WAG Amplitude

[htimcj]

So just how high does a skill have to be to avoid a lack of amplitude deduction? Is there a benchmark or is it more of a judge's discretion type of thing? For example if you do a front tuck and land it without squatting at all just a slight bend in the knees can you still received a deduction for not being high enough?

 

[flips123]

I've always understood that if it is below shoulder height deduction is taken.

 

[htimcj]

The gymnast's shoulder?

 

[flips123]

The gymnast's shoulder?

Yes, I believe so.

 

[htimcj]

Thanks! In some ways of you land the skill correctly you almost HAVE to have the correct amplitude or you would most likely fall on your rear!

 

[Geoffrey Taucer]

So just how high does a skill have to be to avoid a lack of amplitude deduction? Is there a benchmark or is it more of a judge's discretion type of thing? For example if you do a front tuck and land it without squatting at all just a slight bend in the knees can you still received a deduction for not being high enough?

It's skill-specific.

In compulsory routines, it's generally specified in the rules.

It does get a bit more nebulous with optional-level skills, unfortunately. If you're looking for a general rule of thumb on saltos, a skill should be high enough for the landing to look effortless. The gymnast should not only land, but have time to prepare for the landing before impact.

 

[htimcj]

Thanks! That makes perfect sense.