Ask an Expert Judge, (aka the misc. technical questions thread)

[Concorde]

She was given 5.4… If they downgraded her layout, that would be 1 tenth off. If they also didn’t credit her switch leap combo – which would be very odd, that would bring her down to 5.5 lowest.

Lincoln’s layout to two feet was most likely downgraded to a back pike for the bend in the hips immediately after passing through vertical. This would cost her 0.2 in DV (E → C) and 0.1 in CV as B + C acro does not earn CV, for a total D score loss of 0.3.

 

[KristyJ]

I know we’ve talked about the code being overly punishing before, but the fact that that could be called anything but a layout, especially when the pike might be due to the one leg she places in front, is just criminal. I can see where they would get it. But it is not a downgrade that should exist in the code for that level of execution of the skill.

 

[Bob]

I know its irrelevant to this conversation but I hate hate hate how tiny her leotard is cut at the back. It is just not necessary to make them wear leos that have half their arse hanging out. I mean USA can afford better cut sports wear its odd.

 

[CameliasFingerpaint]

I know we’ve talked about the code being overly punishing before, but the fact that that could be called anything but a layout, especially when the pike might be due to the one leg she places in front, is just criminal. I can see where they would get it. But it is not a downgrade that should exist in the code for that level of execution of the skill.

Exactly. There is already a deduction for piking down. Does that mean it was applied in addition to the downgrade? How do you pike down a pike?

 

[onodian]

Exactly. There is already a deduction for piking down. Does that mean it was applied in addition to the downgrade? How do you pike down a pike?

We’ve had this conversation ever since this downgradedalooza began. I seem to have read here from some people that the d panel does tell the e panel what they’re crediting? It seems hardly ideal as a system anyways, but that would be that i guess.

 

[navyblue]

We’ve had this conversation ever since this downgradedalooza began. I seem to have read here from some people that the d panel does tell the e panel what they’re crediting? It seems hardly ideal as a system anyways, but that would be that i guess.

Wait, no we’ve had this conversation but thought we all basically came to the opposite conclusion – that because E and D panels dont communicate by design, you have nonsensical double jeopardy type deductions where a back “pike” that is obviously actually a back layout is getting a deduction for piking.

But yeah I totally forgot the downgrade goes from E to C not E to D, so that explains her score. Which makes it even more criminal that she’s getting unfairly stripped of 4+ tenths on that single skill even while literally everyone who sees it goes “wow, what a floaty back layout!”

 

[onodian]

Wait, no we’ve had this conversation but thought we all basically came to the opposite conclusion – that because E and D panels dont communicate by design, you have nonsensical double jeopardy type deductions where a back “pike” that is obviously actually a back layout is getting a deduction for piking.

But yeah I totally forgot the downgrade goes from E to C not E to D, so that explains her score. Which makes it even more criminal that she’s getting unfairly stripped of 4+ tenths on that single skill even while literally everyone who sees it goes “wow, what a floaty back layout!”

I thought someone said they communicated constantly now, although for sure don’t take my word for it. It might also be they were referring to vault. If they haven’t addressed this clear issue then i have no faith whatsoever in tptb

 

[FrolovasDoubleLayout]

I thought someone said they communicated constantly now, although for sure don’t take my word for it. It might also be they were referring to vault. If they haven’t addressed this clear issue then i have no faith whatsoever in tptb

Only on vault (via whiteboard) does the D panel communicate to the E panel the the vault credited (if different from what is nominated). On the other events, the D panel and E panel work independently. So, in the case of Lincoln having the bwd salto stretched credited as pike, the E panel is not informed. They would either deduct for failure to maintain stretch or insufficient pike.

 

[onodian]

Only on vault (via whiteboard) does the D panel communicate to the E panel the the vault credited (if different from what is nominated). On the other events, the D panel and E panel work independently. So, in the case of Lincoln having the bwd salto stretched credited as pike, the E panel is not informed. They would either deduct for failure to maintain stretch or insufficient pike.

how can this obviously glaring error not have been addressed yet? It’s not only the piking, we’ve been saying it also around connections which could both not get credit AND get a poor rhythm of deduction. It’s like the FIG doesn’t listen to us at all!

 

[navyblue]

New judging mystery/ (mistake?) that would be fun for one our expert judges to attempt to solve.

Sabrina Voinea's beam in team final had a full point off in Difficulty value versus her other attempts at Euros this year. 5.5 vs. the 6.5 she received prior and subsequently.

An entire analysis video claims that the discrepancy is due to her tour jete 1/2 (i.e. full twisting switch/split) being downgraded, which then nullifies her later switch leap + switch 1/2 combo, knocking out the switch 1/2 and knocking out her CR for a leap series.

Initially this sounds logical, but other astute commentators rightly point out that the switch 1/2 is not the same skill as the tour jete and so that kind of nullification would have been incorrect. The distinction is most obvious on floor exercise, where plenty of gymnasts do both a tour jete 1/2 (C value) and a split leap 1/1 (D value) in their routines.

Which leads folks to speculate that perhaps her switch 1/2 was itself downgraded, therefore nullifying the switch leap that came directly before it. I find this improbable because... well, her switch 1/2 is rotated completely fine, regardless of other deductions.

Additional plot twist -- apparently the downgraded tour jete 1/2, which she does indeed never fully rotated should not have been anything special in team finals, and other commentators suggested that the 6.5 d-score she received in other rounds is already accounting for a total attempted d-score of 6.6

To make this even more confusing: the code seems to describe for the dancer-style tour jete in which your split position is 'cross' instead of parallel to the beam, and the illustration definitely shows someone landing on one foot.... But when it comes to the tour jete 1/2, those aspects of the technique is disregarded, see below. That said, it is at least consistent with this shift on the corresponding skills on floor. :/

G, E, D, D, D, D, C, D

Ro + layout full B+G +0.2 cv
BHs + layout** B+E +0.1cv
Front aerial + split D+B +0.1cv
Side aerial D
Tour jete: D
Switch leap +switch 1/2 + bhs C+D+B +0.2cv + 0.1sb
Ro + bhs + double tuck: B+B+D +0.1sb +0.2 dmtb
2.0 + 1.0 + 3.5
^=6.5 which she's received throughout the meet.


Who can settle this for us?

 

[Aeris]

I just wrote about this in the Euro's team final thread - https://gymnaverse.com/threads/2024-wag-euros-tfs.3017/page-7#post-74967

The judges absolutely messed up, independent of the code also being extremely ridiculous about many issues here.

 

[Sanzhirovka]

I've a root skill question (bars, obviosuly).

If a gymnast is attempting a Maloney style Shapka, which is a ToeOn root skill element, and they put their toes on the bar but for some reason slip and the feet simply go off the bars in a down direction - say immediately hitting the mat or something but in no way are the legs lifting above the bar ...

Does this count as a ToeOn root skill or not, since there is no skill like that in the table of elements?

I mean, I know if say she put her feet on the bar and then lifted her legs on the upside to above horizontal it would count as a skill, like a downgraded ToeOn to handstand (C), but as far as I know, only recognized skills are counted.

So, if the Maloney was supposed to be the third ToeOn skill, can she try again and it will be awarded or not?

 

[MaryClare]

I've a root skill question (bars, obviosuly).

If a gymnast is attempting a Maloney style Shapka, which is a ToeOn root skill element, and they put their toes on the bar but for some reason slip and the feet simply go off the bars in a down direction - say immediately hitting the mat or something but in no way are the legs lifting above the bar ...

Does this count as a ToeOn root skill or not, since there is no skill like that in the table of elements?

I mean, I know if say she put her feet on the bar and then lifted her legs on the upside to above horizontal it would count as a skill, like a downgraded ToeOn to handstand (C), but as far as I know, only recognized skills are counted.

So, if the Maloney was supposed to be the third ToeOn skill, can she try again and it will be awarded or not?

I don’t think it would count, since it isn’t an element?

 

[Denn]

@Sanzhirovka I think you're right that no skill would be credited, so it would not cut into the root pool.

 

[Aeris]

That's another example of why gymnasts should be credited in the order that benefits them most. It's frustrating when someone's Van Leeuwen gets discredited just because they accidently did a Toe-handstand after their Pak right beforehand. Be logical and count the higher value skill, that extra added Toe-on is irrelevant and it's often creating an extra deduction in the routine anyway, there's no reason to punish the gymnast even more.

 

[Concorde]

A few COP Updates per the December 2023 WTC Newsletter and March 2024 Edition of the Help Desk:

1. Maximum Value Awarded for Elements will be J

To prevent the value of an element from exceeding the 1.0 deduction for a fall, the maximum value that elements can receive is capped at J. There had been some speculation as to whether Carey's triple twisting double layout on floor would be given a K rating, but we now know that this would not be the case.

2. Maximum Value Awarded for Dance Elements on Beam and Floor will be E

3. Double Saltos with Twist in the Case of Incomplete Twist

If the salto is missing 90 degrees or more of twist, then the element can be downgraded. For example, if a gymnast was 90 degrees short of twist on a Fabrichnova dismount on uneven bars, it would be credited as a Mustafina dismount.

4. Addition to Empty / Intermediate Swing Principal on Uneven Bars

If a front or back giant does not reach within 10 degrees of handstand, the element has no DV. When a fall also occurs, no CV is awarded. The example in the help desk is:

Maloney + clear hip full + giant short of 10 degrees of handstand, with a fall.

In this scenario, no CV is awarded for the Maloney + clear hip full connection.

5. Initiation of Ezhova from stand on high bar

If a gymnast stands on the high bar to initiate an Ezhova, DV, CR, and any CV is not awarded. However, no deduction for uncharacteristic element (takeoff from feet or thighs) is assessed.

6. Evaluation of Yurchenko Loop / Deduction for Grasp of Beam vs. Fall

Video examples provided of each scenario. My interpretation is as follows:

Grasp - Deduction was triggered by gymnast regrasping the beam to stop her momentum.

Fall - Loss of control and full weight of body on beam, along with additional movement around beam before momentum was stopped.

Also note that neither the grasp or fall example finish in the front support position that Yurchenko did.

7. Evaluation of Ring Elements in Side Position on Balance Beam

These elements will not be recognized for DV.

8. Evaluation of Roll Elements on Balance Beam

Element 4.306 must be performed without hand support and rolling from back - stomach - back or stomach - back - stomach to receive C value.

Element 4.307 must be performed without hand support while on back to receive C value. If performed with grasp of hand, then credit as 4.206. If the roll does not pass through the back, no DV is awarded.

9. Evaluation of Tucked and Layout Fulls on Balance Beam

The principle of devaluation or recognition of other elements does not apply to these two elements. For both elements, I assume this is referring to an incomplete twist. For the layout full, this also means that the element will not be downgraded to a piked full.

 

[makam]

5. Initiation of Ezhova from stand on high bar

If a gymnast stands on the high bar to initiate an Ezhova, DV, CR, and any CV is not awarded. However, no deduction for uncharacteristic element (takeoff from feet or thighs) is assessed.

Is this a thing that has happened?

 

[Concorde]

Is this a thing that has happened?

Video example here:



I want to say this is from the resumption of a routine after a fall, but am not 100% sure.

 

[Doug1233]

A few COP Updates per the December 2023 WTC Newsletter and March 2024 Edition of the Help Desk:

1. Maximum Value Awarded for Elements will be J

To prevent the value of an element from exceeding the 1.0 deduction for a fall, the maximum value that elements can receive is capped at J. There had been some speculation as to whether Carey's triple twisting double layout on floor would be given a K rating, but we now know that this would not be the case.

2. Maximum Value Awarded for Dance Elements on Beam and Floor will be E

3. Double Saltos with Twist in the Case of Incomplete Twist

If the salto is missing 90 degrees or more of twist, then the element can be downgraded. For example, if a gymnast was 90 degrees short of twist on a Fabrichnova dismount on uneven bars, it would be credited as a Mustafina dismount.

4. Addition to Empty / Intermediate Swing Principal on Uneven Bars

If a front or back giant does not reach within 10 degrees of handstand, the element has no DV. When a fall also occurs, no CV is awarded. The example in the help desk is:

Maloney + clear hip full + giant short of 10 degrees of handstand, with a fall.

In this scenario, no CV is awarded for the Maloney + clear hip full connection.

5. Initiation of Ezhova from stand on high bar

If a gymnast stands on the high bar to initiate an Ezhova, DV, CR, and any CV is not awarded. However, no deduction for uncharacteristic element (takeoff from feet or thighs) is assessed.

6. Evaluation of Yurchenko Loop / Deduction for Grasp of Beam vs. Fall

Video examples provided of each scenario. My interpretation is as follows:

Grasp - Deduction was triggered by gymnast regrasping the beam to stop her momentum.

Fall - Loss of control and full weight of body on beam, along with additional movement around beam before momentum was stopped.

Also note that neither the grasp or fall example finish in the front support position that Yurchenko did.

7. Evaluation of Ring Elements in Side Position on Balance Beam

These elements will not be recognized for DV.

8. Evaluation of Roll Elements on Balance Beam

Element 4.306 must be performed without hand support and rolling from back - stomach - back or stomach - back - stomach to receive C value.

Element 4.307 must be performed without hand support while on back to receive C value. If performed with grasp of hand, then credit as 4.206. If the roll does not pass through the back, no DV is awarded.

9. Evaluation of Tucked and Layout Fulls on Balance Beam

The principle of devaluation or recognition of other elements does not apply to these two elements. For both elements, I assume this is referring to an incomplete twist. For the layout full, this also means that the element will not be downgraded to a piked full.

The 7 - I assume that's because the judges wouldn't be able to evaluate whether the back leg hits head height?

And for 9 - the value is the same either way. A Tucked full that isn't rotated would also be given an F right? There's no "back salto with half turn" in the Code, no?

 

[Denn]

#3 ALL twists — saltos, dance, and turns — should be credited to the nearest element like they want to do for double saltos.

#4 Busybody. Not crediting the fucking combination before a giant that didn't go to handstand is utterly asinine — to the point that Donatella Sacchi should be fired.

#5 Someone should do a Pak this way just to make the point.

#7 I suspect you are right @Doug1233 , but I also feel like it's their problem, not the gymnast's.