WAG Judges Question...

[MILgymFAM]

The OP stated it was forward tumbling. Front tuck and front layout don't have the same value

It really doesn’t matter though. This season my DDs front pass was front tuck step out round off back layout. We saw plain front tucks, front handsprings, front handspring front tucks, front tuck front tucks, front handspring front layouts. All in L6. All should be judged as exactly equal since there is no difficulty distinction in L6/L7.

 

[Deleted member 18037]

Let me add something to this thread. Judges have up to 0.2 in dynamics to take at the end of a routine(all levels, JO and Xcel). It isnt defined. What is dynamics?

Interesting....

First I'm hearing of this.

The back pocket, this is how it will go points............................................

ETA: I would think some sort of guidance would be given. But then I am a science/math person. I've done laboratory inspections. Guidance is always offered on how to interpret a regulation.

 

[Muddlethru]

But the OP was talking L6-L7ish. EVERYONE knows that one you hit L8+, the judging all changes... with up to level deductions and all.

The original question was about judging in L7, which is what I answered.

Addressing upper optionals muddies the water. You misunderstood the question asked. The OP did not ask about L9/10. They asked about L7

In L7, all required skills met performed with the same execution gets essentially the same score.

Now please don’t argue about .1 if the judge blinked and missed a bent leg.

Required skills, same kind of execution/presentation essentially the same score.

9.2/9.1, not 8.5 vs 9.2 because the first kid did a BWOWO and the Second did BWOBHS

Deleted member 18037, you seem to always assume because you don't get the answer you want or that a poster does not agree with you that the poster misunderstands the question. I would appreciate it if you would refrain from saying that because you don't know what the other person understands and does not understand. Let them admit to it and not accuse them of it. You can suspect that a person may not understand or might have misinterpreted a statement, but to unequivocally say a person does not understand, which you routinely do is preposterous. I completely understood OP's question. While she cites a Level 7 routine as an example, and is likely the level routines she is most interested, she did specifically state, "In other words I'm asking if the difficulty of a routine automatically makes the score higher. I don't think It would (at least it shouldn't) and me and my husband were arguing the whole way home from the meet today" which opens the discussion to any level. Again I was only trying to account for the division of opinions on this thread because it appeared to me that it may be due to the varying levels of experience and current situation of each response.

Btw, the skill OP talks about is a combination of skills that can be applied all the way to level 10. A front handspring, front layout, front layout gets a higher bonus point than a front handspring front layout front tuck or front pike.

I know you love to argue, but I've said all I want to say on this thread.

 

[wandrewsjr]

Interesting....

First I'm hearing of this.

The back pocket, this is how it will go points............................................

ETA: I would think some sort of guidance would be given. But then I am a science/math person. I've done laboratory inspections. Guidance is always offered on how to interpret a regulation.

It is written in the code of points. Rules for judging routines are not regulations. Regulations equivocal to lab inspections would be things like equipment and matting specification. Those are specified.
There is also a height deduction of up to 0.3 for every salto. There is no exact measurement given for how high for 0.05, 0.1 etc. Do you consider this "back pocket" too? How would one specify this?

 

[profmom]

Interesting....

ETA: I would think some sort of guidance would be given. But then I am a science/math person. I've done laboratory inspections. Guidance is always offered on how to interpret a regulation.

A wise friend of mine is fond of reminding us from time to time,"You can make up all the rules in your head that you want, but don't then get mad when other people don't follow them."

We could have a great debate here over whether or not the more difficult of two completely equally executed routines should receive a higher score. The reality that I have seen is that many (though not all) judges do indeed use those discretionary tenths for things like artistry and dynamics to tip the hand in favor of the more difficult routine. But honestly I think it's a VERY rare circumstance when you see two routines in a session that genuinely have the same sum in deductions, especially when you're looking at a longer routine like floor.

The social science principle that could be invoked here is margin of error. Given we have all seen how often two judges sitting side by side watching the same routines do not come up with the exact same score, I think it's a little silly to spend a lot of time fretting over what exactly it was that caused gymnast #1 to score .1 or .05 over gymnast #2.

 

[Deleted member 18037]

Deleted member 18037, you seem to always assume because you don't get the answer you want or that a poster does not agree with you that the poster misunderstands the question. I would appreciate it if you would refrain from saying that because you don't know what the other person understands and does not understand.

Btw, the skill OP talks about is a combination of skills that can be applied all the way to level 10. A front handspring, front layout, front layout gets a higher bonus point than a front handspring front layout front tuck or front pike.

I know you love to argue, but I've said all I want to say on this thread.

Interesting many of us answered the same way. You quoted 2 of us responding the same. Yet you felt the need to call me out and school me. But your not being at all personal lol

Original post below, question specific to L7.

Routine has all the requirements, equally as clean, at the same meet, judged by the same judge will get essentially the same score. Until Level 8.

And I actually don't like to argue. So I'm out.

So lets say you have to gymnasts, one competes the bare minimum requirements but the routine is extremely clean, the other gymnast competes a harder version of the routine (front handspring layout instead of front handspring front tuck in L7 floor) she too is extremely clean. They both have 3 tenths of technical deductions (like form) but wold they get the same score?

In other words I'm asking if the difficulty of a routine automatically makes the score higher. I don't think It would (at least it shouldn't) and me and my husband were arguing the whole way home from the meet today LOL

Thanks

 

[Deleted member 18037]

The social science principle that could be invoked here is margin of error. Given we have all seen how often two judges sitting side by side watching the same routines do not come up with the exact same score, I think it's a little silly to spend a lot of time fretting over what exactly it was that caused gymnast #1 to score .1 or .05 over gymnast #2.

I don't fret it at all. I get SH

 

[John]

Ease of tension and slightly divergent comment.

I have to admit that I find it interesting that tuck and layout are the same skill level. It seems to me flipping a laid-out body over a tucked body alone would make the layout more difficult.

 

[profmom]

I don't fret it at all. I get SH

I do believe you are thus far the only one in this thread who talked about reporting judges to the chief officiating judge.

John, a FT is an A. a FLO is a B. What I find interesting is that for the guys, a BLO is a B but it's only an A on the women's side. I am dearly, dearly hoping that both of my beloved offspring spend some quality time this summer upgrading their front tumbling so I never have to see either one of them compete an ugly FLO again.

 

[Deleted member 18037]

It is written in the code of points. Rules for judging routines are not regulations. Regulations equivocal to lab inspections would be things like equipment and matting specification. Those are specified.
There is also a height deduction of up to 0.3 for every salto. There is no exact measurement given for how high for 0.05, 0.1 etc. Do you consider this "back pocket" too? How would one specify this?

To clarify for the sake of discussion,

A lab inspections some things very specific and measured. Some things no so much. So a regulation might be to do something periodically. Well what does that mean. Every day, every, week, monthly, twice a year............... We are given clarification on how to decide if the reg is satisfied. I can not site someone for doing less then I would, as long as its periodic by definition

So regarding a height/angle deduction. where say the height should be vertical or angle 180. If there is a range of points to deduct one would expect more points to be deducted further away from the expectation. So in theory someone only hitting 120 should get more points off compared to someone hitting 170. Now 2 judges might not take the same amount of deduction but they should be consistent from gymnast to gymnast. It shouldn't be well I liked Suzy better so even though she only got to 120 I'm only going to take 0.5. And Sally reminds of this kid who was horrible to me when I was 12 so even though she got to 170 I'm going to take 0.2.

I just thought it was interesting that in all the threads about judging I've read I have never heard anyone mention a 0.2 for dynamics.

And I find it interesting that something would be put in any code of points/judging situation with no explanation.

So when folks go to judging class, read books on how do judge, do seminars about judging. They mention you can award or deduct 0.2 for dynamics..... with no explanation.
So someone was sitting in a COP seminar and were to raise their hand and ask what does dynamics mean, what should I look for? Who ever was presenting would say well it can be whatever you want???

There is truly no guidance on what dynamics mean???

 

[Deleted member 18037]

I do believe you are thus far the only one in this thread who talked about reporting judges to the chief officiating judge.

For obvious planning to score differently.............

 

[wandrewsjr]

To clarify for the sake of discussion,

A lab inspections some things very specific and measured. Some things no so much. So a regulation might be to do something periodically. Well what does that mean. Every day, every, week, monthly, twice a year............... We are given clarification on how to decide if the reg is satisfied. I can not site someone for doing less then I would, as long as its periodic by definition

So regarding a height/angle deduction. where say the height should be vertical or angle 180. If there is a range of points to deduct one would expect more points to be deducted further away from the expectation. So in theory someone only hitting 120 should get more points off compared to someone hitting 170. Now 2 judges might not take the same amount of deduction but they should be consistent from gymnast to gymnast. It shouldn't be well I liked Suzy better so even though she only got to 120 I'm only going to take 0.5. And Sally reminds of this kid who was horrible to me when I was 12 so even though she got to 170 I'm going to take 0.2.

I just thought it was interesting that in all the threads about judging I've read I have never heard anyone mention a 0.2 for dynamics.

And I find it interesting that something would be put in any code of points/judging situation with no explanation.

So when folks go to judging class, read books on how do judge, do seminars about judging. They mention you can award or deduct 0.2 for dynamics..... with no explanation.
So someone was sitting in a COP seminar and were to raise their hand and ask what does dynamics mean, what should I look for? Who ever was presenting would say well it can be whatever you want???

There is truly no guidance on what dynamics mean???

There is some:
Insufficient dymnamics up to 0.2 - Consider:
-Energy maintained throughout exercise
-Makes difficult look effortless

 

[gymnastmom05]

For obvious planning to score differently.............

I look at it as more of a checks and balances. 3 hours into watching routines and maybe (because they’re human) they’re more generous (or the opposite even) than they were. They identified a good routine and they want to make sure the kid that deserves to win, wins. I don’t really have a problem with it as long as it’s based on the routine, not the gym/the particular child/ or the coach - no favoritism and I can appreciate making sure the child that deserves the recognition gets it.

And no way in Hell would I ever report something that petty to the head judge. Our HC/Meet Director wouldn’t appreciate it either. Our judging world/Gymnastics is way too small and intertwined in my area. Now if I overhead something like “I really like gym X the best so I’m going to make sure they win”, that’s something different than just using a routine as a benchmark for helping to compare similarly executed routines.

 

[wandrewsjr]

So...isn't a whip to a layout full more dynamic than a back tuck performed with the exact same execution?

Also height of salto doesn't mean vertical, I'm talking about amplitude, deduction is up to 0.3. How does one specify height? Espcially when dealing with gymnasts of vastly different heights themselves. Isn't this just as discretionary? A huge amount of things in judging are discretionary. It is what judging is.

 

[Deleted member 18037]

There is some:
Insufficient dymnamics up to 0.2 - Consider:
-Energy maintained throughout exercise
-Makes difficult look effortless

Thank you. I knew there had to be some guidance.

And this is different from the artistic 0.3.......... Correct?

For a total of 0.5

 

[John]

I do believe you are thus far the only one in this thread who talked about reporting judges to the chief officiating judge.

John, a FT is an A. a FLO is a B. What I find interesting is that for the guys, a BLO is a B but it's only an A on the women's side. I am dearly, dearly hoping that both of my beloved offspring spend some quality time this summer upgrading their front tumbling so I never have to see either one of them compete an ugly FLO again.

The Girls side seems to like muddy water. The boy's side seems to have more options built into routines for scoring, bonuses for example. My simple mind still says a BLO is harder than a BT.

@profmom DD is improving her Front tumbling. I will be honest it is thrilling to watch but somewhat scary. Last night on the rod floor it was FHS LO LO and Punch FLO FLO/FULL, the second was into the pit.

 

[wandrewsjr]

Thank you. I knew there had to be some guidance.

And this is different from the artistic 0.3.......... Correct?

For a total of 0.5

And different form up to 0.2 at the end for footwork throughout...and up to 0.2 for variation of rhythm/tempo throughout.

 

[wandrewsjr]

Ease of tension and slightly divergent comment.

I have to admit that I find it interesting that tuck and layout are the same skill level. It seems to me flipping a laid-out body over a tucked body alone would make the layout more difficult.

It is mostly about only having so many difficulty categories to put skills in. If we went A to Z, layout would be further down the alphabet. But we have A to E and have a layout full twist, layout double twist, double back tuck, double back layout to fit in there.

 

[Deleted member 18037]

And different form up to 0.2 at the end for footwork throughout...and up to 0.2 for variation of rhythm/tempo throughout.

You're killing me lol.

So what is that about. Not enough footwork? Too much variety in tempo, not enough?

Especially as this year is a floor music change lol

 

[sfts]

I have to admit that I find it interesting that tuck and layout are the same skill level. It seems to me flipping a laid-out body over a tucked body alone would make the layout more difficult.

I believe this is simply a matter of only having so many possible gradations. The layout is more difficult than the tuck. It's interesting that in USAG floor, BT = BP = BLO = FT = A, but FP = FLO = B.

We could have a great debate here over whether or not the more difficult of two completely equally executed routines should receive a higher score. The reality that I have seen is that many (though not all) judges do indeed use those discretionary tenths for things like artistry and dynamics to tip the hand in favor of the more difficult routine. But honestly I think it's a VERY rare circumstance when you see two routines in a session that genuinely have the same sum in deductions, especially when you're looking at a longer routine like floor.

This is correct - I don't know if it is many or some, but there is definitely a set of judges who interpret the code of points to favor difficult routines over less difficult at levels where the COP does not distinguish via explicit deductions (L6/L7 and even more often in Xcel). There is a set of judges who wish they could and complain about it, but stick to a stricter interpretation of the code. Personally, I go for a strict interpretation because if those on high wanted up to level deductions at other levels, they would have them.

RE: dynamics, the justification I have heard from judges who use it for a stand-in difficulty substitute comes from "Makes difficult look effortless" and a justification on "they didn't do anything difficult so they made the easy look easy, -0.05 to -0.1." (Note: not my opinion, but what I've been told)

The social science principle that could be invoked here is margin of error. Given we have all seen how often two judges sitting side by side watching the same routines do not come up with the exact same score, I think it's a little silly to spend a lot of time fretting over what exactly it was that caused gymnast #1 to score .1 or .05 over gymnast #2.

Yes, the margin of error from a judge tipping a score up or down < 0.1 for difficulty is easily subsumed into the other variations - what extent of error is a 0.1 vs 0.2 deduction (the code attempts to define these but there is still some judgement call), what was the extent of the gymnasts error in this particular routine (judges might blink and see more/less leg bend on a skill), and judge's tendencies to judge certain things more harshly. Not just between two judges, but for a mid-range (8.0-9.2, depending on event/level), I would bet if you showed the same judge the same video a month apart, their score might vary by 0.2. That's why we have multiple judges, to try to average out errors/biases (often unconscious) and get to the fairest possible score for the gymnast given the use of human judges.