Why did Carey do an Amanar 2nd VT

Talk Gymnastics With Us!

Join Today... Members See FEWER Ads

Cheng was her intended 1st vault…you can see the 6.0 flashed in the background.
At that point it didn’t matter. I am actually surprised she went for a 2nd vault at all.
She would have needed a 17.+ on her second vault to even sneak into 7th place.

She probably just went with the Amanar because that is what she had practiced.
Last edited:
I think she was probably a little shook up after missing the block or hurdle or whatever threw her off. Reattempting the Cheng might’ve been scary. She was out of contention so might as well do the vault that feels safer in the moment. Thank goodness one touch is reinstated.
I got the impression she just did it because that was what she’d planned. She was cruising to 8th place anyway, so why worry about maximising the score? Actually at the time I like @irichluck21 wondered whether it was wise to go at all, but I guess she wanted to show at least some of what she could do.
Yeah it’s not like an Amanar is a cake walk. Even with the big step forward she still got a 9.1 E (higher than Skinner and just a tenth behind Andrade’s Amanar).

Interesting that our Gymnaverse Panel had Skinner, Yeo and Moreno all tied for 2nd (with Moreno winning Silver, Yeo Bronze, and Skinner 4th, on the tiebreaker).

@Concorde we are missing your scores on vault and bars! https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...O_2_MtKwZ6-F4Eid-8n81xbCU/edit#gid=1176997697
Last edited:
We generally felt that Yeo’s DTY was underscored.

It really depends on how you evaluate those steps. I think 0.3 for the first big step, and two 0.1 hops on one foot are sufficient. The height and distance were great. Tight form. Good on the table. Minimal pike down. But I think in real time without the benefit of a replay you could be forgiven for taking 2 x 0.3 instead of 0.3 and 2 x 0.1.

I had 2 on the table (leg sep and slight shoulder angle), 1 for height, 1 for distance, 1 for legs, 1 for pikedown (although this was pretty minimal - you could take 1 for being slightly over her butt / body posture on landing, instead), 3+1+1 for steps = 1.1 in deductions.

All four of us gave an 8.9. FIG came out at 8.733. And that was pretty much the difference.
Last edited:
How are judges supposed to evaluate a step where the foot leaves the floor but doesn’t return to it? Because I can see there an obvious 0.3 for the first big one and two 0.1s for the little hops, all with the left leg. By the time she finishes those and brings her landing under control, the right leg isn’t on the floor: she regains control sort of halfway through the step. It’s not as bad as having also taken a full step with the right foot but also not the same as not taking one either. Or is that what you mean by judges could be forgiven for taking 2 x 0.3, is there a lacuna?
I agree with your analysis - she had regained full control by the end of the 3+1+1 sequence. Her putting her right foot down (and stepping to present with legs together with the leg foot) I wouldn’t consider an additional step. She was in control and the final step was solely done to present to the judges, it wasn’t a step done to regain balance or control.

I think it’s down to discretion. When I referred to 2 x 0.3 - it was more that because it happened so quickly, the judge’s memory might have merged those 2 hops on one foot as one “medium” step. The judge might think “in the aggregate, it was 2 large steps back and warrants 0.6 landing deduction”. Remember that a judge can only go up to 0.8 for steps without a fall.
It’s complicated! Another option I wondered about is whether it would be possible, as well as the 0.3 and two 0.1s, to take another 0.1 for the half step with the right leg. Is that doable? Could some of them conceivably have done that? I do think we would ideally want some option to deduct for what the right leg was doing, especially on vault where landing is such a big percentage of the routine.

Talk Gymnastics With Us!

Join Today... Members See FEWER Ads