New rules coming for ncaa

[nog]

So. I haven’t seen the new rules yet myself but I’m hearing there are some changes coming.

Rumor is
1) floor will have an E pass requirement for any 2 pass routine
2) bars will have some change that will discourage the maloney (or shaposh) to pak. Not sure how that will work, but won’t be a 10.0 SV
3) vault - there will possibly be bonus to a teams with entires if 3 different families (again not sure how that would work)

Anyone else hear or know any changes

 

[Aeris]

Requiring an E pass doesn't make 2-pass routines un-lame, particularly when the Front 2/1 is an E in NCAA.

Maloney + Pak, Van Leeuwen routines will still be 10, snoozeville.

Back gainer 1/1 dismount still being C rating will continue to make beam routines underwhelming too.

 

[Rich]

Would you guys rather it be more difficult. I thought making the games closer with more athletes able to perform a 10.0 degree makes it exciting.

 

[MaryClare]

Would you guys rather it be more difficult. I thought making the games closer with more athletes able to perform a 10.0 degree makes it exciting.

It does. But the number of top programs has grown massively in the last few years and there is a greater need for differentiation. A 10 should be achievable, but it should also be special

 

[BB12]

So. I haven’t seen the new rules yet myself but I’m hearing there are some changes coming.

Rumor is
1) floor will have an E pass requirement for any 2 pass routine
2) bars will have some change that will discourage the maloney (or shaposh) to pak. Not sure how that will work, but won’t be a 10.0 SV
3) vault - there will possibly be bonus to a teams with entires if 3 different families (again not sure how that would work)

Anyone else hear or know any changes

Love the first 2 and see them both as necessary changes but hate the last one.

You would then essentially be penalising a team if a certain person or people gets injured/sick and they are the ones who can fulfil that requirement. And all that does is encourage coaches to push people beyond what they physically should in the name of the 'team'.

 

[Kara]

I personally couldn't care less about adding difficulty; I just want the judges to take the very obvious deductions that are there for them to take.

 

[irichluck21]

The TENnessee meet was the cherry on top of on the CAROL cake.

They can change the composition requirements all they want but if the execution deductions arent being taken, it won't matter what CoP you use.

The problem is not really difficulty or composition but judging the execution deductions.

 

[CameliasFingerpaint]

How about they actually start deducting shitty dance elements on FX so that gymnasts don’t fall back on 2 pass routines.

 

[cuuf]

I agree, judging is what needs to be addressed.

 

[BB12]

I personally couldn't care less about adding difficulty; I just want the judges to take the very obvious deductions that are there for them to take.

In theory, I agree. But I do think routines need to be harder so there are more obvious deductions to take.

 

[Aeris]

Stricter deductions won't make the routines worth watching, the code is too lame. NCAA used to be much more interesting, and it's not just about the difficulty going downhill, it's about how NCAA is supposed to be a place where gymnasts can showcase their own style. It's instead been boiled down to "do a basic routine and be rewarded for it, since the judging is no longer holistic."

The judging does need to be less sloppy, but they don't want to get pedantic about it either. Routines become more cookier cutter if there's only a small pool of skills that can realistically be performed without deduction.

I thought making the games closer with more athletes able to perform a 10.0 degree makes it exciting.

Most people would still be capable of 10 start value if the requirements were raised. It's just that adding more content increases the risk of a mistake. This used to be informally expected, but now it's not, so very few people try.

 

[Denn]

I agree that requiring a little more difficulty would be okay and also separate execution scoring a bit, too.

I feel like part of the problem is that there's bonus only for Ds and Es. They should make Cs worth 0.1, Ds 0.2, and Es 0.3 and then require maybe 1.2 in difficulty (including connection bonuses).

Gymnasts who want to do more Es and higher can do so. Other gymnasts can load up on Cs. Fine.

 

[Aeris]

I'd like to see more than E rating too. Give something to the people who want to do the very difficult skills.

 

[Denn]

Totally agree that an F or G should be worth extra, and I also think that using the FIG element table would be better — it's confusing having two sets of ratings that are mostly similar.

 

[Bob]

I don't get changing the shap to pak . They should require a same bar release instead. That is what is missing from a lot of routines. I'd rather just see FIG scoring myself. And much better judging. The judging is terrible.

 

[Aeris]

I don't think a same bar release should be required, there are other interesting ways to build difficulty. Like harder transition moves or a very difficult dismount (currently no reward for that), or pirouettes. The 1.5 pirouette used to be seen in NCAA routines, can't think of the last time anyone tried that.

 

[irichluck21]

No one does the 1.5 because of the handstand deductions

 

[MaryClare]

No one does the 1.5 because of the handstand deductions

Yep. It’s the same in elite

 

[Aeris]

1.5 is actually given more allowance for handstand angle in the NCAA code. Maybe it should be given even more. Either way, it's a problem that it's never seen anymore, and it never will be seen if more difficulty isn't required in the routines.

 

[irichluck21]

Perhaps if the 1.5 was done into a release move or transition, it would be free of the handstand deduction? As long as it was continuous. I could see some 1.5 into an Ezhova for example.