New International Scoring System for Women's Gymnastics, part 3 (vault)
The A-panel judges record which vault was done and what its Difficulty Value is. For example, a simple front handspring vault has a value of 2.40. The hardest vault (in the materials that I'm consulting) would be a handspring double front in tucked position which has a value of 7.10. Some of the men do this vault, but it is pretty rare.
The B-panel judges start their scores from 10.0 and deduct from that based on the execution -how well the vault is performed. Deductions could come from legs being apart, legs being bent when they aren't supposed to be, turns being incomplete, landing too close to the vaulting table, stepping or hopping on the landing, etc.
The two scores are added together for the score on a vault.
After the score is calculated, there is one more judge who has input. The line judge says whether the gymnast landed within the "corridor" - or the space between the two lines on the mat. If a gymnast lands with both feet between the lines, there is no deduction. If one foot is over the line, there is a 0.1 deduction and if both feet are outside the lines it is 0.3 off. The only thing that counts is where the gymnast first lands, so if you land in and then go out on a hop or a step, you don't get this deduction.
Those are the basics.
Other interesting facts about vault scoring:
* The gymnast does indicate which vault she will be attempting by flashing an identifying number before she goes. However, there is no deduction for doing a different vault from the one you indicated. So, for example, if you indicate that you plan to do a layout but it feels off in the air so you decide to tuck, you will have a lower start value, but no additional deduction for changing your mind. However, if you do not flash any vault identifier at all, there is a 0.3 deduction.
*Depending on what phase of the competition one is in, either one or two vaults are performed. In cases where two are performed, the second one must have either no flip off the horse (oh, fine, vaulting table), or a flip in the opposite direction of the flip in the first vault. Direction in this case being backwards or forwards.
* If you ignore that rule, they average your two vault scores and then subtract 2.00 to get your final score. That's a pretty hefty deduction.
* If you fall on your vault such that your feet are not the first things that hit the mat, your vault will get a zero.
* Falls are now 0.8 off instead of the previous 0.5.
*Vaults are divided up into 5 groups for classification purposes. They are:
- No flips (but there can be twists onto and/or off of the horse)
- Handspring (with or without full twist) on, forward flip (with or without twist) off
- Tsukahara - quarter to half turn onto the horse, back flip (with or without twist) off
- Round-off onto the spring board, back handspring onto the horse (with or without a full twist), back flip (with or without twist) off the horse
- Round-off onto the board, back handspring with half twist onto the horse, front flip (with or without twist) off the horse
Showing posts with label gymnastics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gymnastics. Show all posts
Friday, February 01, 2008
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
New International Scoring System for Gymnastics, part 2 (broad overview)
So you know the perfect 10.0? Gone. No longer exists. In fact, if a gymnast scores a 10 in a major international meet nowadays, he or she did very poorly. In fact, there is no "perfect" score any longer. A very good score, one that could earn a medal, is in the high 15 or low 16 range (depending on the apparatus). For now anyway.
There are now 2 judging panels for each event.
Panel A will give a score that reflects the difficulty of the routine. On bars, beam and floor, that means that they will add the difficulty ratings of 10 elements in the routine. Each move is assigned a difficulty rating of A, B, C, D, E, F or G. An A element is worth 0.1, B is worth 0.2, etc. up to a G element which is worth 0.7. There are also 5 element group requirements worth 0.5 each. Skills count towards both the element group requirement and the difficulty value - it doesn't have to be just one or the other. There is also a connection value that is added into the A panel score. If this is confusing so far, don't worry. I'll explain these things more in depth in the coming days.
Panel B judges start each gymnast with a 10.0 but then subtract for errors in execution and artistry. These judges are very picky. Judges in general have always been picky, but this system is even more so. Falls are now a 0.8 deduction (instead of the familiar .5). Many moves on bars must be completed in a handstand otherwise there are deductions based on how far away from vertical the gymnast is.
Both panels scores are added up to get the gymnasts' event scores.
(I totally wrote this on Tuesday and just saved instead of posted. Ooops.)
So you know the perfect 10.0? Gone. No longer exists. In fact, if a gymnast scores a 10 in a major international meet nowadays, he or she did very poorly. In fact, there is no "perfect" score any longer. A very good score, one that could earn a medal, is in the high 15 or low 16 range (depending on the apparatus). For now anyway.
There are now 2 judging panels for each event.
Panel A will give a score that reflects the difficulty of the routine. On bars, beam and floor, that means that they will add the difficulty ratings of 10 elements in the routine. Each move is assigned a difficulty rating of A, B, C, D, E, F or G. An A element is worth 0.1, B is worth 0.2, etc. up to a G element which is worth 0.7. There are also 5 element group requirements worth 0.5 each. Skills count towards both the element group requirement and the difficulty value - it doesn't have to be just one or the other. There is also a connection value that is added into the A panel score. If this is confusing so far, don't worry. I'll explain these things more in depth in the coming days.
Panel B judges start each gymnast with a 10.0 but then subtract for errors in execution and artistry. These judges are very picky. Judges in general have always been picky, but this system is even more so. Falls are now a 0.8 deduction (instead of the familiar .5). Many moves on bars must be completed in a handstand otherwise there are deductions based on how far away from vertical the gymnast is.
Both panels scores are added up to get the gymnasts' event scores.
(I totally wrote this on Tuesday and just saved instead of posted. Ooops.)
Monday, November 26, 2007
New International Scoring System for Gymnastics, part 1 (personal editorializing and ranting)
After the 2004 Olympics, there was a hue and cry saying that we needed a new way to score gymnastics. Said hue and cry was raised based on a couple of occurrences, neither of which are addressed by the new code of points that was put into place in 2006.
The controversy that got the most attention was notable not because of the actual events but because of the way certain of the people involved handled the events. The central fact is that a South Korean gymnast was not given enough points for the difficulty of his parallel bars routine. Incorrectly credited difficulty ratings are a common problem in gymnastics competition. In fact, it is so common that there is a long established method of dealing with such situations. The coach who wants to challenge his or her gymnast's score submits a verbal and written inquiry immediately. That is it. Simple and straightforward. You see a discrepancy, you submit an inquiry. The judges review things and, very often, a new score is awarded. Gymnasts move fast and judges have to blink, or look down at what they are writing. A judge mis-counts the number of elements that were performed at each level of difficulty. Or a judge simply adds incorrectly. There can be human error which is why there are checks and balances built into the system.
What happened in this case is that the coach failed to submit in inquiry right away. In fact, it was the next day before anyone complained. Then they pushed the case in front of any sporting authority and media outlet that would listen. This "controversy" was entirely caused by coaches not doing their job correctly. Period. At the time I read comments by South Korean officials that it wasn't necessarily so much about this particular incident, but that they wanted to make a point because they felt their athletes had historically been given short shrift in judged athletic endeavors. One article I read mentioned an incident that they feel was unfair that took place in a different competition AND in an entirely different sport!
Controversy #2 was the score given to Alexei Nemov on his high bar routine. The first score awarded was a 9.725. Afterwards the crowds booed long and loudly enough that 2 judges (from Malaysia and Canada) raised the scores they had given resulting in the final score being raised to 9.762. What this says to me is that the judges are wusses. The crowds should not have any influence over the scores and changing the score after prolonged booing simply makes it seem like the judging is random. It isn't. Nemov's routine was great. It *looked* great to the crowd. But some of his skills, while flashy, were not actually as difficult as those that other gymnasts performed. They just aren't. It was not a surprise to anyone in the sport because the difficulty levels of all the moves are published well in advance.
Actually, there was a third controversy. Or at least a third irregularity in the men's gymnastics competition. The day before the competition started, International Gymnastics Federation (FIG) officials informed Blaine Wilson, Brett McClure and Jason Gatson (all from USA) that the start values on their high bar routines, which they'd been using for two years in international competition, were being lowered from 10.0 to 9.9. One of the skills that each included in his routine was suddenly not going to be given the same difficulty value as it had been given for the 2 preceding years. While the FIG *does* set the difficulty level of all moves, changes to the values do not normally occur right before major competitions. In fact, that type of determination generally happens once every 4 years right after the Olympics with, perhaps, smaller yearly touch-ups that are published, in writing, during the non-competition season.
No major changes really needed to be made to the judging system at all as the controversies were caused by the incorrect application of perfectly good rules and the complete inability of a coaching staff to follow well established methods of dealing with such errors. Having said that, however, I will devote parts 2 and following to explaining the new judging system since we seem to be stuck with it.
After the 2004 Olympics, there was a hue and cry saying that we needed a new way to score gymnastics. Said hue and cry was raised based on a couple of occurrences, neither of which are addressed by the new code of points that was put into place in 2006.
The controversy that got the most attention was notable not because of the actual events but because of the way certain of the people involved handled the events. The central fact is that a South Korean gymnast was not given enough points for the difficulty of his parallel bars routine. Incorrectly credited difficulty ratings are a common problem in gymnastics competition. In fact, it is so common that there is a long established method of dealing with such situations. The coach who wants to challenge his or her gymnast's score submits a verbal and written inquiry immediately. That is it. Simple and straightforward. You see a discrepancy, you submit an inquiry. The judges review things and, very often, a new score is awarded. Gymnasts move fast and judges have to blink, or look down at what they are writing. A judge mis-counts the number of elements that were performed at each level of difficulty. Or a judge simply adds incorrectly. There can be human error which is why there are checks and balances built into the system.
What happened in this case is that the coach failed to submit in inquiry right away. In fact, it was the next day before anyone complained. Then they pushed the case in front of any sporting authority and media outlet that would listen. This "controversy" was entirely caused by coaches not doing their job correctly. Period. At the time I read comments by South Korean officials that it wasn't necessarily so much about this particular incident, but that they wanted to make a point because they felt their athletes had historically been given short shrift in judged athletic endeavors. One article I read mentioned an incident that they feel was unfair that took place in a different competition AND in an entirely different sport!
Controversy #2 was the score given to Alexei Nemov on his high bar routine. The first score awarded was a 9.725. Afterwards the crowds booed long and loudly enough that 2 judges (from Malaysia and Canada) raised the scores they had given resulting in the final score being raised to 9.762. What this says to me is that the judges are wusses. The crowds should not have any influence over the scores and changing the score after prolonged booing simply makes it seem like the judging is random. It isn't. Nemov's routine was great. It *looked* great to the crowd. But some of his skills, while flashy, were not actually as difficult as those that other gymnasts performed. They just aren't. It was not a surprise to anyone in the sport because the difficulty levels of all the moves are published well in advance.
Actually, there was a third controversy. Or at least a third irregularity in the men's gymnastics competition. The day before the competition started, International Gymnastics Federation (FIG) officials informed Blaine Wilson, Brett McClure and Jason Gatson (all from USA) that the start values on their high bar routines, which they'd been using for two years in international competition, were being lowered from 10.0 to 9.9. One of the skills that each included in his routine was suddenly not going to be given the same difficulty value as it had been given for the 2 preceding years. While the FIG *does* set the difficulty level of all moves, changes to the values do not normally occur right before major competitions. In fact, that type of determination generally happens once every 4 years right after the Olympics with, perhaps, smaller yearly touch-ups that are published, in writing, during the non-competition season.
No major changes really needed to be made to the judging system at all as the controversies were caused by the incorrect application of perfectly good rules and the complete inability of a coaching staff to follow well established methods of dealing with such errors. Having said that, however, I will devote parts 2 and following to explaining the new judging system since we seem to be stuck with it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)