Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If they were trying to get rid of the orphan halfs, this doesn't exactly do it, right?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.
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).
Yes. It was added after Biles did it at Worlds in an addendum.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.
But you're fixing the wrong part of the problem. It's the deductions that are the real issue.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.
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 think that falls could be worth 1.2. That would allow elements up to K.
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?@Denn 2 points just seems right since a fall is normally 1 point.
My feelings exatlyFrom 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.