ISU Communication 2558 - season 2023/24 Single & Pair Skating Levels of Difficulty & Guidelines for marking GOE & PCS

[Sylvia]

Levels of Difficulty and Guidelines for marking Grade of Execution and Program Components Season 2023/24 (April 26, 2023; 13 pages): https://www.isu.org/inside-isu/isu-communications/communications/31153-isu-communication-2558/file

This replaces Communication No. 2474.

I. Updated Levels of Difficulty of Single/Pair Skating Elements (season 2023/24)
II. Updated Guidelines for marking +GOE of Single/Pair Skating Elements (positive aspects)
III. Updated Guidelines in establishing GOE for errors in Short Program and Free Skating
IV. Changes and clarifications for GOE and Program Components for season 2023/24

Additional remarks for technical elements and features are found in Technical Panel Handbooks for Single Skating and Pair Skating. (Not yet available - will be published here: https://www.isu.org/figure-skating/rules/sandp-handbooks-faq)

 

[On My Own]

Hope to never see an illusion exit again with these changes!

 

[thvu]

A “Poor take-off” is now -2 to -4 GOE reduction.

Will we actually see this applied to skaters with atrocious take-offs like Morisi’s toeloop or Shoma’s flip? Or will reputation protect skaters like Shoma?

 

[tony]

A “Poor take-off” is now -2 to -4 GOE reduction.

Will we actually see this applied to skaters with atrocious take-offs like Morisi’s toeloop or Shoma’s flip? Or will reputation protect skaters like Shoma?

Which theoretically means any element deemed as such should receive +1 max GOE, which is still outrageous. I don’t care who says what about technique physics— the foot should not be twisting nearly a whole rotation before getting off the ice, ever.

Not that shifting the power to the technical panel is going to make the calls any more accurate, but there’s no sense making the judges still responsible for applying it ‘if they see it’ when they never do it now.

 

[skatingguy]

I wish some of the spin requirements were simplified.
For example:
10) At least 8 rev. without changes in position/variation, foot or edge (camel, Layback, difficult variation of any basic position or for combinations only non-basic position)
can only be counted as a feature on one spin. I think for a lot of skaters spins would look better if they could focus on fewer positions in each spin being performed.

 

[On My Own]

I wish some of the spin requirements were simplified.
For example:
10) At least 8 rev. without changes in position/variation, foot or edge (camel, Layback, difficult variation of any basic position or for combinations only non-basic position)
can only be counted as a feature on one spin. I think for a lot of skaters spins would look better if they could focus on fewer positions in each spin being performed.

So you mean you wish for this feature to be counted for multiple spins?

 

[skatingguy]

So you mean you wish for this feature to be counted for multiple spins?

Yes.

 

[gkelly]

It would make sense to count it once each for camel, sit, or layback/difficult upright positions. But that wouldn't really make the rules "simpler" -- just different, and more encouraging to skaters to hold positions without necessarily going for difficult variations.

 

[VGThuy]

It would make sense to count it once each for camel, sit, or layback/difficult upright positions. But that wouldn't really make the rules "simpler" -- just different, and more encouraging to skaters to hold positions without necessarily going for difficult variations.

That sounds beautiful. I wouldn’t mind killing the Biellman or recognizing it as a spin separate from the layback and letting the classic turned out layback position be the “difficult” position the way the Biellman is now. I guess they’re all just “upright spins” but there’s got to be something done.

 

[skatingguy]

It would make sense to count it once each for camel, sit, or layback/difficult upright positions. But that wouldn't really make the rules "simpler" -- just different, and more encouraging to skaters to hold positions without necessarily going for difficult variations.

I think allowing skaters to do fewer positions or features to get levels is a simplification of the rules even if the writing of the rules only varies by a few words.

 

[Marco]

It would make sense to count it once each for camel, sit, or layback/difficult upright positions. But that wouldn't really make the rules "simpler" -- just different, and more encouraging to skaters to hold positions without necessarily going for difficult variations.

Either once for each position, or simply once per spin (probably easier to administer).

In my mind watching a skater hold a position nicely and steadily without losing speed and centre for 8 revs is much more impressive than watching them fold into painful looking positions for 2.5 revs and then falling out. Yet the latter can be rewarded multiple times. There has to be a way for non-flexible spinners to be rewarded too, and NOT by allowing sloppy illusion exits.

 

[Marco]

I wonder if anyone ever got a spin downgraded a level because the jump within it was "not clearly visible enough"?

And I wish they had gotten rid of the "q" already. It's never so exact and depends way too much on the caller's mood / angle at the time.

Now that they have jump sequences receive full value for a whole season now - I wish they would start exploring giving combo jumps bonuses.

I wonder if "poor takeoff" for jumps mean both the lack of clear edge / toe pick (ala Morisi) as well as severe pre-rotation? This was raised in a discussion before the Olympics but was dropped IIRC. For me a overly severe / painful jab into the ice at takeoff is also 'poor', as well as the way Kamila shifts her upper body when she does her jump combos.

There is also a "poor exit" for spins which I hope is for all those illusion spin exits done horribly. Also, I absolutely hate when skaters put their foot down to stop a spin. I hope this counts as a poor exit too.

 

[tony]

From further down the document:

Poor take-off: For example a toe-assisted jump is taken off from the full blade, Toe Loop is executed like a Toe Axel or there is excessive rotation on the ice at the take-off. The reduction in GOE is -2 to -4.

The jerky/jolting quality between combo jumps is covered, IMO, in two different reductions but it seems to be hardly ever applied.

Agreed about the 'q'. It's indeed pointless and oftentimes seems a means for judges to keep their GOE high rather than skaters losing base value and lowering the GOE even more.

 

[On My Own]

Yes.

I think allowing skaters to do fewer positions or features to get levels is a simplification of the rules even if the writing of the rules only varies by a few words.

IMO, the 8 revs rule is fine as is. They should instead weight some of the other features a bit more (counting them twice or thrice based on difficulty) so that skaters choose to do fewer positions instead. What I would limit is the "difficult positions" rule - I'd limit it to there being one difficult position counted per spin no matter how many attempted. (ETA: maybe this would need a bit more nuance in terms of GOE, but I'd be fine with a difficult position being counted across multiple spins as well, not necessarily being unique every time)

Change of edge on a layback could count twice, and change of edge on a biellmann could count thrice.

 

[Coco]

I've always thought there should be only 3 positions - sit, camel, upright. Any leaning position (forward-ugh, sideways, backwards) should be considered the DV.

Not sure if going from sideways to layback is actually any more difficult than just achieving the layback position, or if they created this DV to artificially inflate the # of DVs a layback might have.

Also, a lot of "sideways" leaning spin positions maybe wouldn't get credit as a DV unless that position was hit in the process of a layback spin. They just don't seem to lean enough, or otherwise hit the criteria for a DV, but then I've never done one so I wouldn't know.

 

[On My Own]

Not sure if going from sideways to layback is actually any more difficult than just achieving the layback position, or if they created this DV to artificially inflate the # of DVs a layback might have.

Also, a lot of "sideways" leaning spin positions maybe wouldn't get credit as a DV unless that position was hit in the process of a layback spin. They just don't seem to lean enough, or otherwise hit the criteria for a DV, but then I've never done one so I wouldn't know.

Agree! I'd actually have classic layback as the DV, with arched back and raised leg in attitude (turned out properly et cetera).

 

[On My Own]

Does anyone know what the scope of "difficult change of position on the same foot" is for a spin?

 

[gkelly]

Does anyone know what the scope of "difficult change of position on the same foot" is for a spin?

According to the 2022-23 technical panel handbook, "Change from a basic position to a different basic position without establishing a non-basic position, requiring significant strength, skill and control and having an impact on the ability to execute the position change. Continuous movement must be performed throughout the change. May not include a jump to execute the change. The basic positions before and after the change must be held for 2 revolutions."

 

[On My Own]

According to the 2022-23 technical panel handbook, "Change from a basic position to a different basic position without establishing a non-basic position, requiring significant strength, skill and control and having an impact on the ability to execute the position change. Continuous movement must be performed throughout the change. May not include a jump to execute the change. The basic positions before and after the change must be held for 2 revolutions."

Can you give me some examples that satisfy this? I can only think of this one: https://youtu.be/N9-MPN_DyHo?t=120

(the upright to sit after he changes foot)

 

[gkelly]

In the combination spin, after the the change sitspin that your link goes to?

Looks difficult to me.

Also, I think, changing from sitspin to camel spin, which is much more difficult than the reverse.

But I'm not aware of any written document that gives specific examples.

 

[On My Own]

In the combination spin, after the the change sitspin that your link goes to?

Yes. That's the only example I can think of, under CoP at least.

I think it must be a very rare and very difficult feature. Probably one that should double count.

Also, I think, changing from sitspin to camel spin, which is much more difficult than the reverse.

Yes, I'd love to see spins be more creative and attempt harder things like these.

 

[vu2019]

In the combination spin, after the the change sitspin that your link goes to?

Looks difficult to me.

Also, I think, changing from sitspin to camel spin, which is much more difficult than the reverse.

But I'm not aware of any written document that gives specific examples.

The TP handbook does list windmill (illusion) as potentially being used as a difficult change of position (though only in the "windmill" section). https://www.isu.org/figure-skating/.../24781-tphb-single-skating-2020-21-final/file

The most common one is definitely going from a sit spin to camel spin as you noted. Also sometimes seen is transitioning between camel and layback (upright) variations while maintaining hold of the blade.

Thanks for that video example, @On My Own. I think that would fulfill the criteria.

 

[On My Own]

The TP handbook does list windmill (illusion) as potentially being used as a difficult change of position (though only in the "windmill" section).

Having a hard time visualizing how this would work. If Illusion is non-basic as they say, then how can it count within this feature? And how would changing from sit to illusion or upright to illusion work? Standard camel to illusion at least I can see.

Also sometimes seen is transitioning between camel and layback (upright) variations while maintaining hold of the blade.

Any examples?

 

[VGThuy]

I wonder how picky and consistent the technical calls will be in recognizing this feature. Often times, skaters adopt the same features others skaters do because those features are proven to be much more consistently called in the skater's favor.

 

[vu2019]

Having a hard time visualizing how this would work. If Illusion is non-basic as they say, then how can it count within this feature? And how would changing from sit to illusion or upright to illusion work? Standard camel to illusion at least I can see.

Yes, an illusion is considered a non-basic variation if done 3 times in a row, so the skater couldn't do it 3 times for it to count for the difficult change of position feature, and it would have to be used as a transition between two basic positions (e.g., camel and sit), not with the illusion itself being one of the positions. I haven't seen that attempted as a feature very often, if at all, but the handbook leaves it open as a possibility.

Any examples?

I can't think of any examples of the camel to layback variation that would be easy to find off the top of my head, but will see if I can find one.

 

[On My Own]

I wonder how picky and consistent the technical calls will be in recognizing this feature. Often times, skaters adopt the same features others skaters do because those features are proven to be much more consistently called in the skater's favor.

Oh it's an old feature, but don't remember when it got introduced (not sure if Farris did it because he was getting a level for it or out of whim). It's why I'm curious how many even exist, because I was reading through it again, and I just can't name anyone apart from Farris. I'm sure a couple others would have done it, and adopted the same transition, though, because of the reason you state.

The camel-sit probably does exist. Can't recall anyone doing that camel-layback though.

Also, biggest copout would be half-biellmann to biellmann lol

 

[gkelly]

Difficult change of position from basic to another basic is not new for 2023-24 (it's not underlined in the new document, and it is already explained in last season's tech panel handbook). There is already at least a year's worth of experience with that feature.

The first time I noticed sit-to-camel change:

Maria Butyrskaya (RUS) - 1998 Nagano, Figure Skating, Ladies' Short Program

Nagano, JAPAN - 1998 Winter Games, Figure Skating, Ladies' Short Program - Maria Butyrskaya of Russia was the first to skate out of the field of 28 skaters. ...

www.youtube.com

That's before IJS, so who knows how that spin would be called this year.

I'm sure I saw others this past season, but I can't remember specific examples.

 

[VGThuy]

Oh it's an old feature, but don't remember when it got introduced (not sure if Farris did it because he was getting a level for it or out of whim). It's why I'm curious how many even exist, because I was reading through it again, and I just can't name anyone apart from Farris. I'm sure a couple others would have done it, and adopted the same transition, though, because of the reason you state.

The camel-sit probably does exist. Can't recall anyone doing that camel-layback though.

Also, biggest copout would be half-biellmann to biellmann lol

I haven't really watched skating as closely this past season, so I'm curious if there are any examples from the past season people can cite.

 

[On My Own]

That's before IJS, so who knows how that spin would be called this year.

Yeah I'm curious if it'd count for the feature, because I feel like it won't satisfy "Change from a basic position to a different basic position without establishing a non-basic position," (bolded part), even though illusion is apparently perfectly fine, so who knows.

I think it'd look more like a tuck spin, and then the skater holds their foot and unfurls their leg up while raising their upper body, going to a half-biellmann/catch-camel.

 

[Coco]

What about a Hamill Camel to sit spin?

I also recall Michelle Kwan doing an unusual transition from camel to corkscrew in one version of Scherazade. I wonder if that would count.