FIG 2022-2024 Code Of Points

[Concorde]

There still needs to be releve on beam…not showing any will result in a deduction. Showing it poorly will receive the deduction as well…

Perhaps I’m misinterpreting Sacchi’s words, but she does state in the presentation that releve is not compulsory. For anyone that wants to listen to the specific segment, link here:

 

[ruby]

I don’t think it’s possible to construct a routine without artistry deductions that does not show any kind of releve.

 

[Denn]

She does say it’s no longer compulsory, so a gymnast could choose other ways of being artistic yes.

And I agree that very few will work in relevé – not with a potential deduction looming each time.

 

[RAFIKI]

Pak salto deductions are now for insufficient height, rather than based on angle of completion. (Center of Gravity above high bar = No Deduction, Center of Gravity at high bar height = 0.1, Center of Gravity below high bar height = 0.3)

I’m curious to know the % of pak saltos we’ve seen that would get no deduction under this rule. Not many based on a cursory look at this montage (though it is hard to tell when the camera angle isn’t from the side).



Anyone got enough time on their hands for a screenshot project?

 

[Doug1233]

I was thinking about this yesterday! As I was looking at Melnikova. She definitely gets her hips above the bar.

I always thought that Komova would get a pretty severe “catch” deduction, despite getting a LOT of rise:

 

[onodian]

I forgot about this

This is before the powdered sugar

 

[Doug1233]

Beautiful. 8.8 E.

 

[onodian]

I call them my Russian bb tf cookies, cause they look lovely, but if you put the slightest amount of pressure on them they crumble to pieces

 

[irichluck21]

I call them my Russian bb tf cookies, cause they look lovely, but if you put the slightest amount of pressure on them they crumble to pieces

 

[makam]

I guess my question is what does the height of your pak show/solve? Poor technique has a low pak? A high pak is more aesthetically pleasing? I guess since the judges can’t see from the side, they can’t deduct the leg separation and they have to be able to deduct something, but most of those from the video looked great to the layman and I don’t understand why they should be deducted because they didn’t flip up to the ceiling and instead used control to connect it to another skill. Is it supposed to look like a bail, just caught in the other direction?

 

[falcon9]

Pak salto deductions are now for insufficient height, rather than based on angle of completion. (Center of Gravity above high bar = No Deduction, Center of Gravity at high bar height = 0.1, Center of Gravity below high bar height = 0.3)

I think this one is great… angle makes no sense on that skill.

 

[Concorde]

I’m curious to know the % of pak saltos we’ve seen that would get no deduction under this rule. Not many based on a cursory look at this montage (though it is hard to tell when the camera angle isn’t from the side).

I think the new Pak salto rules will actually be less punitive compared to the previous angle of completion requirements. To clarify the rule, height is assessed at the peak of flight, and not where the center of gravity is at the point of regrasp. Below are examples of a shorter and taller gymnast satisfying the height requirements.

Li Ya



Svetlana Khorkina

I guess my question is what does the height of your pak show/solve? Poor technique has a low pak? A high pak is more aesthetically pleasing? I guess since the judges can’t see from the side, they can’t deduct the leg separation and they have to be able to deduct something, but most of those from the video looked great to the layman and I don’t understand why they should be deducted because they didn’t flip up to the ceiling and instead used control to connect it to another skill. Is it supposed to look like a bail, just caught in the other direction?

I believe the angle of completion deductions on Pak saltos were designed to 1) flush out poorly performed Pak saltos and 2) encourage gymnasts to work directly out of them. If you catch a Pak too flat / below 45 degrees, you most likely will be unable to immediately connect it with a stalder on the low bar or a Shaposhnikova. However, as many gymnasts from the 2017-2021 cycle showed, the angle at which you caught the Pak salto didn’t necessarily mean that the skill as a whole was poorly executed, or that you couldn’t work out of it, especially those catching in the 31-45 degree range (which was where deductions started being taken).

In theory the height deductions should now primarily punish Pak saltos which don’t show a good rise in the gymnast’s center of gravity and are ‘dumped’ down to the low bar.

 

[JJS_5056]

Thanks, @Concorde – once again, the WTC has shown that by affording an endless amount of time and scrutiny against 1 element, the entire concept of an objective COP is thrown away. If everything beautiful about the sport has been removed in the name of “fairness” and uniformity, why should it be the job of the WTC to develop new protocols for 1 skill to encourage specific skill choices or connections? Pak + Shap should be encouraged by awarding fair DV and CV in line with the risk. The technique best-suited to receiving those rewards will naturally follow.

Now, after tossing 1 set of protocols (angle of completion) aside, they’ve developed new complicated criteria. Why is the Pak so special it needs these guidelines, a “lack of height” deduction already exists? It’s nonsensical. For a skill worth 0.40, a good judge can’t determine if it warrants a -0.10 or -0.30 for its amplitude without having to determine some “center of gravity” relationship?

In reality, this is all probably based on ~30-year old logic, since I’m sure the original codified language re: the Pak Salto (requiring catch in front support) was merely to differentiate it from the rolls it evolved out of, which were caught below LB height (i.e., Amy Chow’s straddled roll). With the bars so far apart, attempting a Pak with so much rotation that you catch it under the LB would certainly end with the feet hitting the mat. Komova came close, and IMO, there is nothing inherently incorrect about her Pak Salto execution.

 

[JJS_5056]

The micromanaging of when the 1/2 turn occurs in jumps on BB is another absolutely insane move, and their justification literally is nonsense. This is to make it clearer for judges? Seriously? The difficulty in performing a sideways jump with or without turn is the take-off and landing – it seemed as though that was understood when they implemented the “+1 DV if performed sideways” rule. When and where the turn and/or position was hit was never really the point… was it? And, devaluing it to crossways if it was begun or ended crossways was punishment enough for ones that were “unclear.”

Doesn’t this rule impact all turning jumps, not just sideways ones? So, essentially, anyone performing a Switch 1/2 other than Carly Patterson would be impacted? And, have they even clarified what that impact – the actual penalty – is? -1 DV? DV of a non-turning jump?

Why exactly couldn’t they have just limited the “+1 DV if performed sideways” clause to 1x per routine?

 

[Doug1233]

I’m happy with the new deduction. We all want to see flighty Paks. And yes there IS already a lack of height deduction. I see this move as: (1) a removal of the angle of completion deduction; and (2) a codification/guideline for how to evaluate the “lack of height” deduction for a Pak. Both of these are good moves.

If the hips/butt don’t reach the height of the HB, it’s no longer worth doing (unless there aren’t any other transitions available). Maybe we will see less dumpy Paks. Just like how we are now seeing a plethora of really great Rings compared to 4/8 years ago.

One question I have is whether the straddled Pak (which has now been upgraded to C and so is a viable new HB to LB transition) attracts the same height deduction.

 

[onodian]

is the straddled Pak the Chow version?

 

[Doug1233]

Yes! It’s being upgraded to C!

If there is NO applicable deduction for height, and it’s only 1 tenth less than a perfect Pak, it would make sense that we see a lot more of it in the next Code!

 

[onodian]

that’s actually a good move, I never understood why we never saw it. Now please somebody find a way to make the Strong worthwhile

 

[Concorde]

Doesn’t this rule impact all turning jumps, not just sideways ones? So, essentially, anyone performing a Switch 1/2 other than Carly Patterson would be impacted? And, have they even clarified what that impact – the actual penalty – is? -1 DV? DV of a non-turning jump?

Yes, the rule impacts both dance elements with 1/2 turn, whether performed in cross or side position. For a switch leap 1/2, gymnasts can use either a technique of 1) switch → 1/2 turn → hit split position (most commonly used technique today) or 2) switch → hit split position → 1/2 turn prior to landing (Patterson’s technique as you noted).

 

[Doug1233]

I see a lot of switch 1/2s look like this (1:16)



A weird smush of switch, turn, straddle-split and cross-split.

Why would the new rules do with this leap?