FIG 2022-2024 Code Of Points

[RAFIKI]

Orphan 1/2

 

[Doug1233]

With regard to a Simone-type grasp of beam:

Section 8 page 2 says:

“Brushing/touching apparatus/mats with hands, but not falling” - 0.3 deduction
“Support on mat/apparatus with 1 or 2 hands” - 1.0 deduction.

Section 12 page 4 says:

“Grasp of Beam in order to avoid a fall” - 0.5 deduction

WUT?

Also, there are a million different deductions you can take on a kip cast to handstand on bars.

• Body Alignment (1 or 3)
• Poor Rhythm (1)
• Insufficient extension (1)
• Angle of completion (1 or 3)
• Amplitude (1 or 3)

Someone tell me - where does “body alignment” end and “insufficient extension” begin?

 

[Denn]

There are guys who would do, say, 3.5 + front full but really do 3.25 + a flip from the sideways position with 1.25 twist.

I also think it’s probably an excuse. Everyone uses the bonus for twisting combos and they are getting sick of it I guess. But it does appear to allow bonus for, say, 2.5 + front layout, which is easier. :-/

I don’t think that this is the right way to solve the problem, but there it is.

 

[Denn]

Is the “insufficient extension” deduction on the kip, when they swing forward?

 

[Doug1233]

Yes, I guess so. Like a Yang Yilin kip?

 

[Doug1233]

I’ve been doing some Tokyo prelims judging this morning and noticed that my pen is really stuck in Tokyo 2020 mode. I’m so much closer to those scores than I am when re-judging Worlds routines.

I wonder what the E pen will be at Worlds in Liverpool. I really hope they go back to the Olympic pen and not the Worlds pen.

 

[RedBirdie]

With regard to a Simone-type grasp of beam:

Section 8 page 2 says:

“Brushing/touching apparatus/mats with hands, but not falling” - 0.3 deduction
“Support on mat/apparatus with 1 or 2 hands” - 1.0 deduction.

Section 12 page 4 says:

“Grasp of Beam in order to avoid a fall” - 0.5 deduction

WUT?

Ugh, FIG inconsistency at it’s finest.

 

[YurchenkoLoop]

Yes, the insufficient extension is for the kip specifically, the body alignment for the cast to handstand.

I’ve always thought Derwael’s opening kip should be hit the .1 for insufficient extension. Probably Suni’s too but Nina’s is worse

 

[MRR]

Section 8 page 2 says:

“Brushing/touching apparatus/mats with hands, but not falling” - 0.3 deduction
“Support on mat/apparatus with 1 or 2 hands” - 1.0 deduction.

Section 12 page 4 says:

“Grasp of Beam in order to avoid a fall” - 0.5 deduction

I think the 0.5 specific apparatus deduction for beam takes precedence over the “General Faults and Penalties” in section 8.

The 0.3 sounds like the Help Desk example for the wolf turn where a hand touches but the gymnast isn’t actively falling or supporting with her entire body weight:



The 1.0 would be for a vault, dismount, or acro landing even if only one hand touches. Very curious if this was applied here (her E was 8.15):

 

[Doug1233]

This one is even closer (0:16)



View attachment 3042


What’s the deduction for punching the floor mat? Ha

She was lucky to make EF.

I feel sorry for E4. She must have felt like shit when the 8.233 was flashed.

ETA: This is why I’m so fucking mad they didn’t release the Tokyo book. Things like this we would have never discovered but for the Rio book being released / leaked. I actually don’t even know if it was ever officially released but someone somehow got a copy of it and posted it online. We need more transparency. What are the FIG trying to hide?

This was the paltry ultimate response I got from the FIG after asking several times for the Tokyo Book (which does NOT have individual E and R panel deductions like the Rio book does):

View attachment 3043

Celine doesn’t even reply to me anymore…

Does anyone on here have any more senior contacts who we could ask? I can’t believe the gymnastics community doesnt seem to care that much about this. Figure Skating releases full results for the shittiest of competitions yet the FIG can’t even do it once every four years for the fucking Olympics. It’s a disgrace. Why aren’t Jessica and Spencer talking about this instead of 30 minute dialogues about wearing Rainbow Pride facemasks at meets.

 

[Doug1233]

With the 8,7s she gets thrown at her, there’s just no way. But you’re right. That kip is full on piked.

 

[Doug1233]

I think the 0.5 specific apparatus deduction for beam takes precedence over the “General Faults and Penalties” in section 8.

I think you’re right. But we shouldn’t have to guess.

I would make grabbing the beam 8 tenths. There are many occasions when a large wobble warrants 0.5 without touching the beam - there should be a reward for a large wobble that doesn’t need to grasp the beam, as opposed to a large wobble that ends up grabbing the beam.

 

[ArnoldRimmer]

Orphan 1/2 or KCTHS 1/2

We really need a board discussion about whether we should call this a Komova or an Ezhova.

 

[onodian]

We really need a board discussion about whether we should call this a Komova or an Ezhova.

there’s no discussion, this is a komova through and through. Ludmilla still can get the outrageous dancing at a FIG afterparty named after her

 

[ArnoldRimmer]

She should also have the Ivantcheva to arse.

 

[KristyJ]

Oh, heavens, yeah even getting into another apparatus’ stuff. That first example of hand support in the help desk is awful, too. It is clear that she would have biffed it if she didn’t put her hand down, and that her whole weight was going that way.

I do believe the insufficient extension is in fact in regards to the kip, and I wish they would clarify that because it’s not something the really explain anywhere.

 

[onodian]

She should also have the Ivantcheva to arse.

I thought we agreed this was the Ibuttcheva

 

[rlayt]

I’m confusing it with the Buttarova now. Is there a diagram or video?

 

[ArnoldRimmer]

Perhaps we can make a request for it to be included in the next FIG coaching bulletin.

 

[Doug1233]

New Artistry Evaluation:



So I’ve just noticed that these deductions have been moved from “Specific Apparatus Deductions” to “Artistry & Composition Deductions” on beam:

• Poor body posture (head shoulders trunk)
• Amplitude throughout (maximum elongation of the body movements)
• Feet not pointed/relaxed/turned in
• Lack of work in relevé
• Insufficient amplitude of leg swings/kicks

Artistry deductions for “confidence” and “personal style” have been removed.

Now - artistry on beam is a 12 step checklist. Artistry deductions can now go from 0.0 to 1.2, as follows:

1. Upper body posture throughout
2. Amplitude and elongation throughout
3. Amplitude of leg swings/kicks
4. Feet not pointed
5. Lack of releve
6. Lack of involvement of all body parts
7. Lack of variation in tempo
8. Disconnected elements (trick, stop, trick, stop)
9. Non-A mount
10. Lack of complex sideways movement
11. Lack of combination of close to beam movement
12. More than 1 turn on 2 feet with straight legs

I like this change. I feel like those Specific Apparatus Deductions often got lost at the end of the exercise, and/or were merged into the “general sense of artistry” evaluation at the end of the exercise. That’s at least how I feel I have been judging.

The “Specific Apparatus Deductions” for beam are now just rhythm in connection, adjustments, pauses, “excessive arm swing” pause, using the side of the beam as a support (0.3), grasp beam to avoid a fall (0.5), and movements to maintain balance that aren’t steps (1, 3 or 5).



The same rubric has been carried over into floor, but with the following changes: