Welcome to our Gymnastics Discussion Community
554,231 messages... 44,365 topics... and 6,612 members
Join for FREE!
Thank you for supporting our sponsors Energym Music & Norberts & High 5 Meets!

Cheng Fei vault medal?

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

momofagymmie

Guest
Am i missing something? I don't get how her vault scores can be better than Alicia's when she fell?:confused:
 

lannamavity

Member
Sep 13, 2007
409
way out West
Am i missing something? I don't get how her vault scores can be better than Alicia's when she fell?:confused:

Her start values are higher and her execution scores were just high enough to keep her total scores higher than Sacramone's. It's the way the code is set up...not necessarily a judging issue.
 
Jul 12, 2008
90
Charleston, WV
The only thing that I could come to the conclusion of is that she had so much more difficulty than Alicia did. And in my own opinion, I think that they inflated Cheng Fei's score because she was the world champ on vault... wasn't she?
 

gymdog

Well-Known Member
Coach
Former Gymnast
Proud Relative
Jul 5, 2007
5,121
I get how it could happen with a fall based on the start value differences, I just don't think it necessarily should have happened with the execution of that particular vault. I mean that was a pretty troublesome entry. But then again that's why I'm not an international vault judge?
 

Geoffrey Taucer

Former Admin
Gold Membership
Coach
Former Gymnast
Jan 21, 2007
4,070
Baltimore, MD
Country
USA
That yurchenko half-on was awful, and enormously overscored. The entry was quite sloppy, and there should have been .8-1.0 in deductions on that alone. Add to that a fall, and she should not have even been in the running for a medal.
 
G

gracefulone

Guest
My dad loves watching gymnastics, and hates when girls who fall win. He was outraged last night. The yurchenko 1/2 on 's entry was odd-if I remember correctly, it was clsoer to a 1/4 on, with one hand way in front of the other-like a tsuk almost.
 
T

TheCoachsCoach

Guest
I've said a mouthful about the EF of Vault ... the Code is flawed. Highly flawed. The start value was higher than Alicia's vault but regardless, her execution was disturbing and so was her landing. They didn't deduct a right measure of points.
 

MdGymMom01

Active Member
Mar 5, 2008
2,236
North America
Like Blackie6 said in a previous post, this "flawed" system will lead athletes to try and attempt outragously difficult vaults and not worry about the landings, because as we see--you can have an awful vault and horrible landing BUT still win a medal. I think, and hopefully I am wrong, it will take an athlete to become severly injured or worse, before this point system is re-evaluated again.
 

lannamavity

Member
Sep 13, 2007
409
way out West
I've said a mouthful about the EF of Vault ... the Code is flawed. Highly flawed. The start value was higher than Alicia's vault but regardless, her execution was disturbing and so was her landing. They didn't deduct a right measure of points.

The new 2009 code is already posted and a fall is 1.00...so things ought to be a little different at least.
 

kaenhu

New Member
Jun 5, 2008
41
But do you all think the problem is the scoring system itself or the proper "execution" (for lack of a better term) of the system? It seems to me that the judges just aren't deducting when they should be. That is the fault of the judges, not in the system.

I kind of like the fact that gymnasts who perform more difficult routines get credit for that. It did seem unfair in the old system that gymnasts who did difficult routines but maybe had one or two minor flaws did the same as gymnasts who did average routines flawlessly.

If I understand it correctly, judges award A score points only if the gymnast actually does the skill--if she does it so badly that she ended up not really doing the skill--she doesn't get A score credit for that, does she? She doesn't get credit for trying a skill but not completing it, right? I guess to me, in theory at least, the scoring system seems fair.

It just seems that the execution judges didn't deduct what they were supposed to from Cheng's B score. Why does that mean that the scoring system in itself is flawed? The judges are the flawed ones.

Just curious.
 
B

Billy

Guest
But do you all think the problem is the scoring system itself or the proper "execution" (for lack of a better term) of the system? It seems to me that the judges just aren't deducting when they should be. That is the fault of the judges, not in the system.

I kind of like the fact that gymnasts who perform more difficult routines get credit for that. It did seem unfair in the old system that gymnasts who did difficult routines but maybe had one or two minor flaws did the same as gymnasts who did average routines flawlessly.

If I understand it correctly, judges award A score points only if the gymnast actually does the skill--if she does it so badly that she ended up not really doing the skill--she doesn't get A score credit for that, does she? She doesn't get credit for trying a skill but not completing it, right? I guess to me, in theory at least, the scoring system seems fair.

It just seems that the execution judges didn't deduct what they were supposed to from Cheng's B score. Why does that mean that the scoring system in itself is flawed? The judges are the flawed ones.

Just curious.


I agree with you. I think the problem was with the judges, not with the system. Now whether the judges were actually playing favorites or just terribly inexperienced and ignorant, I don't know.
 

lannamavity

Member
Sep 13, 2007
409
way out West
I agree with you. I think the problem was with the judges, not with the system. Now whether the judges were actually playing favorites or just terribly inexperienced and ignorant, I don't know.

FIG judges, even those from the countries with less competitive teams and athletes, all must take the same tests, and judge the same number of international meets to get the big assignments. "Ignorant and inexperienced people" don't become high-level Brevet judges...and you are 6 times less likely to run into a whole panel of them.

The system is set up for each judge to judge independently and then the scores are averaged and combined by the computer. They don't talk about the scores...they just put them in. The head judge looks at the scores, and if they aren't out of range, they move on. All of this crap with "judges holding scores" or "making the next gymnast wait" is all NBC.

At the same time, judges are people, and they are being asked to evaluate a performance. We ask them to appreciate and reward beauty and then come down on them when they don't evaluate angles and trajectories like machines. We want more difficult vaults to be judged less harshly, but we don't like it when they beat the vaults we like. What is that? Is that really a reasonable thing to ask judges to do?

The code needs to be set up so that it removes more of the possibility for human error and separate perfomances with major errors from those without. The truth is that those judges did their job using the procedures given to them and they are still being accused of cheating when none of them were from any of the countries competing. Or they are "ignorant"... and they ALL got it wrong?

We all saw this coming after the last Olympics and the 2005 World Championships (remember...AA Champ with 2 falls?). It's a flaw with the system. I wouldn't be surprised at all if almost all of the panel judges looked at the final standings and said "Whaaaaa?"
 
Last edited:
F

flippymonkeysmom

Guest
I'm going to go with lannamavity on this one. The deduction from the fall was still not enough to make up for the difference in start value. Unless the system allows judges to take bigger deductions for falls - there is nothing they can do about it. Look at the bar scores from qualifying. A few who made the finals had some pretty big mistakes - but their A values were so high they could afford to. Is this what FIG had in mind when implementing the new code - probably not - but it is what it is.
 
B

Billy

Guest
I just wonder if the judges took all the deductions they should have taken.
 

lannamavity

Member
Sep 13, 2007
409
way out West
I just wonder if the judges took all the deductions they should have taken.

They obviously didn't take all of the deductions they could have taken. I think that was pretty clear throughout the Games. If all judges took all of the deductions they could take, no one would ever be happy. Shawn wouldn't get credit for her leaps, Nastia's bar dismount would incur .5 to .8 in deductions, and all of the scores would be way lower and everyone could possibly score lower at the Olympics than anywhere in the last four years, and that would make all of the Federations and fans very mad.

Because of this, the judges are the ones who get to decide what deductions they should take.

The problem is that the new code emphasizes difficulty and the execution deductions, which seemed severe at first, are not severe enough to offset the huge start values. So, in a way, the judges were "set up" in a situation where the code was supposed to remove some of the judgement calls which dwell in a "gray area". When a gymnast falls, there shouldn't be a "gray area"...and yet that's where the code failed.

I just don't see how the judges, as individuals or as a group, can be blamed. Sac should have landed her vaults better and Cheng should have landed on her feet. They didn't, and the judges did their job with the tools given to them.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.