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

[Caledi]

Yes #4 is insane and makes no sense. Or maybe I'm just not understanding it? I don't see why the giant would have any bearing on the maloney + clear hip full connection.

 

[makam]

Yes #4 is insane and makes no sense. Or maybe I'm just not understanding it? I don't see why the giant would have any bearing on the maloney + clear hip full connection.

If they were trying to get rid of the orphan halfs, this doesn't exactly do it, right?

 

[navyblue]

#1 -
I don't agree with the J value cap on principle, and find the rationale connecting its value to the 1.0 deduction for a fall to be both arbitrary and a sort of violation of the independence of D and E panel considerations. Gymnastics is all risk and reward. You can fall on a B element and be -0.8 in the hole. So why should I care that Jade Carey's triple double layout could net 1 meager tenth? (I mean this wouldn't even be the reality, as there's almost certainly be other deductions beyond the fall).

There are definitely lots of gym fans who are opposed to medals being awarded to routines with falls during a final, like Simone's YDP. I'm not in that camp myself, but I can understand the concern. If WTC wanted they could institute some EF-specific medal guidelines to prevent a gold medal going to a routine with a fall, or more dramatically even a silver or bronze, except in cases where that leaves no remaining medalists (hypothetical splat-fest).

#2
I'm anti-value cap on dance elements, too (on any categories of elements, really -- though UB transitions is the worst yet). WTC could reasonably be more stingy on difficulty ratings for dance across the board. No matter how hard it is to do these skills perfectly, the risk is still just lower than acro, period. On these skills you're really not seeing -1.0 fall deductions, -0.5 low chest, -0.3 large hops, -0.3 out of bounds with two feet... Even the general acceptability of chucking dance skills -- like literally you can just wind up and spin into the ground with your eyes closed, for a modest penalty. 2.5 twisting wolf turn? Fine - never mind it's not actually a skill, you'll happily take your downgraded D element and maybe just -0.1 precision.

Or, just make new rules about the number of countable dance/acro elements.


#3 -
I'm anti-devaluation because it's currently inconsistent and based on sheer coincidence. Your attempted Lopez vault can get fucked because the Podkapayeva exists, but lucky you if you've got a piked Cheng... Same deal with a layout full on beam (see #9).

You could correct this by just adding the extremely predictable skill variations to the code in advance. I mean, this should just be the standard practice already no matter what. But there will always be gaps in downgrading logic because so few skills actually have any form of downgraded corollary. Even twisting skills aren't immune: if Simone somehow underrotated her double double on beam, what happens?

I'd rather the E-panel just throw the book at the skill than pretend it's something else. To me, a crappy switch ring leap on beam is a crappy switch ring leap on beam. E, panel go nuts. But it's not a frickin switch leap!

#4 - WTF?
Do we interpret the strangely worded "not reach within 10 degrees of handstand" to mean a fall on a giant? So, you're getting -1.0 already... why should the preceding combination be penalized?

#5 - Sure

#6 - Sure

#7 - Silly. Make video review a normal thing if you really need it, don't just ban skills because you can't be bothered.

#8 - LOL. Inventing standards for downgrading a rare C-value roll to a B-value roll was for sure a critical change...

#9 - The fact that they're going out of their way to exempt certain skills by name rather than addressing the faulty logic of downgrades across the board is just... sad but unsurprising.

OK, wow, a lot of bitching, what a rush!

 

[Passion]

There are definitely lots of gym fans who are opposed to medals being awarded to routines with falls during a final, like Simone's YDP. I'm not in that camp myself, but I can understand the concern. If WTC wanted they could institute some EF-specific medal guidelines to prevent a gold medal going to a routine with a fall, or more dramatically even a silver or bronze, except in cases where that leaves no remaining medalists (hypothetical splat-fest).

Could make falls a 2 point deduction in EF instead of 1 point.

 

[tempest]

I hate the open ended system BUT I would not like a doubled penalty in EF for a fall. If someone is better than everyone else even if a fall so be it... that's the game. I have often thought that the only way the open ended system would disappear was for someone to win an Olympics EF with a fall and all the scrutiny it would receive

 

[Hatsumomo]

When it comes to vault, there has been debate on falls being more than a 1.0 deduction since it's a single element versus a series of elements like with every other event. And that idea will probably be raised again if Simone wins vault EF with a fall on the YDP. It is a bit egregious that Simone still won silver in 2023 with a fall + the 0.5 deduction of having Laurent on the podium. That sort of thing is why vaults have been devalued since 2008, especially after Kramakar and Pena's kamikaze Produnovas.

 

[Denn]

I think that falls could be worth 1.2. That would allow elements up to K. We're not going to need more than that.

It also helps knock gymnasts with falls lower in the rankings without going crazy.

The obsession with it being 1.0 is a mathematical preference for pretty numbers, not a logical one.

 

[irichluck21]

I like the fall being 2 pts in event finals

 

[MrSixkiller]

It is very possible Simone will win Vault in Paris if she falls on the YDP, as it is likely to score the same as her best Amanars.

 

[Hatsumomo]

I agree which I find to be a bit of an issue. Especially since again, that's partially why the Produnova vault was devalued an entire point. Plus, if you're not standing up the one element, it should take you out of medal contention. Would a 2.0 deduction for a fall on vault, whether it's AA or EF be fair?

Also, is the YDP in the CoP? I'm not seeing it. I see Simone's other vault is.

 

[Aeris]

Fall deduction on vault should be increased (and maybe scaled with the difficulty of the vault), but there's no need for that elsewhere. Capping skills at J because falling is only a 1 point deduction is so insane. You're scared of someone getting .1 for falling a Triple Double Layout?? Any skill that difficult is going to have extra deductions, and falling on such a difficult skill is more impressive anyway than doing some nothing A skill.

Speaking of, I don't think A skills should be allowed to count in the top 8 skills, and actually I don't even think B skills should be able to count for Bars/Beam (aside from the dismount). In many ways the 10.0 code during 2001-2005 "required" more difficulty on Beam than today. Now we have people doing Split jump + Straddle jump and using both of those to count in their top 8, and the same could be done with a Roundoff. Given the excessive deductions now being taken, it's advantageous for many people to drop one of their C/D skills and just count a B that's already in the routine anyway; this shouldn't be encouraged.

 

[Denn]

I agree which I find to be a bit of an issue. Especially since again, that's partially why the Produnova vault was devalued an entire point. Plus, if you're not standing up the one element, it should take you out of medal contention. Would a 2.0 deduction for a fall on vault, whether it's AA or EF be fair?

Also, is the YDP in the CoP? I'm not seeing it. I see Simone's other vault is.

Yes. It was added after Biles did it at Worlds in an addendum.

 

[Denn]

@irichluck21 @Hatsumomo Why 2.0? Why not 1.5? or 1.2? or 1.7? Why 2.0?

 

[Denn]

Speaking of, I don't think A skills should be allowed to count in the top 8 skills, and actually I don't even think B skills should be able to count for Bars/Beam (aside from the dismount). In many ways the 10.0 code during 2001-2005 "required" more difficulty on Beam than today. Now we have people doing Split jump + Straddle jump and using both of those to count in their top 8, and the same could be done with a Roundoff. Given the excessive deductions now being taken, it's advantageous for many people to drop one of their C/D skills and just count a B that's already in the routine anyway; this shouldn't be encouraged.

But you're fixing the wrong part of the problem. It's the deductions that are the real issue.

 

[navyblue]

I think that falls could be worth 1.2. That would allow elements up to K.

Ugh but no dont accept this logic! Tying a difficulty cap (just no!) to the value of a fall makes no sense. Also overlooks that in a good number of cases a fall is already coinciding with wiping out the entirety of the D value already, like if someone goes for a double twisting geinger or kovacs and eats matt (misses the bar).

I get that they change these rules every code, but the idea that we've already reached the difficulty cap in gymnastics with Simone's triple double just feels sorta pessimistic, non-visionary, and slightly anti-Simone biased too.

 

[irichluck21]

@Denn 2 points just seems right since a fall is normally 1 point.

 

[makam]

@Denn 2 points just seems right since a fall is normally 1 point.

But that is working under the assumption that 1 point for a fall is the correct penalty. Is it? ;-) Should the penalty be tied to the value of the element? Or a global penalty + one tied to the element? If you fall on choreography should that count the same as falling on a double layout?

 

[irichluck21]

a fall is a fall

 

[lovegymnasts]

From my point of view, people are trying to penalize those with the most difficulty and who are moving the sport forward. If you do this, people are not going to take the risks associated with you wanting to be excessively punitive.
Say hello to NCAA gymnastics. I watch elite for the thrill of these difficult skills not to watch NCAA level routines. I just skip over the floor routines that open with a double tuck.
I also agree with a previous poster. It feels anti-Biles...and pro- Andradi. People being upset that Biles' difficulty level can absorb a fall and still win vault finals.
I love them both but this is the impression I'm getting.

 

[JaJa]

From my point of view, people are trying to penalize those with the most difficulty and who are moving the sport forward. If you do this, people are not going to take the risks associated with you wanting to be excessively punitive.
Say hello to NCAA gymnastics. I watch elite for the thrill of these difficult skills not to watch NCAA level routines. I just skip over the floor routines that open with a double tuck.
I also agree with a previous poster. It feels anti-Biles...and pro- Andradi. People being upset that Biles' difficulty level can absorb a fall and still win vault finals.
I love them both but this is the impression I'm getting.

My feelings exatly