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.

 

[Denn]

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.

The help desk literally has this picture.

 

[RichardL]

The help desk literally has this picture.
View attachment 12602

I literally lost my coffee looking at this picture, which seems to have been created by a 3-year-old learning how to attempt to draw a straight line for the very first time. Never change, FIG.

 

[Ms Motts]

Deviation from a straight direction is a deduction I take on floor not frequently but definitely regularly when judging non-elite gymnastics, but it seems to peak in about level 5 (the first level with connected tumbling in Australia).

I can’t imagine there’s too much call for it on elite floor, unless someone is having a very bad day, but it’s pretty clear when it’s the appropriate deduction and not just the gymnast doing something interesting and non linear.

 

[KristyJ]

I have absolutely taken that deduction, though not frequently. It's pretty clear when a tumbling line starts one direction and ends another.

 

[Aeris]

That's extreme traveling though, not just landing a bit to the side of the corner, as in this post - https://gymnaverse.com/threads/random-gymnastics-questions.5706/page-3#post-111301 - where it was argued this is the reason we need rectangle floors. That step would not and should not be deducted for "deviation from a straight line".

And really it should be removed as a deduction altogether from FX. You're already given a bounded area to work with and it should be about doing whatever you want within that space. If someone did a purposefully curved acro line with a bunch of cartwheels (not that it's practical for a competitive routine with the current rules) they shouldn't be deducted. Whereas with vault the goal is like archery - trying to hit the bullseye. It makes sense there to deduct for landing next to the oob line.

 

[KristyJ]

I think it's pretty clear when tumbling is choreography vs offline, and maintaining the control to not have your tumbling line go sideways is part of the mastery of the sport. As for the picture above we'd need to see the whole pass to see if it warranted a deduction, you can't tell simply from one still picture of one step to the side.

 

[Aeris]

The assumption in that pic is the acro line started in the other corner, of course. That amount of "sideways"-ness is not something I can ever recall being deducted. Elite gymnasts simply aren't veering off to the side so wildly that it's a concern.

But either way I would argue the deduction shouldn't exist on FX. If you went sideways enough that you're out of bounds, then that's the penalty, and if you can do a Silivas or whatnot that purposefully travels quite sideways, and yet stays in bounds, then that's actually impressive and not something deserving of deduction.

 

[KristyJ]

I have 100% seen passes that veer off direction enough, in the elite world, to fully warrant the deduction. I have better things to do with my time than go look for them but they're pretty clear in some of the higher camera angles we get. Note-- I am not talking a line that started off to the side from the run or anything purposeful, I am talking passes that curve during the tumbling. Side passes are fine at whatever angle. Passes that change direction during the tumbling and are not clearly choreographic are not more impressive for the errors. And why shouldn't a deduction exist on the chance that it might be used even if it's not super common?