WAG Deduction for routine not up to level

[happychaos]

I have seen a few threads mention that a deduction can be taken for an optional routine not being "up to level". What exactly does this mean, and what is the standard against which it taken? Other girls at that particular meet? There is so much discussion of the optional requirements (so many A's, so many B's etc.) that I don't understand how a routine that filled all of the requirements could be "not up to level". Isn't that the point of having all those requirements in the first place? Disclaimer: my knowledge of optionals is nil. My DD will be competing new 4 this fall, and then probably scoring out of 5 in the spring.

 

[Luvs2coach]

It is a compositional deduction taken at level 8,9,10.
Judges are to compare the level of difficulty seen/competed by athletes at the highest competition of that level.

Ex: level 10 nationals
An athlete dismounts with a C acro 1.5 twist whereas many/most good level 10s may end with a great combo creating connective value (bonus) or a higher level skill, like a double back.

The athlete meeting minimum special requirements will be deducted for skills not at level of difficulty/competition.

 

[happychaos]

It is a compositional deduction taken at level 8,9,10.
Judges are to compare the level of difficulty seen/competed by athletes at the highest competition of that level.

Ex: level 10 nationals
An athlete dismounts with a C acro 1.5 twist whereas many/most good level 10s may end with a great combo creating connective value (bonus) or a higher level skill, like a double back.

The athlete meeting minimum special requirements will be deducted for skills not at level of difficulty/competition.

Thank you for that great explanation. I understand what you have explained, but I don't understand the WHY? If level 10's should have a double back dismount, why not make that the minimum requirement then? I just don't understand why someone who meets the requirements of a level could then be deducted for not being up to level. Why not make the minimum requirements the actual minimum a gymnast is required to do and not receive a deduction? I know.....I'm dense It seems like getting a speeding ticket for going exactly the speed limit and then being told you've gotten it because everyone else is going 10 under.

 

[gasrgoose]

I interpret it as a way to reward those who perform more difficult routines.

 

[iwannacoach]

I think kids on one end of the scale put together routines that exceed the minimums do so with skills that reflect their hard work, determination, and dedication to the sport. There are other kids on the opposite end of the scale who put together routines that meet the minumums in the most minimum way possible. These choices reflect their level of work, determination, and dedication to the sport, which doesn't come close to their peers' at the other end of the scale.

What is competition if not a means of reflecting training hours, values and commitment levels. Is is fair to take a deduction for a kid who's just barely meeting the minimums with the easiest skills possible, or is it fair to take a deduction for the kid who's got a few shakes and wobbles in routines that are packed with extra difficulty. I'd say it's unfair for the girl who's going all in with her skills, and go bit further........

If you want to compete as an optional gymnast at L9 and L10 you have to want, and be ready, to run with the big dogs. It's really as simple as that, because while the USAG has added levels with easier, more incremental routines to ease kids into competition, they will never treat the top two levels of JO gymnastics that way. You'll notice there are no mandatory move ups through the levels, which is an invitation for kids who want to participate, to stay at the earlier optional levels. That's what kids, well coaches really, who craft minimum routines should do, but don't. It's a matter of coaches wanting to be involved (for bragging rights if you ask me) and for kids who wish to fulfill their dreams.

Sometimes you just can't have your cake and eat it too.......

 

[happychaos]

Thank you Gasrgoose and IWC. I do understand what you're saying, and of course the more difficult routines should be rewarded. Isn't that where bonuses come in? I swear I am not trying to be difficult!!!

 

[Iwannabemargo]

This is where the open fig scoring system works well

 

[gasrgoose]

This is where the open fig scoring system works well

I agree. I like the idea of the increased difficulty raising the starting value of the exercise.

 

[gasrgoose]

It is a compositional deduction taken at level 8,9,10.
Judges are to compare the level of difficulty seen/competed by athletes at the highest competition of that level.

If you want to compete as an optional gymnast at L9 and L10 you have to want, and be ready, to run with the big dogs.

Is it only at level 9 & 10? Or is 8 included and it's just not as common? I would imagine with the allowable "c's" next year that this could be taken even in level 8.

Ex. If a significant % are doing double back dismounts from bars and others are still doing layouts.

 

[fuzi]

Is it only at level 9 & 10? Or is 8 included and it's just not as common? I would imagine with the allowable "c's" next year that this could be taken even in level 8.

Ex. If a significant % are doing double back dismounts from bars and others are still doing layouts.

Level 8 is included and the comparison is supposed to be "what you would see at regionals" as that is the highest level 9 competition. I i

 

[gasrgoose]

Level 8 is included and the comparison is supposed to be "what you would see at regionals" as that is the highest level 9 competition. I i

Gotcha! I didn't understand that part. So will it be difficult to evaluate early in the season next year for level 8 now that "C's" are allowed and there isn't a standard already set for regional's?

 

[fuzi]

Gotcha! I didn't understand that part. So will it be difficult to evaluate early in the season next year for level 8 now that "C's" are allowed and there isn't a standard already set for regional's?

Yes, I imagine that the application of that deduction will be a bit inconsistent, especially this year. However, it can probably be safely assumed that many L8s at regionals will have that "additional" C skill.

 

[Pineapple_Lump]

This is where the open fig scoring system works well

I disagree

We end up seeing the same elements/connections from the bulk of the athletes in shear pursuit of finding the highest D score possible rather than looking for a few nice difficult elements they can actually do well.

The 'not up to the level deduction' seems like a good way to make sure a kid who takes the biggest risk and succeeds is better off than 'safe' and safe is better off than throwing difficulty with poor execution.

 

[Iwannabemargo]

I disagree

We end up seeing the same elements/connections from the bulk of the athletes in shear pursuit of finding the highest D score possible rather than looking for a few nice difficult elements they can actually do well.

The 'not up to the level deduction' seems like a good way to make sure a kid who takes the biggest risk and succeeds is better off than 'safe' and safe is better off than throwing difficulty with poor execution.

Would not the form deductions/penalties counteract any bonus from the more difficult moves if they were poorly executed ? I agree that the "best" should be rewarded for that - its all about finding a solution that works

 

[thefellowsmom]

Hi All, I found this on our state website today and thought of this thread. Maybe it will help answer some questions.

This are notes from the state clinic so not sure how state specific these requirements are or if they are based on national expectations but I thought a decent explanation of how this "up to level" thing plays out.

http://usagwa.com/pdfs/Composition notes - Connie Maloney, July 28, 2013.pdf

Enjoy!

 

[MaryA]

I only see the info on there about level 8 bars. I wonder if the instructions are the same (do not deduct for not having a C) across the events? And, as you said, I wonder if that is just your region or if all judges are being given those instructions? Level 8 should be interesting this year...

 

[htimcj]

Very interesting. There was a bit in there about the other events but mostly bars. Seems to be where they have the most concerns. WA is region 2 correct?

 

[kandkfunk]

Yes, Washington is region 2, however the top of the notes references that the clarifications were provided by Connie Maloney who is the national Women's Jr. Olympic Program Director. I would think that her responses are based on the intent of the entire JO program and not just region 2.

 

[wallflower]

I wouldn't think what level 8 will look like this year at regionals should be so much of a mystery. Isn't level 8 essentially going back to what it was like 4 years ago? So most coaches and judges should have a pretty good idea of what it will look like.