Post rule change predictions

[chopinskate]

It’s very obvious to me that UR calls are made based about 95% on the landing position. The consideration given to takeoff could be summed up as “tangent line to the point where the skater initiates takeoff” so for toe jumps think tappping the toe pick and not the toepick leaving the ice. On that note, the 180 PR jump would be called clean and the 0 PR jump would be called “<.” It’s not explicitly spelled out in the ISU rulebook but that’s just how it’s always been.

Yes, and all I'm trying to say is that since the 0 PR person is essentially doing a lot more work than the 180 PR person, marking the former as UR is not the correct call. Some leeway should be prescribed here.

 

[Baron Vladimir]

1. Jumps with good axes in the air, tano or not tano. Kaetlyn for example jumps with good air position, but it happens sometimes (rarely tho) her jump being too wild in the air. Plushenko had bad air positions on some of his jumps at Vancouver.
2. Prerotation to 180 degree is allowed. Most of the ladies taking off the jump with alloweed degree, if not all of them. Some of them will mess up the take off, but mostly cause the edge on take off...
I think we can expect most of the top skaters will fullfil both those bullets, unless bad landing happens. That will stay the biggest problem for most of them! I would say skaters who were getting perfect +3 now will get average 4.5, skaters with most of +2 now will get 3, and skaters with average +1, now will get around 1.5.

 

[cohen-esque]

2 questions about the bullets for jump elements:

1. What could be considered very good body position? Does the skater need a tano or a rippon or simply a straight position with good posture and line?

I would say, straight posture, especially on landing and between jumps in a combination, and with nice line and extension on landing. Good axis in the air, nothing too wild: I agree with the example of Kaetlyn Osmond as someone who does jumps pretty often on a weird axis. If a 'tano or Rippon were included, I would *not* give this bullet if it was poorly done, but perhaps doing one well could help to offset a slight issue in another area. (It doesn't say "perfect body position," after all.)

2. The "good take off and landing" bullet takes into consideration minimal pre-rotation? That would mean most of the ladies should not get that bullet.

I would say that, yes, if the judges think a jump had a nice clean takeoff, including minimal toepick PR and/or a quick vault into the air, they could reflect that in this bullet. But toepick PR is not the only thing about jump takeoffs, and even normal or "bad" PR by forum standards may not stop this bullet from being handed out if those other things are all very strong.

 

[cohen-esque]

Yes, and all I'm trying to say is that since the 0 PR person is essentially doing a lot more work than the 180 PR person, marking the former as UR is not the correct call. Some leeway should be prescribed here.

I do wish: and perhaps in a few years, with newer and cheaper technology, that the total rotation in the air, throughout all phases of the jump, could be considered in making rotation calls. Obviously skaters don't ever do perfect 360 jumps, but maybe the rule could be like "UR for jumps missing 270 degrees of in-air revolution or more" and "downgrade for missing 360 degrees of total in-air revolution or more" (with, obviously, 360 degrees equaling one revolution.) That corresponds to half a turn before being completely in the air, with a quarter turn on the landing as per the current rule.

Then a jump with, say, 270 degree spin on the toepick but landed absolutely, perfectly backwards would be borderline, while a jump landed about 120 degrees short but that vaulted into the air quickly with extremely little toepick PR could be fine, for the tech panel calls. And in both cases, the judges would still be free to reflect any problems (poor, scratchy landing or poor spinny takeoff) in the GOE even if there are no calls.

But tbh I think estimating angles like this would be harder than people think, especially since the start and landing points are always going to be a little bit arbitrary, so I'd only trust software that could actually count in-air revolutions, and not the tech panel guesstimating from takeoff and landing points. In the meantime, leave it to the GOE to reflect poor takeoffs and landings.

 

[Putina]

I think we can expect most of the top skaters will fullfil both those bullets, unless bad landing happens. That will stay the biggest problem for most of them! I would say skaters who were getting perfect +3 now will get average 4.5, skaters with most of +2 now will get 3, and skaters with average +1, now will get around 1.5.

Not according to gkelly's explanation.

Jumps
.. the very good height/distance, good takeoff/landing, and effortless throughout criteria are now mandatory for +4 or +5. So even if you have all of the other 3 criteria but only 1 or 2 of the mandatory ones, your GOE will be capped at new +3.

A jump must have a very good height/distance, correct technique, as well as speed/flow throughout in order to receive +4 or +5 GOE. Without these basics a jump cannot receive a GOE higher than +3 no matter how many bullet points a skater can check out. Plus, from what I gather some of the gimmicky bullet points of the past have been eliminated, meaning that a skater will have to master strong basic jumping techniques if he or she wants to receive +4/+5 GOE. Tano/Rippon, mule-kicks after thud-landing, laborious "transition" into jump with no running edge out, etc. will not count towards a plus factor, and might actually limit a higher GOE potential.

 

[Shayuki]

A jump must have a very good height/distance, correct technique, as well as speed/flow throughout in order to receive +4 or +5 GOE. Without these basics a jump cannot receive a GOE higher than +3 no matter how many bullet points a skater can check out.

Actually, a jump cannot receive a GOE higher than +2 in that case. You need to hit all 3 for +3 GOE.

Hence, indeed, we could expect to see some skaters get judged so that they get +2 GOE from some judges and +5 GOE from some others, with no one giving +3 or +4.

 

[Sam-Skwantch]

Actually, a jump cannot receive a GOE higher than +2 in that case. You need to hit all 3 for +3 GOE.

Hence, indeed, we could expect to see some skaters get judged so that they get +2 GOE from some judges and +5 GOE from some others, with no one giving +3 or +4.

It’s a terrible scoring format they’ve come up with. Probably best to just ignore it as best we can.

 

[Baron Vladimir]

And many of top skaters have very good air position and height and distance on some of their jumps. They all dont have excellent h&d tho, like Tukt or Gabby, but nobody asking from them to jump like that. Top skaters will be at simillar position they were before cause those things we are talking about judges were always considering while judging the skaters jumps... they are just litteraly written now... If you think Zagitova were getting high GOE because of tano, then you are wrong, believe me... While judging, judges do not always check all the recommended bullet points in their head (cause after all those are just recommendations and not the strict rules!), they already have in their mind (based on those recommendations and personal expirience) how quality jump or +3 jump looks like and they comparing jumps they see with that picture. Or you also think Gabbys 3T-3T litteraly checked all the bullet points back then for all the judges to be awarded with +3 across the board. It didnt, it was simply the best looking 3T 3T in the field.

 

[cohen-esque]

Actually, a jump cannot receive a GOE higher than +2 in that case. You need to hit all 3 for +3 GOE.

Hence, indeed, we could expect to see some skaters get judged so that they get +2 GOE from some judges and +5 GOE from some others, with no one giving +3 or +4.

No. All three core bullets are required to give an element *more* than +3, but to get a +3 itself a skater only needs to hit any three bullets, and those don’t even have to be any of the core bullets at all.

---

...Which bothers me a lot, since it means a skater who does fulfill two of the core bullets and, say, five bullets overall could score the same as a skater who isn’t able to hit any of the core bullets at all. I wish they’d staggered the core bullets a bit. Like for +3 “one of the three core bullets,” for +4 “two of the three core bullets” and for +5 “all three core bullets.” But maybe that’s expecting the judges to keep too much in their heads.

 

[Shayuki]

No. All three core bullets are required to give an element *more* than +3, but to get a +3 itself a skater only needs to hit any three bullets, and those don’t even have to be any of the core bullets at all.

---

...Which bothers me a lot, since it means a skater who does fulfill two of the core bullets and, say, five bullets overall could score the same as a skater who isn’t able to hit any of the core bullets at all. I wish they’d staggered the core bullets a bit. Like for +3 “one of the three core bullets,” for +4 “two of the three core bullets” and for +5 “all three core bullets.” But maybe that’s expecting the judges to keep too much in their heads.

Ugh, true. I was mistaken. You can get +3 GOE with element matched, good body position and difficult entry. Yeah, I'm not sure... how much sense this makes, actually. The border from +3 to +4 with 0 of the core points vs all 3 required is probably too steep.

 

[cohen-esque]

Ugh, true. I was mistaken. You can get +3 GOE with element matched, good body position and difficult entry. Yeah, I'm not sure... how much sense this makes, actually. The border from +3 to +4 with 0 of the core points vs all 3 required is probably too steep.

I do really like the idea of having important qualities to elements that need to be fulfilled for the highest GOEs to be achieved. But it’s like everything else with the ISU: they take a perfectly good idea and implement it in the most hamfisted way possible.