Which 0.1 deductions/upgrades are equivalent?

[Denn]

All of the below are worth 0.1 — and, if we're being fair, should all feel like they are worth the same, basically.

Which of these do you feel DON'T belong in the list and why? You can offer other examples, too. You also could group them into "equivalence" groups.

1. flexed feet in a layout salto
2. flexed feet in a tucked salto
3. small arm bend catching a release
4. The value of a back handspring
5. connecting a toe-full to a Tkatchev on bars
6. a slight hop or shuffle in place
7. a hop or step that's a little less than shoulder width
8. pause or hesitation
9. being 30° to 45° out of handstand on a cast
10. being 27° from handstand on a stalder
11. being 27° from handstand on a stalder with 1.5 turn
12. upgrading double tuck to full-in on FX
13. connecting two spins together on beam or FX
14. stepping out of bounds with only one foot or hand
15. slightly piking the hips in a layout position
16. a small wobble on beam
17. feet apart on landing
18. upgrading Shaposh to Shaposh half
19. upgrading a double full to a 2.5 twist on FX
20. connecting two whips to a double back

 

[KristyJ]

Of those where .1 feels high, I'd say I wish there was a 0.05 for the slight shuffle, feet apart on landing (within reason, there could be a scale for this), and the pause or hesitation.
Of those where .1 feels low, a toe-full connected to a Tkatchev I'd say is definitely harder than 0.1 CV indicates, and cast-handstands really should be deducted more in line with how pirouettes are treated. I don't understand how in the elite world a cast not to handstand is still fine when it's all handstands everywhere else.
I find myself waffling on the double back to full-in, double full to 2.5, two whips to double back, and Shaposh to Shaposh half.
The rest feel fine to me at .1

 

[Aeris]

Grip adjustments without any balance issue on bars being .1 deduction is silly.

2.0 / 2.5 twist only being .1 difference on floor doesn't feel good. It becomes somewhat "fixed" when accounting for connection/dismount bonus, but that's not how every routine is constructed. Having 0.05 increments for the value of elements would help alleviate the problem, but in actuality the whole system needs a revamp, with skills being worth a lot more than they currently are, if you want to separate things out more accurately.

For example, the difference in difficulty between a single tuck and double tuck is really more than .3 - taking a big hop on a double tuck is far more impressive than only doing a single tuck. But the scoring system says those are worth the same (assuming the double tuck we are talking about wasn't the intended dismount). And that's just on floor! Double Tuck dismount on Bars is worth a mere .1 more than a single tuck, like come on.

 

[Concorde]

Grip adjustments without any balance issue on bars being .1 deduction is silly.

I agree with this, but I am curious as to what exactly constitutes a deductible grip adjustment per the WTC because:

1) The original definition of a deductible grip adjustment when it first entered the COP in 2006 seemed much more targeted and not aiming to penalize simply lifting the hand from the bar and placing it back on the bar.

2) To the best of my knowledge, the definition has not changed.

3) STS examples can contradict themselves and the COP.

Below is the full text of a post I made on this on Reddit from a few months back:

A Few Notes on the Adjusted Grip Deduction:

1. History

The adjusted grip deduction entered the COP in 2006. In April of 2006, the WTC defined a deductible grip adjustment as “When the gymnast shifts one or both hands over sideways on the bar to readjust the placement of the body."

What is Deductible Based on this Definition?

The WTC appeared to be targeting grip adjustments in which the gymnast ‘walks’ across the bar. As can be seen in the example below, this movement disrupts the flow of the routine because the gymnast remains ‘paused’ in handstand while adjusting her grip instead of flowing into the next element.

Video Example:

What is Not Deductible Based on this Definition?

In the definition of adjusted grip, the key phrases appear to be shifting of the hands sideways and readjust placement of the body. Therefore, when a gymnast simply lifts her hand off of the bar and places it back in the same position on the bar without lateral movement of either her hands or her body, she has not performed a deductible grip adjustment.

How Has the Definition Changed Over Time?

To the best of my knowledge, the WTC has not explicitly issued a new definition of what constitutes a deductible grip adjustment, either via the COP, the Help Desk, or newsletters.

In STS/judge training software, there are examples of gymnasts performing casts to handstand where one hand is lifted and replaced on the bar close to the original position without receiving the adjusted grip deduction. However, a gymnast that changes from regular grip to reverse grip by alternating placements of each hand, instead of hopping directly from regular grip to reverse grip is shown as an example of something that would receive the adjusted grip deduction. It should be noted that the examples in STS can sometimes contradict each other and even what is in the COP.

Video Example of Deductible Grip Change:

2. Practical Application of the Deduction in Judging

The angle from which a routine is viewed will have a significant impact on how visible the grip adjustments will be to a judge. For example, while Suni's grip adjustments are visible in both videos, they are much more obvious from the broadcast angle. It is likely that a judge may give the benefit of the doubt and not deduct for the grip adjustment because Suni does not appear to have sideways shifting of the hands or movement to the placement of her body.

Video 1 - Judges' / Side Angle:

Video 2 - Broadcast Angle:

 

[Concorde]

Of those where .1 feels high, I'd say I wish there was a 0.05 for the slight shuffle, feet apart on landing (within reason, there could be a scale for this)

Gymnasts are now allowed to land with their feet slightly apart with no deduction. Per the WTC presentations, the criteria is: 1) Feet parallel in landing position and 2) Lateral part of feet are in line with the hips.

Acceptable Landing Position Example:



Deductible Landing Position Example (On 2 1/2 Twist):

 

[Denn]

For example, the difference in difficulty between a single tuck and double tuck is really more than .3 - taking a big hop on a double tuck is far more impressive than only doing a single tuck. But the scoring system says those are worth the same

Totally, and this is exactly where I wanted to go with this thread eventually.

I originally had more range (0.3, 0.5, 1.0) to my examples, but I edited it down to limit to 0.1 because it's the minimal increment of the system and I thought it would make the discussion more direct/accessible at first.