How is Manila Esposito's beam final exercise only an 8.3?

[Denn]

I seriously can't get it that low, even if I deduct many of the connections for slow rhythm (when in fact, I think they are totally lovely).

 

[Caligym]

This is the first time I am seeing her full routine…and I too don’t understand the E score, don’t understand how anyone could take any rhythm deductions. This is what we want…she never stops moving!

 

[Aeris]

.1 form, .1 adjustment - LOSO
.1 form - Switch Split (in real time her front leg doesn't appear properly horizontal with the beam to me, her left arm is also bent)
.1 connection rhythm - after Split 1/2
.1 adjustment, .1 connection rhythm - Front Aerial (for the adjustment, look carefully at the left foot)
.1 form, .1 adjustment - Side Aerial
.1 arms - Wolfy Wolf Spin
.1 unnecessary step - before dismount
.1 flex feet, .1 leg separation, .3 hop - Double Pike
.2 "artistry" (tempo variation, elongation)

Some of these things should just be 0.05 deductions, but we work with a bad code that doesn't allow for such precision. The deduction for her movement before the dismount shouldn't exist at all, but sadly it does. The dismount hop also should be given .2 objectively, but again the code sucks, everything is either .1 or .3, no differentiation between a medium hop and a huge one.

 

[KristyJ]

I actually got exactly 8.3 with only two slow connections, though I felt a bit grinchy taking .1 for artistry (releve, she had some spots where she easily could've used it more). .1 feet on mount, .1 on angle for each of the split series (so .2 for series), .1 slow connection before back handspring, .1 slow connection before split jump second series, .1 feet on the front aerial, .1 feet on the side aerial, .1 body position and .1 balance on the wolf turn, .1 stupid adjustment deduction, .1 feet on the roundoff, .1 leg separation on the dismount, .3 hop + .1 step/off balance after hop on landing.

 

[Bob]

it clearly should be higher. OK you can nit pick but if you applied the same nit picking to the other routines you would get far far lower than their actual e score. So either their e scores are too high or hers is too low.

 

[MrSixkiller]

This is the problem with such draconian execution deductions. When 99% months of skills receive deductions, it becomes impossible to separate routines.

 

[navyblue]

Yup. A routine without a single balance check, terrific artistry and flow, oversplit leaps, etc. should be a routine that can approach a 9.0 e-score.

While the experts above give good insight into the likely scoring that brought this down to an 8.3, it still exposes the issues with the code that fail to properly differentiate. For example, the "adjustment" deductions that Aeris cites above amount to basically a micro movement of Manila's foot on the beam, sometimes simply from the momentum of the skill itself, and yet these would be deducted identically to a blatant balance check, that latter of which on balance beam obviously ought to be more significant.

Landing deductions which Aeris already called out also need more nuance than the 1/3/5 system. A 'stuck' landing which has a big aesthetic significance to most gymnastics viewers might garner just as many deductions for a slight arm circle to regain balance as a landing with a blatant bounce/step. That seems wrong too.

 

[RedBirdie]

The women's code is so broken. I don't feel like the MAG code is anywhere near as harsh for the sake of being harsh.

 

[KristyJ]

Yeah, I got the above score on my first watch of it, no playback, trying to apply the code as is. If I was in charge of the code, the deduction for releve, the deduction for back leg higher on a full split, and the adjustment deduction would not exist, and deductions wouldn't be .1 .3 .5, but have more range, so I'd have a bit less deduction on the landing. Those changes alone would bump it up to the 9ish range.