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:

Floor

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

Vault

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?

Bars

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

Beam

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?

There has been a lot of news from the FIG over the May bank holiday weekend. So here is a brief catch up:

Many gymnastics blogs have reported the big news of FIG President Bruno Grandi’s recognition that the current Code Of Points (CoP) is a “ticking time bomb”. I’m delighted that he has finally acknowledged that something must be done with the CoP, nothing will change until after the London 2012 Olympics. The Gymnastics Examiner has the best review and explanation of the announcement.  See the full text of Grandi’s letter below.

Oh, that Code!

The more seasoned among us remember back to the first Code. A twelve-page opus crafted by Gander, Lapalu and Hentges, it gave structure to Men’s Artistic Gymnastics and mapped out judging in three distinct categories: difficulty, combination and execution. That was back in 1949.

Today, the Code reaches out to cover all FIG disciplines; it governs everything, infiltrating gymnastics like a metastasis that spreads and traps the sport in its deadly net. Originally created to serve the development of our sport, the Code has mutated into a time bomb that we are wholly unable to contain. Worse, it is a pitfall to judges and gymnasts alike, and creates situations that are often impossible to navigate. Remember Athens!

The time has come for us, the technicians, judges and leaders in sport, to gather round a single table and revisit the Code; to re-equip our discipline with the structure and spirit originally inherent to it. This is the endgame of the FIG Symposiums for Rhythmic Gymnastics in Zurich (SUI) at the end of April, for Artistic and Trampoline in mid-June and for Aerobic and Acrobatic in September.

Simplify the Codes; we all agree on this point. Keep in mind the essence of Roman law, the first legal system in the history of Man and which is still active today. According to our predecessors, excessive detail is what dilutes and suffocates justice. Too many laws annihilate law itself!

Starting in 2005, we took successful steps toward standardising our Codes; a commendable action, to be sure, but a far cry from being enough. What we need is complete and unequivocal reform if we hope to have a Code that serves to further develop our sport. We must simplify, not complicate. What is the essential reason for the Code? What is it made to do? What is the meaning of its existence? The answer is found in history, whose most basic message is that in order to move forward into the future, one often needs to take a brief look into the past.

At the 1948 Olympic Games in London, judging in gymnastics was scandalous! Judges were using criteria to evaluate exercises specific only to their own countries. It was a free for all. Such chaos! A Code was then created to clarify and classify criteria to maintain a standardised approach to judging. Unity was finally re-established.

A mere twelve pages in 1949 compared to hundreds today, not counting the thousands of symbols that go with them! How can a judge effectively react, evaluate and decide in mere seconds and under the pressure that goes hand in hand with, say, an Olympic Final? Impossible; it is beyond human capacity.

We need a Code, a point of reference, which will bring structure to the evaluations brought by our judges and allow us to employ the Fairbrother system. Only by doing this will we be able to avoid situations such as were experienced in Athens and London. We have the tools, IRCOS for one, which can aid in attributing an accurate technical score if used properly. But we must accept the fact that the Artistic score is largely a product of a more subjective, and certainly human, evaluation. That is the variable in our equation; fallible but not unjust. And if we are to lose ourselves in the nimbus of objectivity, we have reference judges in the wings to set our course straight.

 

Thank you for your attention.

FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE DE GYMNASTIQUE

Prof Bruno Grandi, President

Lausanne (SUI) / FIG Office, May 1, 2011. BGR/phs/az

The FIG issued a fine to Gymnova, the suppliers of equipment to the 2010 World Trampolining Championships for violation of gymnastic apparatus norms. Gymnova are also suppliers of equipment for the London 2012 Olympics.

Lausanne (SUI) / FIG Office, April 30, 2011:

The Commission pronounced the company in violation of norms specified in the Disciplinary Code and Procedures, Chapter IV, for having supplied a FIG event with equipment bearing defective springs – the 2010 Trampoline World Championships in Metz, France – which significantly decreased the level of quality in affected apparatus.

Pursuant to the corresponding articles of the Disciplinary Code and Procedures (Chapter IV) and article 10 of the Disciplinary Code, the Commission issued the company a 2,000 € fine. The decision will be made public on the FIG website and via all other standard channels of communication. All costs related to the suit will be paid by the Company, a total amount of 8,500 CHF.

It is Gymnova’s right to appeal to the FIG Appeal Tribunal within 21 days of notification of this decision.

+++

The FIG Disciplinary Commission has rendered a verdict in the disciplinary proceedings involving Gymnova, which were lodged in response to an incidence at the 2011 Trampoline World Championships in Metz in 2010.

 

And finally, to top it all off, Mexican gymnast Rut Castillo Galindo tested positive for sibutramine, a stimulant specified on the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) Prohibited Substance List at the Pan American Rhythmic and Trampoline Gymnastics Championships in Guadalajara in December 2010.

The FIG Disciplinary Commission has ruled to suspend Ms Rut Castillo Galindo for a period of 6 (six) months from the date of notification of the decision, to deduct any provisional period of suspension already served and to cancel all results obtained at the Pan American Rhythmic and Trampoline Gymnastics Championships, medals, points and prize money included. First instance procedure fees of 6,500 CHF will be charged to the gymnast.

The gymnast may appeal to the FIG Appeal Tribunal within 21 days following notification of the decision.

This week the FIG published the list of new elements performed at the World Championships in Rotterdam in October. The updated symbols sheets are also available. Download the files here

(Click both images to enlarge)

There’s a debate over at the IG Forum – what moves could possibly have been submitted to FIG / WTC, to be included in the new Code of Points. Below are some videos of what people think could be included. Read more from this post if you are not sure how or why new skills are submitted.

Aliya Mustafina – 1.5 Double back dismount off UB

Huang Qiushang – Eagle grip endo with full pirouette in one arm

Elisabetta Preziosa – Turn with the foot held back at head level on BB

also to be seen on floor..

They also wondered about Beth Tweddle performing a Double Double Tuck dismount on UB.

What new moves would you like to be included in the CoP?

Do you think any of the moves above deserve to be included?

Leave a comment below and let us know what you think.

FIG have created a “Help Desk” to help clarify & give examples of different rules in the FIG WAG Code of Points.

This document called Women’s Artistic Gymnastics Help Desk has the intention to clarify and give examples of the different rules of the FIG WAG Code of Points.

The goal of WTC is to reduce different interpretations of the rules, therefore provide a more objective work of the judges.

To have a look at the document,

• Go to the FIG Website
• Click on Women’s Artistic Gymnastics on the left
• Click on the “Judges Help Desk”

Or Download the document here. I think it’s very good, take a look and see what you think.