Random gymnastics questions

[Denn]

BTW, I think it's hilarious that someone made a montage of Olga Teslenko going out of bounds. I don't think I ever realized she had this problem. LOL



Even keeping 56 feet, at least half of these would not have been out of bounds. Corner shape = more out of bounds.

 

[Matilda23]

Denn what do you mean about corner shape? Even with a rectangle floor, the gymnasts would still use the diagonal and tumble into the corners I imagine

 

[KristyJ]

If we are seriously considering a bigger floor, I am miffed as to why that must include narrowing one dimension. I would argue that keeping a minimum of 40' depth would be wise, and if anything was reasonable, widen the sides. Yes that would be more cost but it would not require dramatically changing the patterns used for the exercise.
It would likely take many gyms and federations years to make the change regardless due not only to cost but the space restrictions in many facilities.

 

[irichluck21]

Speaking of Teslenko, I always wondered why she didn't do bars in team finals in Sydney.

 

[dweiss324]

@Matilda23 I think he means that a lot of oob infractions are not because the gymnast went longer than the diagonal, but because they were slightly offline trying to work into a corner, meaning they stepped oob on a side line, not past the actual corner itself. This means you only get 56 feet if you're perfectly straight from corner to corner.

The idea being, it isn't the length of the tumbling diagonal that's the problem necessarily, it's that to utilize the full length of the diagonal, you have to be perfectly straight. If you're one foot off to the left, you effectively also lose a foot of distance in bounds, and a few feet off sends you onto actual gym floor or off the podium

Tumbling down a rectangle would eliminate that issue, you'd be guaranteed the full length of the pass, even if slightly off line.

 

[Denn]

@dweiss324 explained it beautifully (thank you) and here's a picture that helps explain further. This guy went out of bounds because of the corner, not because he went longer than the diagonal. The pink line simulates the line at the end of a 56' mat. There would still be out of bounds, but they would happen a lot less often — because no corners.

 

[MaryClare]

Steve Legendre probably agrees

 

[Aeris]

Tumbling down a rectangle would eliminate that issue, you'd only go out of bounds if your pass went too long, not if you were slightly offline. Gymnasts would only use a full diagonal if they absolutely had to for long passes

Diagonals would be used for most everything still, unless not allowed, which would make the routines even less visually appealing than what would already happen by introducing a rectangle shape.

Staying in line is a normal part of gymnastics. There's literally a codified deduction for going offline on vaults/dismounts and it's the essence of every skill on beam. Someone going OOB on an acro line is an imperfection. I think there needs to be more gradients on the deductions taken, but it's not good to coddle gymnasts in this regard and try to eliminate OOB as part of the skill of the sport.

Realistically the only actual real-world application of tumbling is being able to land with precision while jumping through a narrow space. If you happen to be a spy/thief or stranded in a cave or fleeing during an apocalypse.

 

[Puffin]

Does it mean lame side passes will become a thing again?

 

[dweiss324]

I just don't see it as coddling, at all. The vault oob lines widen with distance. The apparatus encourages distance and forgives deviation from center accordingly. The vaulting horse was replaced to accommodate safety and increasing difficulty. The bars were widened to accommodate increasing difficulty expectations. It's the same thing.

The floor size hasn't changed since before there were springs. That's anachronistic. Creating appropriate apparatus that reflect the reality of today's gymnasts and skills being performed isn't coddling, it's appropriate progression.

 

[mle]

I like the idea of having a gradient of a deduction for out of bounds like someone suggested above, regardless of the floor size. As it is right now, the deduction is based on number of feet out of bounds. But you could be perfectly online and have portions of two feet go out and get the 0.3 pt deduction or be totally crooked and fully step out of bounds with one foot for a lesser 0.1 deduction (ignoring any other deductions that might be associated with that or size of the step).

 

[crdubb17]

Fun topic. I love hearing perspectives around things I’ve never really considered, like the setup and takedown. Justin Spring expressed his frustration about the floor size on this podcast a few years ago. Around the 17 minute mark.

 

[Aeris]

I just don't see it as coddling, at all. The floor size hasn't changed since before there were springs. That's anachronistic. Creating appropriate apparatus that reflect the reality of today's gymnasts and skills being performed isn't coddling, it's appropriate progression.

Triple saltos were landed in bounds on floor in the 80's. Nothing on floor has increased past that difficulty. If someone can't do it in bounds then they are inherently showing less skill than someone who can.

 

[dweiss324]

The code doesn't reward a gymnast for doing a skill in 50 feet rather than 55. Floor isn't "who can do it the shortest". Simone didn't get bonus for landing her double double in the middle of the floor. I don't know, to me, there are way more examples of the diagonal limiting otherwise cool opportunities for unique passes, combination tumbling or safe tumbling for taller gymnasts.