Changes you’d like to see in the 2025-2028 Code

[Hatsumomo]

It’s too bad Chiles couldn’t get that competition-ready. Minimal crossing of the feet and fully rotated. Interesting she uses the diver twisting technique here.

 

[Doug1233]

However, in the context of the dubious backward triple twists given credit during 01-04, it would have been accepted

Of course. And of the Randi that Nastia repeatedly got credit for in Melbourne, too.

 

[blake]

From what I’ve learned about the Athens quad, judges were super strict with crediting the dance elements, most of the floor finalists didn’t start from a 10 in 2004, so it’s weird to me they judges would be fine with crediting underrotated twisting elements.

 

[onodian]

It was the first quad with such a big emphasis on dance so it might be they were trying to really make that count. It certainly all worked super well and we’re all now constantly rewatching those routines and marveling at the inherent beauty of double cat leaps

 

[Denn]

Yeah, like I said, an E is enough for a Randi. There have been plenty of them and the fact that a couple people can do triples tells you it’s more about training patterns and such.

 

[RAFIKI]

I watch the 4th placed floor routine quite often , but it certainly isn’t for the spins and jumps.

Definitely don’t miss cat leaps. They were a novelty when Kvasha won Euros with them but Athens was

 

[tsarinajen]

Lobazynuk competed a Randi too.

 

[Doug1233]

Remove dismount bonus. Instead, count dismount twice. This simplifies the rules and encourages harder dismounts.

This will just encourage 2-pass routines. Why do a Double Pike third line if your second line DLO gets counted twice and you can just do a Switch Leap instead.

Listunova would do the Dos Santos first, then the Silivas (counted twice), and then 6 dance elements.

 

[Denn]

3 min acro lines
3 min dance elements

 

[MaryClare]

3 should be the max acro lines too. 3 counting acro lines, 3 counting dance elements. That will reward both difficulty and completeness

 

[Doug1233]

I see a lot of thrown DLO dismounts.

 

[Denn]

disagree about 3 max. there are plenty of wonderful routines with 4 passes. (I always think of Onodi first.)

bad DLO dismounts will get penalized. we know the deductions will be taken.

 

[MaryClare]

Historically, there are plenty of wonderful routines with 4 passes. But it’s not compatible with open ended scoring. I’d much rather see gymnasts perform their 3 best tumbles, and be more innovative with combination tumbling to pump up their difficulty within the 3 pass maximum

 

[makam]

My favorite thing about the 90s were those back to back floor passes. Dominique Dawes did them (among others, obvs) and as a know-nothing audience member, they were so thrilling. I think there is a rule against doing them now but man, bring those back (with some rules about what can get a connection bonus and/or making it count for two of the 3 or 4 passes). Definitely do not bring back 5 pass routines. Man, did those generally suck.

 

[MaryClare]

You can do back to back tumbling, it just doesn’t get any sort of bonus and would count as 2 of your 4 allowed lines

 

[YurchenkoLoop]

I’d love an occasional front walkover out of fwd tumbling a la Agache at 0:44. What a nice little surprise

 

[GymBeauty]

There’s too many to list; I have an entirely re-written code.

** Tons of skill value changes.

** Tons of changes to deductions (starting with bringing back 0.05 deduction increments and lowering the max deduction a skill can get), and an introduction of small bonuses rather than just deductions, with a focus on properly rewarding what looks good in gymnastics and what is truly “point-worthy”, rather than nonsensical deductions that don’t properly assess what a skill and routine should really be worth.

For example, in the current rules, a “satisfactory” Arabian on Beam - a difficult and good looking element - could end up making a routine worth less, because of deductions (including a sizable .3 for landing position being common) adding up to more than the net value of the skill. These scoring fallacies must be fixed. A routine should not suddenly be worth more by taking out a difficult skill that is by all logical and historical judging standards executed decently. A skill like an Arabian on Beam does not need to be executed “perfectly” (and virtually never is) to be impressive and to be objectively more valuable than a roundoff; we must strive for everything to be worth a fair amount, instead of having a small amount of “code-friendly” skills and connections that happen to satisfy the fabricated rules.

** Several changes that promote more variety in routine construction and reward “lesser” elements within routines. For example, I am very much in favor of long Uneven Bar routines that have lots of half-turns, that utilize the inside and outside of each bar, that include uprises and “extra swing” purposefully (like after a Tkatchev on the inside of the High Bar, swinging backward to a handstand on the Low Bar), and having an actual mount. These things would lead to lots of deductions in the current code, and thus we see routines become much more cookie-cutter and predictable, but that should not be the case.

** Video replay being part of judging and all judging deductions being publicly listed, with the final score from each individual judge being shown live. It’s so much more exciting and better for audience engagement to see the row of scores and see how each judge (with country flag listed) is ranking each performance.

Along with that, judging customs should return to the importance of properly ranking the routines. The skill values and deductions and routine construction rules are never going to be a 100% accurate representation of “the objective truth” of which piece of gymnastics is most impressive. The rules should be as good as possible, and judges should try their best to score each individual skill, but they should also actively be looking at the total score they are giving to each routine (“the big picture”) and think about what was better on a “gut-level” of gymnastics understanding. Whenever a routine is scoring close to another after initial deductions, think about what truly FELT more impressive, and possibly revise the deductions to create the more accurate ranking.

There are so many aspects like speed, snap, amplitude, body expression, and the actual LOOK of a series of elements together and how they flow (aka, artistry) that are nearly impossible to codify as a specific point value, but that are important to gymnastics and that a good judge should be able to recognize. Making deductions less exhausting to assess, and less punitive overall, will help towards this goal, but it has to be more than that - “the whole is more than the sum of the parts” is a REAL thing. A routine is not just each skill taken in isolation and a bullshit list of “artistry” deductions for things like taking a certain number of steps in side position on the beam, or doing enough meaningless wiggling around with the torso touching the beam, is not the correct answer.

 

[Doug1233]

These scoring fallacies must be fixed.

How?

For example, I am very much in favor of long Uneven Bar routines that have lots of half-turns

Really?

** Tons of skill value changes.

Tell us your top five!

all judging deductions being publicly listed, with the final score from each individual judge being shown live.

100%. They used to do this. I don’t know what reason they have for stopping it, other than “the judges don’t like it”.

There are so many aspects like speed, snap, amplitude, body expression, and the actual LOOK of a series of elements together and how they flow (aka, artistry) that are nearly impossible to codify as a specific point value, but that are important to gymnastics and that a good judge should be able to recognize. Making deductions less exhausting to assess, and less punitive overall, will help towards this goal, but it has to be more than that - “the whole is more than the sum of the parts” is a REAL thing. A routine is not just each skill taken in isolation and a bullshit list of “artistry” deductions for things like taking a certain number of steps in side position on the beam, or doing enough meaningless wiggling around with the torso touching the beam, is not the correct answer.

Again, how? It’s inherent to judging that we must objectify the subjective. We can’t give out Olympic gold medals based on “good” and “very good”. It needs to be (objectively) quantified.

It’s easy to say “I don’t like how artistry is quantified” but then not come up with an alternative.

Personally, I think the current artistry table is a great start - except I don’t like the “yes/no” structure of it. and I would like it to be additive. Let the judges assign an artistry score from 0.0 (awful) to 1.0 (best of the Quad), taking into account both difficulty of the choreography and execution, using the current rubric as a guide. Then separately publish the average A score, not within the e score.

 

[irichluck21]

100%. They used to do this. I don’t know what reason they have for stopping it, other than “the judges don’t like it”.

I used to like it when they showed the individual judges scores with the flag from the country they came from.

The British judge really didn’t like Domi’s floor in Atlanta finals!

 

[irichluck21]

Good way to compare scores and see if the judges are being unfair toward a particular gymnast/country.