Random gymnastics questions

[mle]

I think that MC makes a valid rationale that staying within bounds is a direct result of good technique in acrobatics. Having good technique - speed, angle of take-off, etc will lead to more stable landings. Simone has both demonstrated the ability to both stay within the confines of the 12m x 12m and not stay in. An athlete who takes a step and stays in bounds should have less deduction than the athlete who takes a step of the same size and goes out of the lines - size of the athlete should not matter. Most athletes usually take line deductions as a result of a step/steps and not landing outside the floor. In another post (maybe this one?) Izbasa showed a great three salto pass that shows that good technique is important. If safety is the issue, why not do as is done in trampoline - have spotters on the corners of the podium and have safety mats on the floor off of the podium. Also, as pointed out above, changing the dimensions of the floor will be a huge financial cost for programs and federations who struggle already.

But perfect technique doesn't matter if you are too tall to fit the pass in the floor space. A physicist could calculate how much space a 4'8" gymnast vs. a 5'4" gymnast would need with perfect technique to generate a given skill from x number of steps and a ROBH. Taking 4 steps into a hurdle generates way more power than a jump hurdle.

Are some gymnasts going to be limited by height - sure. But you could do the math to figure out how much space an average height gymnasts need to do certain skills with perfect technique and go from there.

 

[MaryClare]

But perfect technique doesn't matter if you are too tall to fit the pass in the floor space. A physicist could calculate how much space a 4'8" gymnast vs. a 5'4" gymnast would need with perfect technique to generate a given skill from x number of steps and a ROBH. Taking 4 steps into a hurdle generates way more power than a jump hurdle.

Shorter gymnasts have a statistical advantage on every piece of apparatus. Of course in reality that isn’t how things work out. But it’s elite level sports, there shouldn’t be equity.

 

[mle]

Shorter gymnasts have a statistical advantage on every piece of apparatus. Of course in reality that isn’t how things work out. But it’s elite level sports, there shouldn’t be equity.

True - I just think the way the sport has moved towards more difficulty, it is worth thinking about these ideas others have suggested because the floor skills of today are very different from when floor exercise was created. But if we only want the shorter gymnasts to do certain skills/combinations then fine, keep that advantage.

(But you are right - bars have changed dramatically, but tall gymnasts are still incapable of doing certain skills since they can't adjust the bars settings, etc.)

 

[Aeris]

@Aeris There already are deductions for going crooked. No need for a second deduction penalizing the same thing.

Travelling to the side is not a deduction on floor and in MAG not a listed deduction at all. The nebulous "other aesthetic/technical flaws" category of the MAG code could theoretically cover it, but I've never seen it taken, including FIG famously listing the official deductions for Hashimoto's vault at the 2021 Olympics when there was controversy about him being overscored - no deduction for being offline.

I think the double penalty on vault is deserved and MAG should be taking it just like WAG. On Floor the OOB deduction is sufficient, because it's ultimately about using that given space and there are many movements and more possible directions involved throughout an acro line. Whereas with vault it's always the exact same expectation of what is centered or not.

A rectangle floor doesn't solve your concern anyway. People are going to use the diagonals to give themselves as much room as possible and there will always be out of bounds happening at the corners, unless we start having gymnastics competitions on football fields.

 

[FrolovasDoubleLayout]

I think that using tallness or shortness (are they even words) shouldn't come into play. I'm sure there are really good ball-handlers who are only about 1,5m who will never play in the NBA because of their height - that's life and they either work really hard to have a chance or they pick a different sport.

 

[mle]

I think that using tallness or shortness (are they even words) shouldn't come into play. I'm sure there are really good ball-handlers who are only about 1,5m who will never play in the NBA because of their height - that's life and they either work really hard to have a chance or they pick a different sport.

I don't think it should come into play in terms of fairness -- because you and MaryClare are right that there will always be physical attributes that benefit athletes in different sports. I think it is more if we want to see more of certain skills, how would we need to adjust the apparatus for that to be possible. For example, as the sport evolved, bars became farther apart to allow different skills to be possible - but there are still advantages/disadvantages for different heights.

I realize I am now making a different argument than the one about tumbling into confined corners though, so feel free to drop this! =)

 

[makam]

A rectangle floor doesn't solve your concern anyway. People are going to use the diagonals to give themselves as much room as possible and there will always be out of bounds happening at the corners, unless we start having gymnastics competitions on football fields.

But at least that would be their choice to try to eke out those last inches and not a requirement of the sport. Also, it might be harder to do a diagonal on a longer, thinner floor without really going crooked.

If the rectangle design isn't wanted, they could just adjust the "corners" to not be corners. Add in a 45 degree line that is like 1m long and move the boundaries to that. A landing box. Tumbling to a point is not necessary and out of bounds would still exist in any of the suggested orientations, gyms wouldn't have to update their equipment, they could use chalk or train for corners and then feel luxurious at having the additional space, just have it at major competitions. Competitions usually have to pay for or borrow a floor anyway, so that expense is always there. Heck, add the landing box to only two corners and let people tumble to a point and scrunch their toes to stay in bounds if that is what they want to do.

 

[Aeris]

A small extra landing zone in the corners would be the most agreeable thing, if something must change. A semi-circle would probably look best (like the one in the top right corner here):

 

[Denn]

Travelling to the side is not a deduction on floor and in MAG not a listed deduction at all.

"Deviation from straight direction"

 

[Aeris]

"Deviation from straight direction"

Yes that's that listed WAG deduction, and I've never seen it taken on Floor in any judge sheet or FIG training. Only on vault and for BB dismounts that land very off to the side. It would be silly to deduct on floor, because where is exactly is the deduction supposed to be taken? The final tumble of a line could be perfectly in line with where it started, and it's the earlier steps that went somewhat sideways in relation to where the acro line started. If someone didn't go out of bounds then who cares, especially because if someone really wanted to they could rebound with a side somi at the end of an acro line, or other various creative things that definitely should not be punished for creating interesting shapes on the floor.