Overview: Code of Points Proposals


Thanks to The All Around for linking to some brilliant documents on the Canadian Gymnastics website. The link provided is documents which contain the proposals for code changes from the symposium in Zürich last month.

The were a huge amount of suggestions and recommendations from the different gymnastics federations world wide (Argentina, Australia, Japan, Canada, Chile, China, France, Russia etc) one point that was mentioned a lot was  artistry – on both beam and floor. Here is a quick overview of the suggestions for each apparatus:


Artistry was mentioned a lot, in fact I would almost say that it was the main issue. The document highlighted that the deductions for artistry on floor are up to 1.10 marks and do these deductions always work?

Judges and coaches are unclear of what “Artistry” really means and how Artistry is being judged

I found this section to be very interesting. Comparisons were made between various competitions ranging from the 2011 Jacksonville Cup to the Paris World Cup.  At the Jacksonville World Cup, all of the 8 gymnasts competing received artistry scores between 0.1 -0.5. This changed significantly for the competitions in  Moscow, Doha and Paris. It was suggested that an artistry bonus should be rewarded rather than a deduction, I think this is a very fair point. it can be argued that at each of these competitions, not all of the same gymnasts competed on floor, however it clearly shows that there is a lack of continuity in the judging at all events.

There were also points made in regards to music selection:

The music must be perfect, without any abrupt cuts, giving a sense of one music piece. It should flow, with a clear start and a clear ending, respecting the musical phrases….

The chosen music must give an advantage to the individual competitor’s characteristics and style.

The section on floor music and the structure of a floor routine is a huge section.

The WTC raised a number of proposals in regards to floor routines:

  • Revise the table of elements for floor
  • Revise CV (connection values)
  • E Scores


There was one main point raised on this apparatus.The execution scores between vault and the lack of varied vaults present today. The introduction shows an overview of the current rules and criteria and begins by discussing the introduction of the new vaulting table in 2001.

In 2001 (10 years ago) the new vaulting table was introduced. Maybe the biggest impact with this change was:‐modification of techniques (not necessarily better performances)‐reduction of injuries‐development of Yurchenko entry type vaults.

But we stop seeing development or continuity in the performance of sometype of vaults‐no vaults with double salto (Produnova)‐few tsukaharas with 2/1 turn‐few stretched front saltos w/wo ½ turn.

There are a lot of statistic involved in this presentation, so if you’re into stats, you’ll love this. The conclusion was:

  • Less and less gymnasts try to qualify for CIII
  • Relation between scores on VT and other apparatus iscorrect, but there is no significant difference between E‐Scores on VT:‐

-Lack of clarity of each vault expectation?

‐Lack of clarity of each penalization?

‐Incorrect placement of judges?

  • Among the average, difficulty did not increase.  Monotony with only few vaults performed
  • Are we moving along with new techniques?


The main points raised were the repeated use of skills, such as El grip and Tkatchevs, asking if there should be a restriction on the number of elements performed from one root skill. Again there are lots of tables, charts and stats to explain the overuse of skills in this presentation. The straddle Tkatchev being the most over used followed by the Khorkina and Pike toe on Tkatchev. The Jaeger and Geinger are featured as the most frequented release moves. They propose a maximum of 2 elements from any root skill:

  • Forward Giants (regardless of any grip
  • Backward Giants
  • Endos (regardless of any grip)
  • Stadlers
  • Tkatchevs
  • Shaps

They propose that the E Score be looked at also. It was proposed that some other deductions need to be changed:

  • Uncharacteristic movements to include jump from feet – up to .50
  • Empty swing same as intermediate swing – up to .50


The matter of artistry, choreography and dance was also brought up on beam, as well as on floor. The presentation begins with a review starting with Olga Korbut right through to the current beam routines and highlights the following problems:

  • After 2000 the rhythm of exercises starts to change.
  • Today, nearly all gymnasts stop before and after elements, even before dance elements.
  • The choreography is just a moment to move from one element to the next and generally is minimal.
  • Original connections disappear; gymnasts prefer to perform a single element rather than connections.
  • Dance series is the easiest one in order to fulfil the CR.
  • Today beam seems very boring and lacks rhythm.

Again statistics are shown from 187 gymnasts competing at the 2010 Worlds. Here it discusses the D Scores, Execution and Difficulty Values. At the 2010 Worlds, 128 gymnasts had A value mounts which is about 68% of those competing. Among the proposals is whether a B element mount should be required .

Patrick Kleins a choreographer has numerous proposals for artistry on beam.

  • Creating new CR possibilities
  • Introducing various bonus marks

Sheep jump on beam seems to be cropping up as an issue also. Overall the proposals cited wish to encourage more diversity on beam and make it as amazing as it previously was and to award bonus marks for connections of moves or dance.

Each country also has a document of their proposals on the website. There are also general proposals:

The main Goals of the Current CoP:

  • Universality
  • Accessible and understandable for everyone
  • A code which lasts for long time
  • Code which gives more value to the execution
  • Attractive for fans and mass media

A huge load of reading but well worth reading if you’re interested in changing the current code. What do you think? What would you change? Do you think any of these changes are feasible? What are your main concern about the current code?

Leave a Comment

Powered by WordPress | Deadline Theme : An AWESEM design

  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Flickr
  • YouTube