Rules we need changed after the Olympics

[Doug1233]

I honest to God have NO IDEA what they mean with 0.1 adjustment. What is the rationale behind this deduction? Any gymnast is going to adjust somehow if they have a pause before a skill. I don’t understand what they want

You can adjust you just have to incorporate dancework into it.

 

[Doug1233]

If it’s not a rule, it should not be in the Code. And if it’s important, it should be a rule.

It’s crazy that the Helpdesk is actually more useful to judge with than the actual Code.

 

[KristyJ]

@Sanzhirovka I have always broadly defined gymnastics in my mind as “the art of movement,” with the idea that that can take many forms, though I do understand the desire to be less abstract with that. I was thinking about ways in which the FIG has communicated what they are looking for over the years and I realized, it used to be compulsories. Literally compulsories were designed to make sure gymnasts at least paid minimal attention to the aspects of movement that were deemed essentials. I so wish we’d never axed them.
I’m not usually for over-regulating performance as I like to see a variety of expressions of “the art of movement,” but I do think we need ways to encourage more variety of quality movement overall.

Edit- Also @Doug1233 that “adjustment” deduction is one of the most assinine things I’ve seen the FIG do yet.

 

[JJS_5056]

In fact, for beam, it’s a whole column tall.

And, in my opinion, it should all be deleted. It’s just blah blah blah, not rules that are enforced. If it’s not a rule, it should not be in the Code. And if it’s important, it should be a rule.

BUT, in almost every COP pre-2006, these descriptions (which grew too long and absurd, I agree) gave context to the set of rules that followed. It makes perfect / logical sense to have General Faults applicable to all apparatus >> each Apparatus section providing context behind the specific requirements, bonus, and apparatus deductions.

The WTC hadn’t yet taken a one-size fits all approach where -.1, -.3, -.5 deductions apply across each event. The VPs, SRs, and CVs were chosen to reward what was described, and gymnasts could lose a heck of a lot more in subjective deductions for routines that missed the mark. From 1997-2000, a gymnast could lose upwards of -.65 in subjective deductions for a BB routine. That is NOT the maximum, just an avg. taken from applying the guidelines detailed below.

~.65 vs. ~.30 now on BB/FX for, like “lack of complex choreography.” There is NO incentive to construct a routine that is balanced, artistic, dynamic, etc., today, when the risk is -.20 max, which pales in comparison to the increases in DV/CV you could spend the time on.

In a time (97-00) when: Fall = -.50, D = +.10, E = +.20, and +1.0 in DV/SB were needed for a 10.0 SV, -.65 in these types of deductions is A LOT. Losing 65% (or more) of the maximum DV+CV allowed / .15 more than a FALL, in these areas, was certainly incentive. And, in order to avoid these deductions, the Apparatus definitions / descriptions absolutely helped provide context.

My -.65 came from: -.10 for dynamics, -.15 for artistry/presentation, -.10 for lack of diversified composition, -.10 for lack of progressive distribution of elements, -.15 for insufficient use of apparatus spatially/directionally, -.10 for rhythm/tempo

General subjective deductions allowable (1997-2000 COP):
Lack of dynamics in performance (UB, BB, FX): up to -.20; VT = -.30
Lack of artistry/presentation in performance (BB, FX): up to -.30
Lack of progressive distribution of elements: up to -.20
Lack of diversified composition: up to -.20
Insufficient use of apparatus spatially and directionally: up to -.20
UB deductions
Lack of rhythm and tempo: -.10
Predominance of close-bar execution: up to -.20
Uncharacteristic movement: -.20
BB deductions
Lack of variation in rhythm and tempo: up to -.20
Predominance of acrobatics: -.10
FX deductions
Music and movement not in harmony: each -.05
Routine not ended with music: -.10
Lack of variation in rhythm and tempo: up to -.20

 

[Denn]

You literally proved my point: those descriptions all were part of the actual deductions.

Again, if it’s important, it should be a rule.

 

[JJS_5056]

Um, what? And, you’re literally proving my point of proving your point, while simultaneously missing the point. You stated the idea of defining each event’s purpose, etc., was “already being done” via the descriptions that “should be deleted” since they aren’t tied to any rules.

This discussion is literally “Rules we need changed after the Olympics.” My point is not that “if it’s important, it shouldn’t be a rule.” My point is the event descriptions / definitions ARE important and, as was the case pre-2006, this should be translated into rules. Don’t delete the descriptions, reinstate a more robust approach to evaluating them as was always done in this sport.

I totally agree with @Sanzhirovka 's thoughts. Many issues are tied to a lack of clear vision for the sport / 4 events, disconnect between those visions and the scoring system, and inability to reconcile a so-called “open-ended” COP with the realities of a subjective sport. If the WTC is okay capping certain skill types (1 ex), there’s no logical reason to continue ignoring composition, artistry, etc., under the pretense of “objectivity.”

“Progressive distribution of difficulty” was a fundamental of routine construction pre-2006 and easily explains why Biles couldn’t, and shouldn’t, be able to accrue ~1.2 points from 1 DMT when the interior contains an A mount, B+C+C Acro Series, and mostly D Aerials and Jumps, each worth .40. Sure, Jade Carey is required to count 3 “dance” skills on BB, but every elite level gymnast should be able to hit 180 splits for 3 B skills in a category capped at E. The degrading level of basics doesn’t change the fact D Scores favor power over other qualities that were once deemed essential.

A “power” gymnast who learns a Moors on FX can count an I, H (Silivas), F (DLO), and E (Full-In), go to BB and score respectably with a Full-in (G = .70 + .20 = .90 this last cycle) DMT alone, and score well on VT with a DTY. They net much more vs. a gymnast with a Double Front (E), 2.5 (D) + Front (A), Double Pike (D) who shows more variety, and even if she can consistently get 3 D “dance” skills 100% around, is only allowed .30 over gymnasts who count 3 Cs.

 

[JJS_5056]

Also, saying that rewarding gymnasts who show > 18-degree splits with a bonus is equivalent to deducting those who hit 180 makes no sense. That’s like saying we shouldn’t reward a Triple-Double more DV because it’s simply another way of saying a Double-Double isn’t good enough. The FIG decided to reward higher levels of DV in the sport in 2006, so the fact that Execution is such a mess is inexcusable;

The -.1, -.3, -.5 scale is disproportionate to the .10 DV scale. Almost every single gymnast is going to lose -.1 on a skill, even if it is 99% perfect. If a gymnast can counter that -.1 built-in deduction for, say, a leg separation on her Full-In (E) by upgrading to a Silivas (H), she earns +.30. There is no way to counter it on the Execution side. Why shouldn’t an oversplit be able to get +.05? Or, more relevant to Acro, why shouldn’t a gymnast get +.05 for a Split-legged DLO? Or, Full-In with a creative exit (BHS)?

“Open-ended” shouldn’t mean more points for flips and twists. It should mean multiple ways of rewarding the ideals of gymnastics: difficulty, execution, artistry… if you go above standards of difficulty, you earn +.10 each time. We need to reward those who go above the standard in other areas, even if in small amounts.

 

[KristyJ]

The progressive distribution of difficulty rule wasn’t designed to tell the gymnasts not to do one skill that was more difficult than the others in their routines. It was designed to make sure they distributed the difficulty throughout their routine. Saying that a difficult dismount makes a comparatively easier routine (even if it is very much comparable to the rest of the competitor’s routines) somehow distributed incorrectly is a misunderstanding of the rule. Now, if the gymnast threw a cartwheel-back tuck series followed by a couple stag leaps in their routine when it’s clear that they could do more, you might have a case (though that may have been more aptly addressed by other deductions depending on the circumstance).

 

[JoseM]

I fully agree with you.

José M.

 

[JoseM]

Everything that kills artistry in artistic gymnastics should be ditched. Artistic gymnastics must remain artistic.

José M.

 

[YurchenkoLoop]

ok correct me if I’m wrong, but in TQ, the first vault performed by a gymnast always counts towards their AA program? I think that’s pretty dumb–if a gymnast scores higher on their second vault, then that score should count toward the AA total score in TQ. Just take the higher scoring vault like a normal sport pls Nellie, are u lurking?
This would incentivize learning a second vault if you’re someone trying to avoid getting three-perred in the AA…

 

[Livi]

I get what you’re saying about it being an incentive. But it would give good vaulters an unfair advantage. They get a second chance if they mess up the first vault. A good bars worker doesn’t.

 

[irichluck21]

I think that’s pretty dumb–if a gymnast scores higher on their second vault, then that score should count toward the AA total score in TQ. Just take the higher scoring vault like a normal sport pls Nellie, are u lurking?

It would also effect team standings though and gives an unfair advantage to those with two vaults. The first vault is for the AA but it is also for the team score too.

 

[YurchenkoLoop]

I hear you both, @Livi and @irichluck21, but a good bars worker isn’t precluded from learning a second vault. It makes TQ more competitive, which I think is further incentive. I don’t see it as unfair at all

 

[Doug1233]

gives an unfair advantage to those with two vaults.

Why would it be unfair if it’s an option available to everyone?

I actually think @YurchenkoLoop raises a really good point. We WANT athletes, like Raisman or Weber, to learn a second vault, don’t we?

I used to love it in 1996 when VT EF was battled out between all the top AAers.

This rule would incentivise everyone to learn a second vault.

 

[Livi]

It would be more fair if you take an average. There’s no possibility to scratch anything on any other event.

The argument that: “a good bard worker can learn a second vault too”, is not valid. It gives an advantage to good vaulters, period. For some gymnasts it’s hard enough to learn a decent first vault, let alone a second. Plus, you don’t give beam workers the opportunity to do a second acro series, so they can mess up one with no consequenses.

If you take the average of two, you can give good vaulters an opportunity to get some cushion for a mistake, just like a good bars worker gets herself cushion with a high D score. But no scratching.

 

[Doug1233]

Well AAers who want to do try to make the VT final would be discentivised if they had to include their (often poorer) second vault in their average score.

Melnikova might not even want to do her Lopez if it might get her 2perd for the AA.

Unless you’re saying EVERYONE has to do two vaults, and the average vault score is THE vault score for purposes of AA qualification?

I’d be down for that.

 

[YurchenkoLoop]

I’m not really following your argument. I get that it’s harder for smaller gymnasts to compress the spring board, but plenty of times the best vaulters in the world have been very small. And on beam it’s an automatic advantage to be short and disadvantageous to be tall. Bars, it’s generally advantageous not to be too short.

 

[YurchenkoLoop]

Okay, another asinine thing about the code is that a split jump 1/2 crossways on beam is a D, but an under-rotated split-jump 1/1 gets downgraded to a C, despite landing crossways as a part of the under-rotation!!!

 

[Doug1233]

Ha you’re right! That’s a funny quirk.

I’m actually quite surprised we haven’t seen more sideways jump connections so far. They are absolute MONEY for the D Score.

Straddle 1/2, Split 1/2, Jump 1/1 - all crossways - gets DDD+5. Gives you all your dance DV. And it gets your dance CR.

Someone like Becky Downie could have perfected this combination on a low beam at home during lockdown. She could have built her whole routine around it:

Candle Mount
Front Aerial - Split - Straddle 0.2
Straddle 1/2 - Split 1/2 - Jump 1/1 0.5
Aerial Cartwheel - LOSO 0.2
Full Turn
RO Back 3/2

DDDDDDCC 0.9 = 5.9

Same D as Ashikawa. 5 tenths more than Schaefer.

This got a 5.6:



Maybe Becky isn’t the best example, as this Split Jump 1/2 crossways is dogshit. No idea how much she trained for it. Her split and straddle positions are normally pretty good.

It seems like only the Chinese have really milked this part of the Code so far.

She was less than a tenth from making the BB final. That silly wobble at 0:32 probably was the difference.