Actually, this brings up an interesting point I have been wondering about. (Don't know if I should discuss it here. Maybe need to start a new thread.) But I thought that in another thread somewhere I read that one of the new changes going through the ISU this year concerned "cheated" jumps getting some value (more than the lesser jump but not the value of the higher jump). For example, 2 complete rotations on a 2axel landed forward with a 3 turn would be worth more base value than a single but not up to a fully clean 2axel. I'm not talking about GOE here, just base value. Does anyone know anything about this?????

Oh!! I just found the answer on another forum. It says that:

Jump under-rotated by 1/4 to 1/2 revolution gets 70% of base value. Jump under-rotated by more than 1/2 gets downgraded to next lower jump.

So this would tend to favor the "muscling jumps" side.

Of course, a judge who was not on our "side" could slam us with GOE.

Still 70% is pretty good.....

I think if the jump is underrotated to the naked eye- the negative GOE will happen.

It's jumps that only the tech caller can see on slow-mo that the judges don't mark down.

__________________
-Jessi
What I need is a montage...
Visit my skating journal or my Youtube videos (updated with 2 new videos Sept 26, 2009)

So, technically, if there is a clear 3 turn, (1/2 rotation short), then "officially" the skater should get 70% of the higher base value...... But he/she would be hit with a negative GOE (from -1 to -3). Right?

P.S. This thread got moved from the "steady vs hate" thread. That is why it is kind of "odd" looking out here on it's own.

Cool. Have found answer to this. Was wondering about it for a while....

No, jumps from 1/4 to 1/2 get 70% of the base value.

If you have 1/2 or more- then it's a single or double depending on if you were doing a double or triple. And they also likely get the negative GOE. So if you are underrotating by 1/2 you are going to get hit hard.

(Actually it looks like depending on where you read the ruling the exactly 1/2 mark is questionable. Still- I wouldn't risk underrotating by that much if you are planning to underrotate, in case the caller takes the harder stance. But why PLAN to underrotate? Fix the jumps! <--- says the girl who spent a year and a half learning to not toe-waltz.)

__________________
-Jessi
What I need is a montage...
Visit my skating journal or my Youtube videos (updated with 2 new videos Sept 26, 2009)

This is actually a good thing for those of us only doing singles and coming up against harsh tech panels without slow-mo replay. At least there's a chance that we might get something called. It's very demoralising when your coach tells you that your jumps were clean on the video, but the score sheet says that they weren't and the only thing called was the step sequence.
The rules were written for people doing triple jumps and those at the lower ends are stuck trying to work within them when they weren't designed for us.

Actually, this is also interesting because I had a discussion about it with another skater who is also working on her 2axel (although she is 10 years younger than me). She has always been an ice skater (as a child). And she is going for the "whole thing": That is, the complete 2 1/2 revs. Now, I am taking the "roller approach" by going for the full 3 turn at the end in order to find my axis (the axis is not the same as on the single.) When I feel secure on my takeoff and I know where the axis is, then I will add the power for the full rotation. This is how all jumps work on roller.

Now, on ice I can see that she has "good" air position which means her legs are very tight and toes are pointed. I guess it is difficut/impossible? for her to land forward and "cheat" because when she does come down 1/2 short she just hits her picks and falls forward, (not flat enough on the blade to 3 turn it.) I am, of couse, much looser in the air and can save the jump with the 3 turn.....

I was thinking this is a difference between ice and roller, but then I noticed that almost all of the kids at the rink are "cheating" their doubles as they learn them, (landing forward and turning), even the ones with "good" air position. Their coaches seem happy with this. Eventually these kids find their axis and rotate it like we did on roller. It only seems to be the late teens/adults who have a problem with this approach. It is kind of an ego thing.... I don't cheat my jumps....You know what I mean?

I would argue you should cheat your jumps until you learn where your axis is.... But like I said this might just be another way of approaching the added rotation. I like my way better, it hurts less....

Yes, this is one rule I like. I think it helps almost all of us.

I would expect that a double jump that lands forward and turns to backward with a three turn on the ice would be downgraded to a single with the new << symbol, not get the 70% base value of the double with the < symbol. And probably average -2 GOE.

I see a lot of skaters at the preliminary and prejuvenile levels putting severely cheated doubles into their programs. These levels are not judged under IJS in the US. I also see it fairly often at juvenile. The thinking is probably that the skaters will get experience putting out "double" jumps in competition and landing them on one foot at this early point in their career and that the quality of their jumps will improve as they move up in skill level and as they get physically stronger. Depending how their bodies change at puberty that may or may not happen -- some will never be able to rotate the jumps fully.

Same with the better juveniles and intermediates attempting double axels, or intermediates and novices attempting triples. Sometimes they put them out in competition knowing they won't get full credit because they want the experience of doing them in competition so that when (if) they do get clean jumps it won't be a new experience trying them in front of judges.

With adults it's a different story, especially adults first learning double or harder jumps as adults. Physical strength is more likely to decrease more quickly than the technique increases.

A juvenile-level skater with cheated doubles is more likely to have clean doubles a few years from now than a gold-level adult-onset skater.

For that matter, former kid skaters at higher levels who used to do clean doubles with ease and even land some triples may struggle to rotate doubles 20+ years later.

But an adult who learns to land moderately cheated (clearly less than 180 degrees) double jumps, or even single axels, as an adult has still accomplished something impressive, so it's good to have that accomplishment be worth more than a bad single . . . or nothing, in the case of the axel.

Don't they rate lower level comp stuff in 6.0 anymore then?

Yes, but most judges have a very IJS mindset.

__________________
-Jessi
What I need is a montage...
Visit my skating journal or my Youtube videos (updated with 2 new videos Sept 26, 2009)

Yes they do but in the UK at least this year's adult championships was held under IJS and they applied the rules incredibly strictly which meant an awful lot of adults had their single jumps disregarded completely despite those same adults having competed previously and tested and passed with the same jumps.

My programme only had the upright spin and the step sequence counted (although it was at least pleasing to get no negative GOE's on these ) I was coming back from injury but I know my salchow and toe-loops were no worse than when I've previously scored quite well.

The reason given was not always about underrotation but apparently they decided most peoples jumps didn't even merit the -3 GOE (could be on height, air position, landing edges etc) so they didn't count them at all.

This meant there was no differentiation between someone who could make only a pathetic attempt at a jump, maybe not even taking off or landing two footed and someone whose jump was pretty reasonable and consistent and had passed the test at the level.

The UK is going all IJS in the next couple of years. They've had the first trial Opens for the kids and from next year club competitions can decide which way they want to go.
Adult competitions in mainland Europe tend to all be IJS.

I think Canada has a modified system so waltz jumps have a base value to help the lower level skaters. In the UK waltz jumps are disappearing from competition because they don't count for any points other than a different entry into the second jump.

I don't completely understand this because, technically, the new rule says "more than half" for downgrade and 1/4 to 1/2 for 70%, so the full 3 turn (landed forward) would fall on that line. (Know what I mean?)

I guess I am naturally "friendly" to this idea because roller always allowed "extra" points for a "good" cheat (balanced 3 turn that continued speed and flow).....

So you think that ice (judges) will come down on the downgrade side since they have a "choice" because the jump is on the "line" and ice seems to have a natural dislike for "cheats".......

Also.....
If you are correct and a judge downgrades to a single and then takes off the -2 GOE is this actually a lower score than a fall on a double?

It's not the judges who decide the downgrades, it's the technical panels. The judges just award the GOEs.

Some judges are sticklers; some are more forgiving.

Technical specialists tend to follow the letter of the law in that capacity, as far as I have seen.

I don't know what kind of training they have received, but it would seem to me that once you land on a forward inside edge instead of back outside (or toepick), you're not in a gray area any more -- the jump is clearly at least 180 degrees short.

When I was learning doubles and the axel as an adult, my coach wanted me to land on 1 foot whether I was under-rotated or not and to stand up. The idea was to get me used to being over my axis and completing the jump w/o a fall so I could build strength. Eventually, I would be able to land the full rotation, which I never did consistently. I think this is a similar mentality to landing a jump in a back spin and completing the rotation on the ice. If the skater is still spinning (rotating) she would eventually be able to continue to rotate in the air as the jump got higher and stronger.

Kay

__________________
Visit my figure skating journal
http://www.skatejournal.com/

ISU Communication 1611 (at p1 section 1) actually says:

• A Jump/Throw will be considered as “Under-rotated” if it has “missing rotation of more than ¼, but less than ½ revolutions”.

• A Jump/Throw will be considered as “Downgraded” if it has “missing rotation of ½ revolutions or more”.

So the 180 degree cheat will be downgraded.

Oh, now that makes sense. I got the other wording off another forum and it seemed really confusing as to where a 1/2 rotation would fit in.....This wording makes much more sense.

Yes, that is how we always learned the next rotation on roller. We would delibrately go for the 1/2 cheat. (Roller skates can only land forward or back. Quarters don't work, skate slips out sideways and the dreaded "hip slam" happens. Bad.) This allowed us to get the "feel" of the new take off and find the new axis. When the 1/2 cheat was "solid" then we would add extra knee bend and speed and try for the whole rotation. That always worked (and it looks like what the younger kids are doing on ice)....BUT...

As I said, when I bring this up to "older" ice skaters (late teens and adults) they tend to think a "cheat" is unacceptable (even as a learning tool), and throw themselves as hard as possible into the air in order to rotate the whole thing.....Ouch!!

At first I thought it had to so with the toepicks catching on the forward landings, but now I think it is more of an ego type thing. ("Better to fall fully rotated than to stand up short of rotation.") Nothing wrong with either approach, (in my opinion), but I was just shocked because they seem to be leaving out a really crucial step.....And the little kids do seem to use the "cheat" method like we did. It is just the older kids/adults who don't. Strange.

Also, it may come into play that on ice "cheats" are heavily deducted (downgraded) while in roller they are given credit...... So if the skater plans to use the jump in a competition, they will need to have it (mostly) around. But I don't see why they skip the "cheat" method as a learning tool. After all, they don't have to actually use the jump until it is clean.....

It has nothing to do with ego. A lot of teens/adults who start working on doubles have the physical strength to get the full rotation and don't need to cheat the jumps, they just have take-off and landing issues to sort out in order to get it clean. They usually start with drills to build up to the rotation (i.e. doing 1.5 revs and landing forward on 2 feet, and once that's down it's not much more to go for the full rotation). If a skater is physically strong enough to fully rotate a jump, no coach is going to "teach" them to cheat it. The ones I see cheating a lot on the ice are the really little ones who can hardly see over the boards but are working on doubles and they often do not have the strength yet when they start working on them.

Plus, at least under the old rules, you were better off doing a slightly two-footed jump with enough rotation than cheating it. Two of my friends compete in gold. One has a large axel that is fully-rotated but is never landed clean (she touches the free foot down every time). She still gets them called as axels, and just gets a hit to her GOE. Another friend lands hers on one foot but a lot of times they are cheated and don't get called as axels. Whose PCS score takes the bigger hit?


I wonder how this will work if a jump is cheated on the take-off, rather than the landing. You see this mostly on axels (you know...the "axel" where the take-off edge hooks around so much that the skater is practically backwards before they take off, or they are thinking rotation versus driving the knee through first and wind up starting to rotate before the foot fully leaves the ice)? Those are technically "missing rotation" as far as the wording of the rule is concerned, but the way the take-off is done, it really makes it more of a salchow. An axel with a clean forward take-off that is short rotation on the landing still has the correct forward take-off of an axel.

__________________
2010-2011 goals:
Pass Junior MIF test
Don't break anything

Yes, I think this is where the real diffence is. The ice skates who want to use the jump in competition are better off getting it around (for the competitin scores), while in roller, you get some credit for the "cheat."

Good point. The rule seems to only reflect "cheats" on the end of jumps. Not on the beginnings.....

I thought they only started counting the rotation from the point of take-off? I know in some of the cheated take-offs it can be difficult to call the actual point (and there's the bit about most jumps actually pre-rotating slightly before leaving the ice), but the really bad ones are quite obvious in the same ways as the bad landings where they 3turn out of it are equally obvious.

Because landing forward on a figure skating blade is more dangerous than on roller skates due to the rocker and toerake. Landing forward on a rocker can easily allow the skater to roll forward out of control and trip over the toepick. Ice figure skaters always try to fall on their butt rather than face-plant. On a roller floor, you don't have the sliding factor to consider, but on ice, it really does help eliminate serious injuries by lessening the impact.

Landing forward and threeing also develops the bad habit of landing on a flat or edge instead of the toepick-to-edge transition needed for a correct landing. While using the correct landing foot is good, most skaters benefit from trying to complete the jump.

It was really funny (to me) when skidding the axel entrance became acceptable and the norm. I was ahead of my time, I tell you - all coaches and judges back then were looking for clean outside edge/toepick takeoffs. The skid would have been a cheat. My eyes were incredibly wide when Priscilla Hill gave a PSA jump workshop and described teaching Johnny Weir how to skid. (He was working on the triple, of course, lol.) The times, they are a'changing.


Just FYI: The jumps' rotation measurement is based on your blade's position on takeoff and landing, based on the tech specialists slow-motion demos shown during the Olympics. If you were to enter an axel with a little three-turn on the entrance, the jump would be actually be a salchow (BO edge entrance) because you're only performing a single revolution in the air due to the 1/2 turn on the ice. If you sacrifice the rotation on the entry or the exit, I believe the jump will be marked as underrotated - note that the rule aussieskater posted doesn't specify landing. That's the new definition of a "cheat" - more than a 1/4 turn short, and it'll cost you under IJS.

__________________

It's been explained to me by tech callers that they "add" together the cheat from the front and the back end.

GOE is probably more likely to be just off the landing, unless the cheat on the front is very obvious- because the judges don't get a replay.

__________________
-Jessi
What I need is a montage...
Visit my skating journal or my Youtube videos (updated with 2 new videos Sept 26, 2009)

When I could do axels, I often cheated the takeoff, sometimes to the point of skidding to backward still on the ice, making it more like a salchow.

I figure, if the blade is still traveling forward when it leaves the ice, and there's more than 1 full rotation, it's an axel. Whether it's downgradable depends on the calling rules at the time.

I have once seen a more advanced adult skater make the skid-to-backward error on an intended axel takeoff and have it called as a salchow.