2021 Worlds Day 2 EFs

[Jack]

That routine wouldn’t have made it into the Barcelona FX final.

 

[Doug1233]

Maybe not the tumbling.

But the leaps and turns were stellar.

 

[Doug1233]

FlipFly Tumble has uploaded some script/E Score breakdowns.

 

[YurchenkoLoop]

That user is also hitting Wong .3 for her switch ring on floor so, despite them knowing short-hand, I don’t think they’re the best judge lol

 

[Doug1233]

That user is also hitting Wong .3 for her switch ring on floor so, despite them knowing short-hand, I don’t think they’re the best judge lol

Right!

She’s a Brevet!

 

[YurchenkoLoop]

Oh wow that certainly is something that she’s a brevet… Yeah, that’s definitely only a .1, though it did give me pause in real time

 

[Denn]

Bravo to her for putting her scoring out there for people to discuss.

 

[Caligym]

Yep. So she took 3 instead of the 1 that slow motion/capture shows. Bravo to her, and to all on gymnaverse who do so, for submitting full judgements for scrutiny.

 

[Seyonne]

I appreciate all the judges on this site. I love reading the score breakdowns. I have learned so much.

 

[Doug1233]

The thing with Leanne’s switch ring is that it’s one of the few skills that actually looks worse in real time than in slo mo.

It looks kinda janky in real time. I’m not surprised with the 3.

 

[Doug1233]

Yeah, that’s definitely only a .1, though it did give me pause in real time

I agree and I have it a 1. But mostly because something doesn’t look quite right about it. Rather than any one single error that I think independently warrants the 1 for body shape.

It kinda ticks all the boxes for that shape. Hips are a bit splayed out. And there’s a hint of the back leg being a tiiiiny bit low at the knee (she reaches head height and it’s pretty much a closed ring).

I’ve always thought that “head height” is a bit of a misnomer because if there’s sufficient back arch and head release then head height can often be the SAME as shoulder height! Although I guess that’s an incentive to do a proper head release!

It really should be “nose” height matches the top of the big toe - just to be a bit more accurate!

 

[YurchenkoLoop]

mmm I guess it’s no longer in the CoP that legs must be parallel to the ground in splits, but we still have the deduction for deviation from ideal position. Wong’s back thigh in the screenshot is also a little below 180 it appears, and her back foot could definitely be a little higher. I’d argue for more back arch too. But yeah, all in all this is more a .1 to me, but the .3 isn’t too inappropriate all things considered

 

[Doug1233]

If this is a 3, what do you give the barely creditable attempts?

It seems that most of these leaps, irrespective of how good they are, just all get slapped with a 3.

 

[YurchenkoLoop]

Like I said, this is only a .1 but deducting .3 is not necessarily the most egregious error.

And I think plenty of gymnasts do deduction-free ring shapes!

 

[Doug1233]

There were a couple at worlds.

I also think the world has finally realised that switch rings aren’t worth doing if they look like dogshit.

Mai’s was worse than Leanne’s, but I’m sure she will have only gotten 1 for hers.

 

[Denn]

The rules for split rings are changing. The new rules are still way too complicated and a bit too penalizing to gymnasts who do pretty good positions.

One thing I hate is that there’s all these measurements and angles and instead of an overall appreciation for the effect of the element. Nobody cares if a “perfect” split ring still doesn’t look great or if a 0.3 deduction applies to a split ring that is just glorious.

 

[makam]

There are some split rings that looked better because the front leg was below horizontal. Or is that a ring yang bo? Is that a thing? The skill just looks better a bit tilted, imo. Either way, I’d rather the emphasis was on the legs themselves being 180 min relative to each other and not bothering with where the front leg ends up relative to the horizon.

 

[Doug1233]

Front leg below horizontal can still get credit as a split ring IIRC. It’s just a 0.1 deduction and falls within the 1,3,5 thing for body shape. If it’s below 45 then it’s 0.3 deduction.

There is a separate skill called “ring leap” where the front leg doesn’t need to be raised at all - it’s like a sheep jump but just with one foot behind instead of two - as long as the legs are at 180.

I do get confused though between when a split ring becomes a ring leap - if the front leg is WAY below 45 - is it a really bad split ring or a normal ring leap?

In some ways, you’d prefer to get credited with ring leap because the net effect of the huge deduction actually makes things worse if you get split ring credit.

 

[Concorde]

Based on the example in the Help Desk, if the forward leg is below horizontal by more than 45 degrees, I would either award credit for another element, or give no DV if there is no applicable element in the COP. In the case of the ring jump on beam, I would credit 2.208 instead of 2.408 if the free leg was below 45 degrees.

 

[Doug1233]

I would credit 2.208 instead of 2.408 if the free leg was below 45 degrees.

I think that makes most sense.

But the Code isn’t clear. Why is there a 0.3 deduction for “free leg below 45” if the Code expects you to potentially evaluate it as a ring leap attempt (which obviously doesn’t have that deduction)?