No, it shouldn’t. 1. The COP states in Section 9: “All directives for angles of completion of elements and body positions are approximate and meant to serve as a guideline.”
That does NOT say a gymnast should have their turn with multiple revolutions on toe examined frame-by-frame and devalued for a split-second dip of a few degrees. Even in real-time, how many gymnasts hold their leg in a full 180-degree split throughout the entire 2+ revolutions of a Y turn? 0.
“L” turns have always been described with the THIGH being decisive for “leg.” That is why the description applies to L, Attitude (leg bent backward at the knee, yet thigh is at horizontal), Volleman’s edition (leg bent at the knee with hand support, yet thigh is at horizontal). Angelina’s THIGH is AT horizontal. It might be 5 degrees short, but that can’t be proven in real-time OR from a screenshot at this angle anyway. The human eye literally cannot fairly evaluate whether a gymnast’s thigh drops 5 degrees for .001 seconds of a double turn.
Given the precedent of turns receiving credit since 2009, there is clearly an understanding of this since as I said, NO gymnast reaches/holds a full L or 180 split for a full 2 turns when accounting for the lift and exit. Period. She’s already getting hit with an insane amount of deductions for precision, body shape, etc. Sure, the WTC ought to be more specific and explicitly allow discretion for close calls in the COP. However, as it is currently written and as the D Panel has acted in response to similar execution for 10+ years, the “All directives for angles of completion of elements and body positions are approximate and meant to serve as a guideline.” clause is more than enough to conclusively say she deserved her .30 D in exchange for the ~.40 E she lost.
