What I’m open towards is the general sentiment that fewer things be left to D-panel micromanaging and controversy
I agree. These rules were forced into play under the guise of fairness and described as “open-ended,” with the supposed aim of giving credit to content that exceeds an arbitrary limit (e.g., 10.0 SV). However, 15 years later, the WTC is as arbitrary as ever;
- No attempt to quantify true value of skills. For V1 of this COP, fine, but by 2021, an Aerial and Rulfova should not both be worth .40 simply because of an outdated letter system, even if a simple .05 was added (i.e., D = 0.40 and 0.45 skills).
- Adjusting DV every 4 years, when the relationship between VT entries, body positions in saltos, 1/2 twist additions, etc., can and should be quantifiable.
- Capping “open-ended” ideology when it comes to UB pirouettes and transitions, BB/FX dance elements.
As with these and other decisions, hacking CV to minimize incompetence is totally out of line with the sport’s stated goals. There are so many obvious ways to improve the system before going to that extreme. Crediting
attempted skills is easier, reduces compounding penalties, etc. In FS, athletes have to submit planned routines in advance. Why not require:
- Athletes must submit planned content 24 hours prior to start.
- All elements receive credit unless there is a substantial technical error (1/4 or more short of turn, 45 or more degree of knee/hip bend, etc.).
- Downgraded elements receive lower DV, but the attempted skill is still ‘called,’ thus allowing a 2.5 to earn credit later if a 3/1 is downgraded earlier.
- D Panel calls are communicated to E Panel in real-time; there’s NO reason why a Komova should worry she’ll lose -.10 D and -.30 E for a slightly piked Layout Jaeger simply because there is no communication.
Aerials are a perennial problem, especially side somis and free cartwheels in isolation. I’d either merge some or all aerials into the same box, or make 1-2 them C elements. Not sure yet.
Part of the solution is moving beyond the constraints of a letter system. Composition needs to be evaluated more holistically, as well, to discourage routines reliant on 1 skill type, but in the meantime, moving to a DV scale where Aerials can be worth 0.3 while an Onodi is worth 0.35, while both retain their “D” status for CV/SB purposes, would help alleviate the abuse of the easiest skills per letter.
Until basic (A, B) skills are worth 0 and count only toward meeting min skill reqs, CV, CR, etc., downgrading D+ elements is counterproductive. If a BHS / Split Jump earn .20 DV, you can’t have aerials earn 0.3. Even now, many D / E skills are extinct because the DV difference between B/C and D/E is so minimal. If C = 0.1, and D = 0.3 (Aerials) and 0.35 (Onodi), maybe we start seeing some change…
Since my ideal - a “Composition” component as part of an A Score - will never happen, I could live with a deduction (-.1, -.2, -.3) for “Overuse of element group(s) / skill type(s)” and grouping Aerial + Side Aerial, Side Somi + Front Tuck/Pike from 1 ft, etc.
I think it’s time. I’ve thought for a while that front aerial should be a C. Especially when they downgraded Sheep to C. I always thought a Sheep was harder to do correctly.
Although part of me thought the FIG downgraded the Sheep simply because they didn’t like the delays it caused to the D Panel. At least with a ring leap you only need to look at one foot.
The Sheep needs to go back to D regardless. The fact that there are D+B (.10) and D+D (.20) Mixed/Dance CV, when only the Straddle and Split Jump (B) and Ring Jump (D) are viable options for either is so frustrating.
I’m sure that the aerial cartwheel was a C in 2001-2005. I’m guessing the upgrade for the open ended code to better facilitate counting elements and encourage its usage as part of a series
Front Aerial was a C until 2001 and Side Aerial until 2006. Both are so out of place in a letter grouping with skills like the BHS 1/1, Rulfova, Omelianchik, etc., it’s sickening.
