WAG Question about getting to 180 degrees

[Texasmomof3]

My dd asked me to ask this question of the coaches/judges and experienced moms. My avatar is my dd's split jump on beam. Is that open enough to count as full 180? If not, how much of a deduction is it?

Dd also wonders (and I join her in this) how can you tell while actively judging. We have to freeze frame video to determine how open she gets after each meet. I can never tell watching real time. Is it just a matter of it looks pretty close so they get full credit or can you really tell?

 

[Faith]

Here, in the uk, it pretty much has to mathematical 180.

So your dd's leap would get 0.1-0.3 deduction. I think it would get credit though- i have seen comps where they dont even give the jump if it's not close to 180.

It is easy to see, but generally most will work to a slight oversplit to get total credit.

 

[Aussie_coach]

You can tell, even at top speed while judging a routine. Your DD's leap is not quite 180, but very close.

 

[fuzi]

She'd get credit for the split jump requirement (only has t0 be 135 degrees in USAG) and a small deduction for not quite being 180. She's really close! Probably a 0.05.

 

[gymgal]

If you can't tell it is 180 on first run in a video the judges can't either and won't give credit for it. Unfortunately they don't have the benefit of instant replay. Dd got dinged on her bar routine b/c she didn't make close enough to handstand on a couple differ skills, which is unusual for her. Video stills clearly show she should not have gotten deducted but in the video it is very hard to tell. Solution? Don't make the judges have to guess. Get to vertical, it 180, in the case of a split.

 

[Seeker]

What level is she?

 

[needcoffee]

I'm pretty clueless about all things judging, but I'm of the opinion of if you can't tell, it's probably not 180.

 

[coachmolly]

Not quite 180, but very close. Split requirement in optional levels is 180, 1-20 degrees missing receives full value of the skill, meets requirement, and is .05-.1, I would probably take .05 for that jump for angle requirement, no idea what other deductions could be there from a still picture- but probably also a small deduction for the back leg being lower.

 

[Deleted member 18037]

a small deduction for the back leg being lower.

Ok the thread in general fascinates me.

And the above even more.

You would take a deduction for not being 180, got it.

And now for the puzzler.....

An additional deduction for one leg being lower.

One leg lower then the other is the reason it's not 180. Isn't that like double jeopardy. Taking off for the same error twice.

 

[Pineapple_Lump]

It is an uneven split deduction, a kid who goes well past 180 can also get it, for example front leg at nose height, back leg extended parallel to the floor.

 

[Deleted member 18037]

It is an uneven split deduction, a kid who goes well past 180 can also get it, for example front leg at nose height, back leg extended parallel to the floor.

Ok thanks for explaining.

I still think its goofy, any uneven split is not 180.

Now not vertical would make more sense. JMO (not that that means a freaking thing )

 

[coachmolly]

Ok thanks for explaining.

I still think its goofy, any uneven split is not 180.

Now not vertical would make more sense. JMO (not that that means a freaking thing )

You can have a 180 split where the legs are uneven. I currently have a girl who hits a full split in her leap but the front leg is down and the back leg is way up- sort of like a sissone position in the middle of the split leap. So even though she hits 180 and doesn't get a deduction there, the split leap is definitely not technically correct should be deducted.

 

[Ali'sMom]

You can have a 180 split where the legs are uneven. I currently have a girl who hits a full split in her leap but the front leg is down and the back leg is way up- sort of like a sissone position in the middle of the split leap. So even though she hits 180 and doesn't get a deduction there, the split leap is definitely not technically correct should be deducted.

My daughter tends to do that on beam

 

[Texasmomof3]

This is from a level 6 meet, but as of this week, she is now training level 7. (Level 6 state was last weekend in Texas.)

Do the deductions vary by level?

 

[Deleted member 18037]

Do the deductions vary by level?

Yes

 

[wandrewsjr]

Here is a good example of a split that meets the minimum 180 requirement, but is uneven.

 

[wandrewsjr]

This is from a level 6 meet, but as of this week, she is now training level 7. (Level 6 state was last weekend in Texas.)

Do the deductions vary by level?

Levels 6 through 10 are evaluated using the same deduction standards.

 

[Deleted member 18037]

View attachment 6132Here is a good example of a split that meets the minimum 180 requirement, but is uneven.

I was thinking the same thing. Saw it at the AT&T cup. Both Gabby and Maggie

Although, again, just me, its not uneven its just not vertical.

 

[Pineapple_Lump]

Examples of even not 180 leap - I would not deduct these for being uneven
One
Two
Link Removed - lines on the wall a really helpful to see posture and angles
Four

Not sure about JO but with FIG rules many of these kids could loose a small body posture deduction as they are leaning forward. This posture is probably making it hard for some to hit full split.

Generally the uneven deduction goes to what we call donkey leaps, where the front leg is coming down while the back leg is going up.

 

[duyetanh]

You can have a 180 split where the legs are uneven. I currently have a girl who hits a full split in her leap but the front leg is down and the back leg is way up- sort of like a sissone position in the middle of the split leap. So even though she hits 180 and doesn't get a deduction there, the split leap is definitely not technically correct should be deducted.

Very informative, thx for posting.