Proposals to ISU Congress 2018-2019 Season

[Alchamei]

Does that mean that even if Javi won or was second at Worlds, but he was the only skater there, that Spain could get only two spots at the Olympics, since they would send only one skater to Nebelhorn? If so, it is a good idea but with dumb execution.

 

[sweetice]

I think it would work like:
Kostner is top 10 at Worlds. No other Italian girl entered. Italy qualified for 2 spots on the previous method

With the new one, 1 spot would be qualified. Italy would send a girl to Nebelhorn. If said girl, whoever she is, finishes in top 6 at Nebelhorn, Italy confirms the second spot. Then Italy can send to Olympics Leccardi even if it was Russo who skated at Nebelhorn.

Fair.

At least the second or third spot will be take only if those nations are also able to show the presence of worthy skaters.

 

[chopinskate]

One of the women sitting behind Prins looks like Ellen Degeneres.

 

[lavenderblossom]

USA rep is anti- evaluating each PCS component according to its criteria calling it verbiage

Agh, it didn't pass :noshake:

I hope they pass the next 2 proposals from Norway.

 

[chopinskate]

OK, I'm slightly behind, but: WHAT'S A SERIOUS ERROR????????????????????????????????????????

 

[Danny T]

LOL they just voted against putting "Evaluate each Program Component according to its individual criteria" in the rules

 

[chopinskate]

LOL they just voted against putting "Evaluate each Program Component according to its individual criteria" in the rules

I give up.

 

[xeyra]

#Sidenote: Javi didn't compete in Milan and the chance is pretty high that he's going to retire after Euros next year.
ISU will be devastated that the entire discussion right now will be pointless

There's still Carolina left!

 

[lavenderblossom]

LOL they just voted against putting "Evaluate each Program Component according to its individual criteria" in the rules

I can't summon the energy required to be mad anymore.
I am saving some for if for some reason they don't pass #245.

 

[cohen-esque]

From way, way back: did they vote on the no steps for the SP solo jump requirement yet? Just found it while rereading the proposals and remember hearing about it being discussed but not a result.

 

[chaser]

Judges should not be team leaders.

 

[lavenderblossom]

From way, way back: did they vote on the no steps for the SP solo jump requirement yet? Just found it while rereading the proposals and remember hearing about it being discussed but not a result.

It was mentioned at the start but I don't think they discussed the specific proposal yet.

 

[Harriet]

Call it my own professional bias, but I can't help thinking that what these people need is a good editor, because if nothing else it would mean all the published proposals would at least be comprehensible.

 

[Danny T]

They're currently in the Section of "Special Regulations" in the document. They're at proposal 236 out of 244 of this section

All the rule amendments discussed the other day (men tights, quad repetition, SOV(?)) are in the "Technical Rules" section, which comes after the "Special Regulations" section. The tights proposal starts as proposal number 245. I think they will vote on this section tomorrow(?) or later today - not clear on the timeline.

 

[karne]

Call it my own professional bias, but I can't help thinking that what these people need is a good editor, because if nothing else it would mean all the published proposals would at least be comprehensible.

The expression on Lakernik's face when he pointed out that it didn't even make sense (the sentence about the ISU officials not being able to be team leaders at ISU Championships event) was priceless.

And here comes the US delegate making it even more complicated, unnecessarily.

EDIT: Excellent, the stupid US amendment was kicked.

 

[lavenderblossom]

Call it my own professional bias, but I can't help thinking that what these people need is a good editor, because if nothing else it would mean all the published proposals would at least be comprehensible.

It might be difficult to a) find an editor to work through every proposal with every federation or b) force every federation to hire an editor who can translate the proposals accurately, though.

oh goodie my fed rep is doing something useful to support #237 but not at the right time unfortunately, she could have waited till they moved on.

 

[chopinskate]

What just passed?

 

[Andrea82]

so the amendment is approved....but "Fabio, you must give it to us in correct written form, without the mistake"

 

[xeyra]

They're currently in the Section of "Special Regulations" in the document. They're at proposal 236 out of 244 of this section

All the rule amendments discussed the other day (men tights, quad repetition, SOV(?)) are in the "Technical Rules" section, which comes after the "Special Regulations" section. The tights proposal starts as proposal number 245. I think they will vote on this section tomorrow(?) or later today - not clear on the timeline.

Oh God, there's still one more day of this?

Edit: Actually, there's two more days of this. It ends on the 8th.

 

[Danny T]

What just passed?

ISU officials not serving as team leader at ISU Championships. But with tons of spoken amendment so I'm also not clear what is exactly decided.