Could Rebeca Andrade have gotten 2nd at USA Nationals

[Denn]

She got 56.7 here. But with FIG scoring.



5.4 + 9.4 = 14.8
6.1 + 8.3 = 14.4
5.8 + 8.0 = 13.8
5.6 + 8.1 = 13.7

That vault is great, and if you compare to what Chiles got…

I do agree that her FX is not strategic. She could cut a skill and score better. I’d cut the Gogean.

 

[onodian]

God that vault is great. I’d be soooooo happy if she manages to show up at full strength in Tokyo. Floor has always been kind of lackluster considering the huge potential she has.

 

[Sasha]

Where did the judges find 0.6 in errors on that vault?

 

[Dex]

That was fantastic!! Her leo would get her 10p bonus in my book haha.
I am amazed how confident she is with all the knee problems she had. No bandages at all. Love her! I hope she peaks at the Olympic AA

 

[Caligym]

Yeah that vault at USA nationals would have scored 9.6-9.7. I think with the same set of judges she would be neck and neck with Suni.

 

[Puffin]

I think she would have beaten Suni given the sometimes lax scoring at US nationals (even the line judges couldn’t seem to stay awake)

 

[blake]

I mean, if Suni got a 9.0 E for her DTY, then Rebeca’s was a 10.5.

 

[Denn]

She pulled out of the event finals. (she qualified first to all four finals, I think.) I hope that just means she’s protecting herself, not that she got injured the other day.

 

[irichluck21]

I would also do the same.

 

[Marcio_Custodio]

She is fine.
I guess they’ve choosen to try the newcomers at most on this competition.
I mean brazil doesnt have many girls left for worlds team
Flávia and Rebeca olympics.
Thais had surgery.
Jade ?? I would Rather her to rest and comeback next year.
Lorrane, Ana Luiza, Júlia and Christal left

 

[Doug1233]

I think she would have gotten in 3rd ahead of Chiles but a tiny bit behind Suni. I think the domestic scoring for Suni was actually pretty spot on, on Friday.

It was wild on VT for Jordan and Chellsie…

 

[Concorde]

Rebeca Andrade - Balance Beam

Acro

1 x E (double pike dismount)
2 x D (aerial, side aerial)

Total Acro DV - 1.3

Dance

1 x E (switch ring leap)
4 x D (switch leap mount, switch leap 1/2, split ring jump, side split jump 1/2)

Total Dance DV - 2.1

CV / Series Bonus

switch leap mount + switch leap 1/2 (D + D dance) = 0.2 CV

aerial + split ring jump 1/2 (D + D mixed) = 0.2 CV

Total CV / SB = 0.4

CR

Dance Series - wolf jump + sissone
Turn - full turn
Acro Series with Salto - back handspring stepout + layout stepout
Acro Elements in Different Directions - aerial, layout stepout

Total D - 3.4 + 0.4 + 2.0 = 5.8

Downgrades

switch leap mount + switch leap 1/2

• Connection broken by the pause between the two elements

Total D - 3.4 + 0.2 + 2.0 = 5.6

Deductions

switch leap 1/2

• (insufficient split → between 1 and 20 degrees of split) 0.1
• (small balance adjustment) 0.1

layout stepout

• (small balance adjustment) 0.1

aerial

• (flexed feet) 0.1

aerial + ring jump

• (poor rhythm of connection) 0.1

ring jump

• (small balance adjustment) 0.1

side split jump 1/2

• (insufficient split → between 1 and 20 degrees of split) 0.1 ^

switch ring leap

• (large balance adjustment) 0.5

side aerial

• (flexed feet) 0.1
• (medium balance adjustment) 0.3

double pike

• (flexed feet) 0.1
• (deviation from ideal landing posture, chest slightly low) 0.1
• (small hop on landing) 0.1

Total - 1.8 - 1.9

Artistry

• (Insufficient complexity or creativity in the movements) 0.1
• (Insufficient variation in rhythm and tempo) 0.1

Total E - 7.9 - 8.0 / (-2.0 - 2.1)

 

[Jerkin]

She did what she went there to do.

 

[Concorde]

Rebeca Andrade - Floor Exercise

Acro:

1 x H (full twisting double layout)
1 x E (tucked full-in)
2 x D (double tuck, double pike)

Total Acro DV - 2.1

Dance:

4 x D (Memmel turn, double turn with free leg in horizontal, Gogean, full twisting switch leap)

Total Dance DV - 1.6

CV

layout front full stepout - round off - back handspring - tucked full-in (C - indirect E) = 0.2 CV

CR

Dance Passage - switch leap to full twisting switch leap
Salto with 360 LA turn - layout front full
Double Salto - double tuck
Salto Backward and Forward - layout front full, double pike

Total D - 3.7 + 0.2 + 2.0 = 5.9

Downgrades

double turn with leg at horizontal

• Free leg dropped below horizontal before both turns were fully completed, and turning foot also left ground before second turn was fully completed, credit as full turn with leg in horizontal. Count layout front full among her 8 elements since this is a C skill

Gogean

• Incomplete turn, credit as full twisting split leap

full twisting switch leap

• Incomplete turn, credit as switch leap 1/2

Total D - 3.4 + 0.2 + 2.0 = 5.6

Deductions

tucked full-in

• (leg separation) 0.1
• (flexed feet) 0.1
• (deviation from ideal landing position / chest slightly low and forward) 0.1
• (step on landing) 0.1

full twisting double layout

• failure to maintain stretched position) 0.1
• (deviation from ideal landing position / chest slightly low and forward) 0.1
• (hop on landing) 0.1

Gogean

• (body shape - insufficient split, between 1 and 20 degrees of split) 0.1
• (lack of precision) 0.1
• (balance error) 0.1

Memmel

• (lack of precision / overrotated turn) 0.1

double turn with free leg at horizontal

• (balance error) 0.1

double tuck

• (flexed feet) 0.1
• (deviation from ideal landing position / chest slightly low and forward) 0.1 ^

full twisting switch leap

• (body shape - bent knee on forward swing leg, and insufficient split, between 1 and 20 degrees of split) 0.3
• (lack of precision) 0.1

double pike

• (flexed feet) 0.1
• (deviation from ideal landing position / chest slightly low and forward) 0.1
• (step on landing) 0.1

Total - 2.0 - 2.1

Artistry

• Insufficient complexity or creativity in the movements 0.1

Total E - 7.8 - 7.9 / -2.1 - 2.2

 

[YurchenkoLoop]

@Denn on Day 2 you gave Chiles a 9.5 on vault and @Doug1233 you gave a 9.4! USAG gave 9.5. Chiles is definitely looking at a 9.3+ for that vault internationally. Andrade’s is superior though, I agree

 

[Denn]

I had 8.1 for Andrade’s floor, same as the panel at Pan Ams.

My guess is that they didn’t deduct her landing positions. Following the Help Desk, she does fit the acceptable range, although all 4 times, it’s not by much.

Double needle spin: A few years ago, my understanding was that a gymnast could do additional half revolutions, either for choreographic reasons or to ensure credit, but that the intent should be clear. This spin does look intentionally 2.5 revolutions. Is there a rule update somewhere on that? I did, however, deduct the single spin after it for precision. So I came out the same in the end.

double turn with free leg at horizontal: I took 0.3. I felt that was a more substantial loss of balance.

The choreographic passage in the middle was substantial, and the ending sequence certainly shows some complexity. So I did not deduct for artistry, though, intuitively, I feel that there should be room somehow for something better, so I wanted to take 0.1.

 

[Denn]

BTW, thanks for posting the breakdown. I enjoyed seeing your thinking!

 

[Denn]

No, compare to Chiles Day 1! USAG gave this 9.55. So I am saying that Andrade should get a similar score for her vault, but she got 9.4. That’s an example of how USAG scores might be a little higher.



(Actually, Andrade’s form in the air and landing are both slightly better, but probably not enough for a score change.)

I do feel that vault landings should be scored differently than floor, beam, and bars landings.
0.1 Tiny but clearly visible hop/step/loss of balance
0.2 small hop/step/loss of balance (up to half a meter)
0.4 medium hop/step/loss of balance (beyond half a meter)
0.6 large hop/step/loss of balance (a meter or more)
1.0 fall in the direction of salto or hand support (like Memmel on night 2)
2.0 fall in the direction opposite of the salto

 

[YurchenkoLoop]

I support encouraging the stick on vault for sure. That differentiation^ is a good idea

 

[JJS_5056]

100% agree with more differentiation. We’ll soon have DV ranging from A - K, so it should be logical that execution, too, needs more than -.10, -.30, -.50, -.80. BUT, the other big problem is the risk/reward ratio. The average reward on VT for increasing difficulty is .40 (vs. .10 on UB/BB/FX from A > B > C, etc.), but this rubric essentially sets “risk” at a ‘medium hop/step/loss of balance.’

IOW, if you have a great DTY, why invest in an Amanar (.40 reward) and risk a net loss of -.10 with: flexed toe (-.10) + step between .5 - 1 meter (-.40) = -.50 total? Additionally, what about the other aspects of a VT? Should improper blocking technique be less of a concern / penalized than steps? I’m not sure, but I do think - since 2006 - there’s been too much focus on differentiating VT alone, when it’s always been an outlier.

I’m not saying tweaks aren’t needed, but VT (1 skill vs. 1 routine) has always been more forgiving to errors, bunched in scores, etc. FS judges grade from -5 to +5, which (typically) equates to -5% > +5% of an element’s base value. That may be too simplistic, so each skill could get a grade for Amplitude, Body Shape, Precision, and Control, and on Vault, within each phase (Pre-Flight, Post-Flight, Landing). That’s the only way to “build in” a mechanism that ensures deductions are proportional to a skill’s value.

Since a radical overhaul is unlikely, though, maybe some sort of hybrid where deductions of -.10 > -1.0 can be taken (.05 or .10 increments), and certain landing penalties become a Neutral % off the score? Hmm.