for position of the toepick for takeoff and that they do try to account for pre-rotation. They then go on to admit that they usually can't see pre-rotation problems without slo-mo assist...which is their own fault. When I went and watched the performances at Junior worlds, what immediately stood out to me was the egregious pre-rotation on the jumps. Watching in real time. I of course believe slo-mo should be used, as accuracy is important, but you don't need it to spot the general problem. The judges do not have the skill to properly assess what is in front of them, as per their own "recommendations", and that is a big issue.

I also don't get when something is factual - as in people have to agree with you?

No, as in factual. Such as the factual rotation a given jump has, that could be exactly measured, something that never changes regardless of opinion.

100%. People's rights to human decency and not being discriminated shouldn't be conflated with a skater's "right" to have their jump rotation accurately assessed (or, in this case, the "right" to have their opponent's rotation assessed - so that said opponent doesn't score as high for technical flaws).

Please no more straw-man arguments. Any number of examples can be used to showcase historical errors of judges and entire systems of judgements. The one I picked is just the most visceral, so as to show exactly how large the problem of ignorance can be. The point being that the current state of things is deeply wrong, and someone being an "ISU judge" does not mean anything in and of itself, as to how correct they are. Actually, if an "ISU judge" is being instructed to do things incorrectly, then that actually means they are more likely to be incorrect. It's no different than if a car repair shop gave their employees incorrect instructions on how to do repairs. The mechanics are the people who supposedly should know what they are doing and that we ideally should trust for the job, but if they are being told what to do incorrectly, then you are going to get incorrect results.
 

Baron Vladimir

Record Breaker
Joined
Dec 18, 2014
Again, the quote you refer to specifically says they look for position of the toepick for takeoff and that they do try to account for pre-rotation. They then go on to admit that they usually can't see pre-rotation problems without slo-mo assist...which is their own fault. When I went and watched the performances at Junior worlds, what immediately stood out to me was the egregious pre-rotation on the jumps. Watching in real time. I of course believe slo-mo should be used, as accuracy is important, but you don't need it to spot the general problem. The judges do not have the skill to properly assess what is in front of them, as per their own "recommendations", and that is a big issue.

That is not what she was saying. She was saying that they react 1) only at excessive pre-rotation 2) only when that excessive pre-rotation is visible in real time. That means that they think that most of the jumps are 'pre-rotated' in allowed range of pre-rotation (or in a real time, they mostly use 'in skater's favour' rule). Actually, i never heard in a skating community someone noted about any skater's 'pre-rotated' jumps, except Eurosport commentators and that only once for Satoko's jumps. Which only means that majority of people in the skating community don't think how skaters jump with excessive 'pre-rotation'. They basically don't use that word in their vocabulary. So, what you see/think is not the same with what majority and ISU see/think, or maybe you are seeing the same things but following different rules and talk with 'different language'. Maybe in the future we will have strict recommendations for 'pre-rotated' jumps. But we don't have it now in a form you are presenting here... E: I can give an analogy with other sports. For example, they introduce the VAR system in soccer games to allow judges to see replays of some situations. But still, that VAR system is not used all the time, it can be a decisive factor only in some situations, which 'soccer union' think is crucial for the game... Majority of people just don't think 'pre-rotation' is that important concept for figure skating (yet), so their observatations (and technology they use) is not directed toward that in first place...
 
Top