Where are the deductions?

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JuneT71

Guest
I have watched gymnastics for a while now - probably becoming real active around 2000? I understand how the new scoring system works with combining the two scores for a 14.?? or whatever.

This is what I don't get? I see the B score sometimes as low as 8.8 and can't figure out what they are deducting. I am not refering to a fall or an out of bounds, Shawn's bar score in finals seemed low as did her beam the night before.

What exactly are they deducting?

I hate to be ignorant, but I have watched the nbcolympic web site to come up with deductions and other than steps on the landing - I just don't see all that much.

Shawn is just an example - i see other athletes that seem to score real low when the routine looks good.
 
Did ChalkBucket help you?... help us too.

If you can't help financially... tell a friend about us!

bogwoppit

Former Admin
Gold Membership
Former Gymnast
Feb 26, 2007
16,715
Country
Canada
It can be many things that each carry specific deductions. Easy to lose 1.2 if the judge is picky

Insufficient height on saltos
Low chest on landings.
Connections not credited
splits not reaching 180
Lack of flexibility
Lack of artistry


The list is endless and it all comes down to whether or not judges decide to deduct. I saw some wobbles last night that should have been deducted but weren't.

The more I watch the more I learn, but I am often amazed at a judges ability to find the deductions. Rumour has it there are judges watching slow motion backstage, enabling every fault to be found. Slow mo,makes lots of great things look awful
 
G

gracefulone

Guest
Also on handstands on bars. It's like the line from Stick It, "Hit your verticals or die, ladies"
 
F

flippymonkeysmom

Guest
I think Shawn on beam and floor sometimes doesn't hit 180 on her leaps.
 

gymdog

Well-Known Member
Coach
Former Gymnast
Proud Relative
Jul 5, 2007
5,121
I think the lower execution on Shawn's first night beam was probably justified by her leaps. I'm not saying I think an 8.8 was an appropriate B score for that routine, but I think the judge that came up with that probably hit her hard on those leaps. Usually it's her switch split which is questionable, but on night one I also noticed her switch side wasn't quite where it usually is. A little more piked and closed than usual. We got kind of weird back side angle from the right where you could see the pike at the right hip a lot. It looked significantly better to me night two. Also I guess they could have looked unfavorably at the lack of split on her back layout step out. The double down saltos and handsprings are definitely favorable for her.
 

lannamavity

Member
Sep 13, 2007
409
way out West
It can be many things that each carry specific deductions. Easy to lose 1.2 if the judge is picky

Insufficient height on saltos
Low chest on landings.
Connections not credited
splits not reaching 180
Lack of flexibility
Lack of artistry


The list is endless and it all comes down to whether or not judges decide to deduct. I saw some wobbles last night that should have been deducted but weren't.

The more I watch the more I learn, but I am often amazed at a judges ability to find the deductions. Rumour has it there are judges watching slow motion backstage, enabling every fault to be found. Slow mo,makes lots of great things look awful

The slow motion thing is just that...a rumor. The slow motion is only available to the A Panel when there is a question of start value after the video review is authorized. The B panel is not allowed to look at the video, so execution cannot be evaluated via video.
 

bogwoppit

Former Admin
Gold Membership
Former Gymnast
Feb 26, 2007
16,715
Country
Canada
The slow motion thing is just that...a rumor. The slow motion is only available to the A Panel when there is a question of start value after the video review is authorized. The B panel is not allowed to look at the video, so execution cannot be evaluated via video.

Thanks Lannamativity, always good to clear these rumours out. If we believed everything we read on the internet concerning gym we'd be in trouble.:eek:

One other point is that deductions are not necessarily always the same . For example a wobble on beam could be a 0.1 or a 0.3 for really big wobble, one where a hand is used to maintain balance is a 0.5. This means that scoring can be very subjective and that it is not always easy to work out where the points were lost.
 

lannamavity

Member
Sep 13, 2007
409
way out West
Thanks Lannamativity, always good to clear these rumours out. If we believed everything we read on the internet concerning gym we'd be in trouble.:eek:

One other point is that deductions are not necessarily always the same . For example a wobble on beam could be a 0.1 or a 0.3 for really big wobble, one where a hand is used to maintain balance is a 0.5. This means that scoring can be very subjective and that it is not always easy to work out where the points were lost.

Yes and no...I was actually hanging out with an International Brevet judge during team finals (she's from a neutral country) and she pretty much picked out the deductions and was right on. There are multiple judges for a reason...and the system is supposed to keep individual interpretations in check.
 

Aussie_coach

Moderator/Coach
Staff member
Gold Membership
Coach
Proud Parent
Gymnast
Club Owner
Jan 4, 2008
3,428
Country
Australia
Yea, the deductions are far larger in the new code of points (open ended score) than they were in the old code of points which was scored out of 10.

The smallest deduction a judge can take in 0.1 and that is only for a really tiny mistake like a tiny wobble on beam, very tiny leg or arm bend and so on. Most deductions are 0.3 for things like leg and arm bends, insufficiate split, not enough height, not enough dynamics, breaking a connection and so on. Large deductions are 0.5 for things like very bent arms or legs, extra swings on bars. The judges will also take 0.8 for major deductions like falls.

Getting an 8.8 for the execution score under the new code of points is equivolent to about a 9.5 or 9.6 under the old code.
 
J

JuneT71

Guest
Thanks

Thank everyone for the input. I think it really helped me understand a little better about what to look for in deductions. I have gotten really used to the "new" scoring in figure skating and can get really close on my guess of the score. I appreciate the new information.
 
I

ILoveNastia

Guest
Nastia Was Underscored

I thought Nastia was underscored on the beam. They gave her a 15.975 but I think she deserved around a 16.1.
 
W

whipback

Guest
I do think their scores are low, but they both have deductions. Nastia has been messing up her side somi throughout the Olympics and would have been .3 in TF. Shawn's standing full and her full in which both should get about .3 normally except she did pretty well on her full in in the TF. Nastia also crosses her legs on her dismount -.1 and she took a hop in TF -.1. Shawn also takes s step on her full in -.1 and her legs come apart on her two foot layout, but there scores should be like 1.0 higher with how they scored the chinese in the TF on beam.
 
W

whipback

Guest
When I said Shawn should get -.3 for her standing full and her full in the reason is because her chest is low. But again I stress their B scores should be 10s with how they scored the Chinese.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thank you for supporting our sponsors Energym Music & Norberts!