2022 World Gymnastics Championship WAG Podium (10/27-10/28)

[Caledi]

Like, I’m fine with giving leeway for turnout at the start, but nobody should be punished for doing 2 actual rotations, that’s ludicrous.

I never meant to say or imply that it should be deducted or “punished”.

I know, but that rule is a terrible way of determining the end point of a spin, and it also clearly does not work in many cases. It says the hip/shoulder position is to be looked when the heel drops, but there isn’t always a heel drop. The rule doesn’t even work on its own, because the position of the hips and shoulders can be twisted from each other. It needs to be rewritten.

What version of the code are you looking at? In the latest version I don’t see anything about heel drop at all; the rule is literally as I quoted it above.

And while I think the COP is often problematic, I don’t see the problem here. It doesn’t assume that the position of the shoulders and the hips are always the same, just that those are the factors used in determining whether a turn is completed. It’s better to use that than to say the foot has to face forwards, when that’s just not how turns work if you do them in turnout.

 

[GymBeauty]

It’s better to use that than to say the foot has to face forwards, when that’s just not how turns work if you do them in turnout.

…that is how turns work though. It’s 100% possible to do turns so that you end at the angle where your foot started in turnout. I don’t think we need to enforce that standard, but the turning foot at the end should definitely be facing at least near the direction of where the upper body was initially pointing.

You can do a turn with any degree of rotation. The notion of “single turn, double turn, triple turn” is a massive oversimplification. There’s 720 different degrees of rotation possible between a “single turn” and “triple turn”. 1/2 turns are even specifically valued on Beam. Logically, every 1/2 turn should be worth something, and “overturning” shouldn’t matter.

The concept of turnout itself is flawed. Why are we caring about it? Just because it’s supposedly balletic? “Turnout” in essence just pre-rotates a turn (if you don’t rotate all the way back to that angle), making it easier. Like, I’m fine with it, it can look nice, but stepping out of a turn is specifically what bugs me, mainly when it happens when the turn is not done in combination. That is just a cheat. Can you imagine if doing a 2.5 twisting salto and putting a 1/2-turn step on the landing was called as being the same as a 3.0 twisting salto? Eek.

I’d also like to point out that in rhythmic gymnastics, you only get credit for an amount of turns where your body was specifically in position. So for example, doing a “Memmel” properly means you may need to do about 2.4 turns in total, in order for your leg to be completely lifted in the air for 2 full rotations. That makes a lot of sense to me, and Memmel herself did the skill like that at times, so the standard of at least getting the turning foot around is not too strict.

 

[Doug1233]

Look at her right foot

You keep saying this.

Look at the position of her shoulders and hips when the heel drops or when she is no longer in the prescribed position.

I’m not saying I’d give Eythora’s turns here. But you’re looking at the wrong thing. The degree of turn in the foot is not determinative. The fact she splays her foot outward to start the turn doesn’t mean the turn starts there. Shoulders and hips.

There’s always going to be some degree of overturning when you require a gymnast to hit a prescribed position for the full 720 degrees of turn. The gymnast needs some entry and exit time (except for say, a wolf turn, where most gymnasts begin the turn in the prescribed position). You can’t expect everyone to begin a Memmel in Y-Scale (much like our beloved British beamer).

 

[makam]

You see some of the split leap positions that were accepted back then and here we argue if one knee is straight enough in the 180 degree or more position to give credit. I know the desire to reward the superlative but we might be getting to where it just needs to be “good enough, leave it alone”.

 

[YurchenkoLoop]

I’d also like to point out that in rhythmic gymnastics, you only get credit for an amount of turns where your body was specifically in position. So for example, doing a “Memmel” properly means you may need to do about 2.4 turns in total, in order for your leg to be completely lifted in the air for 2 full rotations. That makes a lot of sense to me, and Memmel herself did the skill like that at times, so the standard of at least getting the turning foot around is not too strict.

The last thing viewers of this sport need is to hear commentators explain why a gymnast gets credit for a single turn when they clearly execute a double. The torque leg cannot immediately be in position. Some cheat the position substantially, yes, but then I’d deduct them .1 for failure to hit prescribed position by 90 degrees of turn. Also, it takes an incredible amount of control to exit a turn with the free leg ending forward your center of gravity to step into another turn requiring great control, the illusion

 

[GymBeauty]

Look at the position of her shoulders and hips when the heel drops or when she is no longer in the prescribed position.

This doesn’t work. Someone can be in the “prescribed” position and not have a heel drop, while clearly having lost control of the spin and needing to step onto the other foot in order to not fall.

The last thing viewers of this sport need is to hear commentators explain why a gymnast gets credit for a single turn when they clearly execute a double.

That’s already happening constantly with the bad rules currently in place. In addition to senseless “overturn” deductions. The commentators just don’t talk about it.

Cheating an entire 1/2 turn of a spin is worse than the leg in an L-turn slightly dipping below horizontal for the tiniest bit of time.

 

[Doug1233]

This doesn’t work. Someone can be in the “prescribed” position and not have a heel drop, while clearly having lost control of the spin and needing to step onto the other foot in order to not fall.

Take it up with the WTC.

Your analysis was an incorrect application of the rules.

Can you imagine if doing a 2.5 twisting salto and putting a 1/2-turn step on the landing was called as being the same as a 3.0 twisting salto? Eek

Can you imagine doing a Back 2.75 and punching a tuck front on the landing, and calling it a triple full?

Oh wait…

The rules suck. But they’re the rules until any of us are on the WTC.

 

[Denn]

@GymBeauty You know that if a gymnast is still in relevé and the other foot comes down, the turn is over, right?

@Doug1233 That rule about triple twist + rebound front is fine. Everyone knows it was a triple full. I think it’s fine to deduct the triple full, but i am glad the rule credits it.

 

[Doug1233]

@Doug1233 That rule about triple twist + rebound front is fine. Everyone knows it was a triple full. I think it’s fine to deduct the triple full, but i am glad the rule credits it.

I’m fine with it, too. I’m also fine with the same applied to a turn connection.

Credit it and deduct for precision. Like the egregious Shang Chunsong 3.5 twist example where she’s almost punching sideways.

 

[Denn]

Okay, agreed.

 

[GymBeauty]

Take it up with the WTC. Your analysis was an incorrect application of the rules.

The discussion is about what the rules should be.

And nope, as I said, the shoulders and hips can be twisted from each other, so in some cases there is no clear way of determining when the turn ends as per the rule.

Can you imagine doing a Back 2.75 and punching a tuck front on the landing, and calling it a triple full?

Shang didn’t do a 2.75, check your eyes. A 1/4 turn cheat is clearly different than a 1/2 turn cheat too, you shouldn’t try to strawman.

You know that if a gymnast is still in relevé and the other foot comes down, the turn is over, right?

Well yeah, that’s the step-out cheat, lol! The main point of this whole discussion is it shouldn’t be allowed to fall out of a spin and get max credit for it. That, and overturning being a nonsensical deduction.

 

[Doug1233]

The discussion is about what the rules should be.

No it wasn’t! Your original post was saying Eythora wouldn’t get credit because “look at the foot”. You were then schooled by Caledi about what the code actually said (that the turnout of the foot was irrelevant), and then it switched to a discussion of what the rule should be.

Stop gaslighting again!

 

[Doug1233]

check your eyes

Funny, given our whole discussion about your inability to see, in real time, Suni’s ring position and Shang’s Double Pike landing position.

 

[makam]

People, shoud we bring out the Kim Kelly fx to break the tension?

 

[Doug1233]

Haha there’s never a wrong time to post the KK FX.

 

[GymBeauty]

No it wasn’t!

Yes it was. This discussion was started me responding to YurchenkoLoop saying “gymnasts need to stop half-assing single turns en dehors out of their Memmels/double L turns”, agreeing with their point and adding other things to the list that I see wrong with how turns are being evaluated. In EVERY post I’ve been talking about how things should be, and drawing attention to the factual mechanics of rotation.

Funny, given our whole discussion about your inability to see, in real time, Suni’s ring position and Shang’s Double Pike landing position.

Suni’s ring position is factually flawed and Shang’s head is factually not below her knees in her Double Pike. Your notions about judging split positions is also proven wrong by the FIG training videos themselves, where Donatella has deducted leaps for split position that do very briefly hit 180 for a microsecond if you go through and freeze frame them. Keep striking out though.

 

[Doug1233]

Shang’s head is factually not below her knees in her Double Pike

It doesn’t need to be “below”.

It was a clear 0.3.

And a bonus round - Precision:

check your eyes

 

[onodian]

ok imma just do it



ETA: get a room, you two

 

[GymBeauty]

It doesn’t need to be “below”.

It does in order to be unquestionable. Otherwise in real time it will be a grey area. That first freeze frame you posted shows her head above knee height to begin with, so you continue to insist upon flimsy reasoning as if your judgement is the word of god.

And a bonus round - Precision:

I’ve never said Shang’s 3.5 twist wasn’t under; yet another strawman from you. Also, her 3.5 twist in the AA was far better than the one she did in the Team event that you’ve decided to post instead. More sad manipulation.

 

[Doug1233]

I have to post the more obvious one due to your noted inability to spot errors unless they’re smacking you square in the face with a neon sign (unless it’s Mustafina or Eythora and then your eyesight magically improves such that every single possible nitpick can be instantly found!)