BB and FX Artistry (Rules and Discussion)

[Doug1233]

Here are the Artistry rules for the 2022-24 Code:

 

[Doug1233]

 

[blake]

I feel like there should be an additional composition deduction for failure to integrate the sideways dance into the routine bc some routines have jarring transitions before/after that part. Also having a 0.2 option for some of the deductions or giving the judges a scale of deductions between 0 and 2 or 3 tenths rather than a flat -.1 might be helpful in distinguishing great/good/poor.

What would be an example of a mount without DV? Even a hop on to the end of the beam is an A. Just climbing on like if you’d fallen?

 

[RedBirdie]

I feel like Ou Yushan’s beam mount is without DV. Maybe I’m just completely missing it in the Code.

 

[Doug1233]

Hmmm. Interesting.

 

[Yarotska]

I feel like Ou Yushan’s beam mount is without DV. Maybe I’m just completely missing it in the Code.

We know anything she does is a fall risk, they might as well take the .1 on the chin.

 

[Doug1233]

We know anything she does is a fall risk, they might as well take the .1 on the chin.

Looking at it in that light, it might well be worth it!

 

[onodian]

This looks to me like I’ve seen it. Surely this won’t take a deduction? It would make no sense, and therefore maybe make fig sense

 

[blake]

I can recall seeing that mount in NCAA/JO, more frequently in the latter.

 

[Caledi]

But in NCAA/JO there is no requirement that the mount have DV (i.e. it doesn’t have to be an element). Which is why you see a lot more of those types of mounts there than in Elite.

 

[Concorde]

It looks like Ou is attempting 1.103.3: Jump with hand support, 3/4 turn in support to cross sit on thigh.

Also, for reference, here is the Help Desk video on the subject:

 

[Doug1233]

I love how they got Frags with that haha

 

[GymBeauty]

for reference, here is the Help Desk video on the subject:

None of those mounts are any less difficult than various other A-rated mounts. #5 absolutely should not be listed. Leaping onto the beam with 1 leg is not a mount?? So stupid.

 

[Concorde]

I believe the reason #5 was included as an example is because of the rule that for Element 1.101 to receive DV, the free leg must be held no lower than horizontal upon landing.

 

[Doug1233]

Would ShawnyJ’s tuck jump on from the side be ok? That number 5 looks harder to me.

 

[rlayt]

So it wouldn’t count as an A and be deducted for lack of being horizontal? It just would get .1 off? Sorry if this is lame but I’m trying to learn.

 

[Doug1233]

It just would get .1 off

I think the deduction is 0.1 for not mounting with an element listed in the TOE. I guess there could still be deductions for body shape? Tbh I don’t know how the judges evaluate “non-skills”.

 

[rlayt]

So confusing.

 

[Concorde]

Would ShawnyJ’s tuck jump on from the side be ok? That number 5 looks harder to me.

I would say no considering:

• The tuck jump itself is no longer in the table of elements.
• This mount falls under the exceptions to mounts without DV being recognized as A when a simple jump to sit, kneel, or land on one or two feet.

 

[Concorde]

So it wouldn’t count as an A and be deducted for lack of being horizontal? It just would get .1 off? Sorry if this is lame but I’m trying to learn.

After doing some research, it appears that we have yet another incident of WTC contradiction. Per the Help Desk, Element1.101 will be given A value, but receive a 0.1 deduction for precision if arabesque is not shown. However, this goes against the example in the video link I posted earlier.