2021 Olympic Games Tokyo | a review
Hello and welcome !
If you are here, it is probably because you have seen those videos and those results, and you may want some explanations about it.
The post is structured as follows:
- AN INTRODUCTION.
- EXPLANATIONS (generalities, apparatus difficulties, riks, body difficulties and dance steps, tehcnical execution and artistic execution).
- SOME SPECIFICS THINGS ABOUT GYMNASTS.
- QUESTIONS I THOUGH IT WOULD BE INTERRESTING TO PUT IN THERE (such as: Why some Dina Averina's scores dropped during Finals? Could Arina Averina have won silver if she didn't made mistakes with ribbon and if Alina Harnasko hadn't had 2 losses?... you know vital answers).
|
Please, if you wish to post some part of my Olympic review, give: - credit to ClematisRG. |
Some vocabulary from the ancient 2017-2020 code of points:
DB scores: Body Difficulty (BD) and Dance Steps
DA scores: Risks (R) and Apparatus Difficulty (AD)
Video review vs judging live: the usual contradiction and disclaimer
This is a VIDEO review. The goal is not to say, “I’m right, they are wrong”, but to try to understand how the Olympic Games were judged, based on video and try (maybe) to give some insights. I’d like to think my review give a more accurate ranking because I had access to judges’ point of view via video, different TV broadcast and because I had time (this is also why my scores will always be lower). But still, I know it is still limited and bound to mistakes and subjectivity.
Doing review on video, as I always say, is very different from judging live. If you have at least done judging, even in small category, you can realise it very quickly.
AD2, AD3 and AD4?
This was never an official writing in the code. This was just a way for me to speed up editing (AD2 = 0.2 apparatus difficulty, AD3 = 0.3 apparatus difficulty…etc), because making hundreds and hundreds of small boxes with at least 3 different symbols in it is very, very long to do. However, to keep track of what was the gymnast is doing, I added text below.
PS: I also often used the “back split with horizontal trunk” symbol and text when it could be a “back split with horizontal trunk or lower”, because it has the same number of points (0.4 on flat foot, 0.5 on relevé), it looks nearly the same and I was tired of thinking about it. Sorry.This was never an official writing in the code. This was just a way for me to speed up editing (AD2 = 0.2 apparatus difficulty, AD3 = 0.3 apparatus difficulty…etc), because making hundreds and hundreds of small boxes with at least 3 different symbols in it is very, very long to do. However, to keep track of what was the gymnast is doing, I added text below.
Finally (do I even need to say it?):
Of course, you have the right to disagree with me (say hello to my little friend, artistic deductions) or argue (hell yeah). You have the right to dislike the performances from one or some of the medallists, you have the right to contest the right of Israel as a country being part of the Olympics.
But the Olympics aren’t the Oscars. We are not here to discuss who should have won Best Picture based on impact, quality, originality, screenplay, performances… we are here to discuss about who should have won the Olympics based on a certain set of rules, that may or may not be always clear and/or apply with extreme precision.
Ok, enough general talk, let get into the real matter? D-score? A mess? Overscoring? Who? Is it raining today? Blablabla? Thank you for reading everything 😌
Click here to access 2017-2021 Rules starter pack, including 2017-2020 Code of Points, Newsletter 1 (March updated June 2019), Newsletter 2 Artistic component (June 2018), Newsletter 3 (January 2021 revised February 2021), WCH Difficulty and TE 2020 Web and Artistic Individual for FIG website 2020! Now, you're ready.
TIME PENALTY
2017-2021 Code of Points, updated version valid from 1st of February 2018
You will have probably noticed that I took some time penalty (1 to 2 seconds) for some routines when the judges did not give any during the entire competition. This is probably because while it is easy to accurately measure the duration of a routine through video (pinpoint the exact moment where the gymnast begins and stops to move), it is something more difficult to do in real time.
I honestly think some coaches/choreographers noticed it and maybe used purposely.
FINISHING AFTER THE MUSIC ?
Newsletter 3 January 2021 revised February 2021
Thanks to the FIG videos, without external sounds, I was able to determine precisely when the music ends and/or when the last chord strikes (for not counting D and/or giving EA deductions).
Milena Baldassarri (last AD with ball on the floor, last rotation with clubs) and Nicol Zelikman (last risk with ball) were the only 2 gymnasts to be affected by this rule.
LOSS AND KNOT: EVERYONE WORST NIGHTMARE
You named it: body difficulties, risks, apparatus difficulties, nothing can be valid with a loss. With a knot, only risk can be valid. They were only eight losses and one knot during Tokyo Olympics. If Linoy Ashram’s and Arina Averina’s mistakes are the most famous, Anastasiia Salos shows the highest number of losses during the competition (50% of them).
Dina Averina is the only medalist without losses. However, Linoy Ashram and Alina Harnasko are not the only individual gymnast to have won Olympic medals with losses. In 2000, Yulia Barsukova won gold with a very well-hidden loss during rope routine. Yanina Batyrshina (1996, ribbon) and Yulia Raskina (2000, hoop) both won silver with one loss.
It is worth noting that the stag leap done by Salos with ribbon is valid it’s for this reason:
Newsletter 3 (January 2021 revised February 2021)
APPARATUS DIFFICULTIES | COMMON MISTAKES
Aaaa the symbol of this Code of Points. The heart of everything. Apparatus Difficulties. 😍😍😍😍😍😍 I swear I'm not crying
2017-2021 Code of Points, updated version valid from 1st of February 2018
Usually those rules were respected, a lot of AD are actually difficult. However, some others AD (small throw on the floor un the leg or outside visual control, large roll on the arms, you know what I’m talking about…) do not respect those rules. At the Olympic Games, given the DA-scores it seems like all potential AD where counted. Who gave 0.4 point for the most basic catch of hoop with the arms (not hands touching) and behind the back? Or while passing through the hoop on the floor (nothing else) …? mmmm? Well, I did too. I aligned myself on judges’ leniency too for two reasons:
1. Putting easier AD between more difficult AD can be difficult in itself (yes, I love messing with logic)
2. I’m lazy and I don’t want to start a “wait, is this actually difficult?” try-game with me and friends
After judges started to lower the bar for “difficult synchronization” and “interesting or innovative use” from 2018 to 2021, an Apparatus Difficulty was mainly a combination of Base/Criteria. It was not something that was going to change at the Olympic Games: imagine gymnasts losing more than 1-5 points in DA compared to their results during the year and having to figure out why? Panic.
- BASE(S) AND CRITERIA MUST BE COORDINATED TOGETHER, PERFORMED TOGETHER, NOT ONE AFTER THE OTHER
In 2020 presentation about individual gymnasts Difficulty and Technical Execution (slides 72, 73, 79) FIG clarified that criteria and base must be executed together at the same time, not one after the other. ↓
Like in the examples shown by the FIG, catch with a criterion (outside visual control, without the help of the hands or position on the floor) and rotation done after, was one of the most common mistakes at the Olympic Games. ↓
- "AD” WITH MISSING CRITERIA AND/OR BASE (NOT VALID ACCORDING TO THE DEFINITION)
2017-2021 Code of Points, updated version valid from 1st of February 2018
Sometimes gymnasts performed what may look like as an AD but is actually not because either a base or a criterion is missing. ↓
>>Dina Averina: the throw is not asymmetric. Asymmetric means different movements of each club with shape or amplitude and work planes or direction. Here the direction, the shape and the amplitude are the same.
>>Milena Baldassarri: the rebound of the hoop and the ball is not outside of visual control (trunk at the horizontal during the active bounce action)
>>Anastasiia Salos: throw on the oblique plan is not part of the criteria list for AD. For clubs, there is no free rotation of the clubs (barely unstable balance), the locked clubs are held by the hand during the rotation. The small throw is not coordinated with the 180° rotation of the body.
The rest is pretty self-explanatory, I hope.
- AD WITH A BASE OR CRITERIA NOT PERFORMED ACCORDING TO ITS DEFINITION
2017-2021 Code of Points, updated version valid from 1st of February 2018
Each base and criteria happened to have definition. If the definition is not respected, the AD is not valid.
The specific case of roll during a balance will be discussed in detail the part about Body Difficulty (later, below).
>>Bounce
Newsletter 3 (January 2021, revised February 2021)
Both Milena Baldassarri and Khrystyna Pohranychna just let the ball falls on the floor. This is a passive bounce. ↓
>>Mills
2017-2021 Code of Points, updated version valid from 1st of February 2018
Viktoriia Onoprienko only showed 2 small circles of the clubs. Anastasiia Salos showed no mills, crossing the hands but then doing nothing. ↓
>>Large circle of the ribbon (unclean pattern)
The wrapping of the ribbon itself did not allow Alina Harnasko to show a large circle with the ribbon (closed pattern/form).
>>Spirals/Snakes:
2017-2021 Code of Points, updated version valid from 1st of February 2018
Newsletter 3 (January 2021, revised February 2021)
Most gymnast only show 3 or 2 spirals/snakes.
>>Roll on 2 large body segment: shortened and bounce
2017-2021 Code of Points, updated version valid from 1st of February 2018
Newsletter 3 (January 2021, revised February 2021)
Apart from Boryana Kaleyn's roll (too short, doesn't roll all the way to the back), the rest of the problem has to do with bounces from one segment to another (apparatus not rolling, but flying from one part of the body to another).
>>Direct catch with rolling of apparatus over the body
The code never said if the roll was supposed to be small or large, but at least I’m expecting to see a roll somewhere, not an apparatus falling straight on some part of the body and bouncing on it.
Catching with rolling of the apparatus over the body is not an easy type of catch. Arina and Dina Averina both tried without any success. ↓
>>Rotation of the hoop
2017-2021 Code of Points, updated version valid from 1st of February 2018
Milena Baldassarri does not seem to stop grabbing the hoop with one hand or the other; there is no free rotation of the hoop around the palm of the hand. ↓
>>With a rotation of min. 180°
2017-2021 Code of Points, updated version valid from 1st of February 2018
So. This one is simple. The body rotates less than 180° = no criterion. Simple, see? ↓
>>Position on the floor
2017-2021 Code of Points, updated version valid from 1st of February 2018
Newsletter 3 (January 2021, revised February 2021)
Position on the floor means knees and/or trunk touching the floor. Catching the apparatus before the body is on the floor (knee(s) and/or trunk touching the floor) implies that base/criteria are not coordinated (so the AD is not valid). This mistake was very rare (and nearly impossible to spot without slow-motion). ↓
>>During a Body Difficulty
A.k.a badly executed cabriole, scissors, front attitude and passé balance
Here is a correct cabriole ↓
Now let's look at all the fake cabrioles Tokyo gave us ↓
Here is a front attitude according to the code.
now let's see what kind of front attitude we saw in Tokyo (screenshot during the catch or throw):
Here is a passé balance according to the code: one leg is forming a triangle shape.
Now let's see some not-correct-passé-balance ↓
Here is scissors according to the code.
Now let's see what kind of scissors we saw in Tokyo ↓
>>Outside of visual control. My favourite.
The jewel of this part. This criterion alone is probably the major reason why my scores are so different from the judges. It is indeed in a lot of cases impossible to see whether a catch was outside of visual control or not (although sometimes, I think judges should try harder or stop giving the benefit of the doubt).
The newsletter #3 gave some text explanations (in addition to drawings found in the Code) about what can be considered “outside of visual control”. A trunk at horizontal with the arm above the head is not “outside of visual control”.
Newsletter 3 (January 2021, revised February 2021)
Let’s watch some of the best catches outside of visual control with very clear angle. Linoy Ashram, Milena Baldassarri, Alina Harnasko and Nicol Zelikman were the gymnasts who showed the most correct position in catch outside of visual control during walkovers (and cie): most of the time their trunks were well arched into backscale position. ↓
Now let’s watch the vvvvvvvvvveeeeeerrrrrrrrrrryyyyyyyyyyy long list of not Outside Visual Control™ ↓
There is also “outside of visual control” during a throw: here outside of visual control is not valid” because the gymnast watches the apparatus during the entire throw action. ↓
- AD WITH A TECHNICAL FAULT OF 0.3 OR MORE
WCH Difficulty and TE 2020 | FIG Presentation Web final
>Note for Dina Averina: A catch performed after steps performed to save the apparatus form falling can still be valid as a AD. However, the throw leading to it is not.That’s why Dina Averina’s catch of the ball and the clubs are still valid but the throws are not.
Newsletter 1 (March updated June 2019)
>The roll of Linoy Ashram and Nicol Zelikman: the entire body does not touch the floor at some point (flying) and this is a technique that is not authorized. By the way, this technique is not authorized because … it is dangerous for your back!
- It is possible to perform only one AD during a Dance Steps
2017-2021 Code of Points, updated version valid from 1st of February 2018
Salos performed 3 potential AD during the Dance Steps (meeting every requirement, except the number of AD presented). ↓
DYNAMIC ELEMENTS WITH ROTATION (or risk) | COMMON MISTAKES
- A RISK MUST HAVE MIN. TWO 360° ROTATIONS PERFORMED WITHOUT INTERRUPTION
For example, a risk preformed with 360° - 300° - 360° is not valid. However, a risk performed with 360° - 360° - 300° is valid, because there is 2 consecutive 360° rotation (only the last rotation wil not be valid).
2017-2021 Code of Points, updated version valid from 1st of February 2018
Apart from Milena Baldassarri (third rotation incomplete, resumed before the beginning of the fourth rotation), for every gymnast, the second rotation was always the underrotated one. Look closely at the body position and orientation when they start the first rotation and when they finish the second rotation. ↓
- LAST ROTATION IS EXECUTED AFTER THE CATCH
This one is simple: the gymnast does a rotation after the catch, the rotation, the “change of level and/or axis” and “during a rotation” cannot be valid. However, the way the apparatus is caught is still valid. The Newsletter 3 also says that a leg lifted from the floor indicates the rotation has started (see Dina Averina doing risk with correctly connected cartwheel below ↓).
2017-2021 Code of Points, updated version valid from 1st of February 2018
Newsletter 3 (January 2021, revised February 2021)
This is a common mistake when trying to add an illusion, cartwheel, or walkover during the catch: catching with both feet on the floor (not having taken any step for a new rotation) and quickly doing a rotation after. Arina Averina is the clear winner in this category, closely followed by Dina Averina. With the speed, this is a mistake easily ignored when judging live. ↓
- ROTATIONS PERFORMED AFTER EXTRA STEPS ARE NOT VALID
The code and the first newsletters were never extremely clear. However, the last newsletter provided more information on what was considered an “authorized extra step” (stepping onto the leg on which the gymnast will begin the next rotation….) and a “not authorized extra step”. (… but not as a walking step).
Newsletter 1 (March updated June 2019)
Newsletter 3 (January 2021, revised February 2021)
Extra steps can take different forms, from a subtle form of "walking-step" (Viktoriia Onopriienko and Khrystyna Pohranychna, for example) to several little steps and chassé (Alina Harnasko and Anastasiia Salos, for example). ↓
• TO CATCH OR NOT TO CATCH OUTSIDE OF VISUAL CONTROL
Like for AD, the newsletter #3 gave some text explanations (in addition to drawings found in the Code) about what can be considered “outside of visual control”. A trunk at horizontal with the arm above the head is not “outside of visual control”.
Newsletter 3 (January 2021 revised February 2021)
Besides, it worth noting that if a catch is not done outside of visual control, the criterion “during a rotation” cannot be given.
2017-2021 Code of Points, updated version valid from 1st of February 2018
This is a common mistake: every gymnast made it. Everyone tried to get the “catch during a rotation, outside of visual control” 0.2 package with a backward walkover or anything with trunk arched back.
Khrystyna Pohranychna is the clear winner in this category (probably the main reason of my difference of scores with the judges), followed by Linoy Ashram, Alina Harnasko and Viktoriia Onopriienko. With the speed, this is a mistake easily ignored when judging live.
BODY DIFFICULTIES | COMMON MISTAKES
- ROTATION PERFORMED AFTER A HOP WITH TRAVELLING («HOP» IS WHEN THE FOOT RAISES OF THE CARPET)
Newsletter 1 (March updated June 2019)
Newsletter 3 (January 2021 revised February 2021)
Nicol Zelikman was the only gymnast to show hop with travelling during a rotation difficulty (and not just at the end like Arina Averina, Milena Baldassarri and Alina Harnasko). ↓
• HEEL TOUCHING THE FLOOR DURING A ROTATION
It does not matter how the rotation is interrupted: the heel softly touches the ground, or the weight is fully on the heel/ full foot.
Newsletter 1 (March 2019 updated June 2019)
Newsletter 3 (January 2021 revised February 2021)
Back split with horizontal trunk (or “penché on relevé” in simpler terms) was the only reason of this mistake. Back split and penché would often blur with 2017-2021 code because a slightly raised foot from the floor (as long as it didn’t touch the ground) was enough to validate the position as back split (which is no longer the case with the 2022-2024 CoP).
It also worth noting that among the 4 gymnasts who attempted back split with horizontal trunk, Anastasiia Salos was the only one to never touch the ground. Finally, Milena Baldassarri and Anastasiia Salos were the only gymnasts to successfully attempt the back split in the 4 routines (Alina Harnasko did a penché with hoop; Linoy Ashram did it with ribbon).
- UNDERROTATED AND INCOMPLETE ROTATIONS
The correct shape taken by the gymnast is held fixed during a minimum basic rotation (360° or 180°)
For example: 80° preparation to the rotation and 100° in fixed shape for a backscale pivot is not valid.
2017-2021 Code of Points, updated version valid from 1st of February 2018
In 2020 presentation about individual gymnasts Difficulty and Technical Execution (part about Rotations) FIG clarified with examples that the shape must be fixed to start counting.
>first gymnast: shows 3 rotations of the body but the shape is fixed only for 2.5, so only 2 rotations are counted (0.3+0.2)
>second gymnast: shows 1 rotation of the body but the shape is fixed for 180°, so it’s 0.5 point
Underrotated pivot (shape neither fixed nor held during the base rotation) is the main reason why Boryana Kaleyn dropped in my ranking: too many points lost (0.5 point twice lost in nearly each routine + the 0.3 penalty for shape neither fixed nor held during the base rotation… around 5.6 points lost which is just enormous). Some of her under-rotations are not clear in live, but slow-motion is unforgivable (more or less).
Alina Harnasko (and to a lesser extent, Dina Averina) also had her share of underrotated of rotations, but still less than Boryana Kaleyn.
Khrystyna Pohranychna and Nicol Zelikman suffered less from this because they showed incomplete rotation (base rotation is shown but the rest is a mess, to summarize) and not underrotated rotation, and that was only for penché turn (only +0.1 lost).
>In the videos: first stopped frame = correct fixed position is shown after preparation / second stopped frame = end of fixed position
There is less than a base rotation between the first and second stopped frames (180° or 360° depending on the rotation)
Penche (base rotation 360°) | incomplete second or third rotation
Front split with horizontal trunk (base rotation 180°) | underrotated rotation
Side split with horizontal trunk (base rotation 180°) | underrotated rotation
Backscale (base rotation 180°) | underrotated rotation
Ring pivot / Back split with help (base rotation 360°) | incomplete second or third rotation
Other pivots with 360° base rotation: Front split, Attitude, Spiral turn
- BODY DIFFICULTIES EXECUTED WITH NO APPARATUS TECHNICAL ELEMENT
To summarise: a Body Difficulty must be executed with an apparatus technical element.
2017-2021 Code of Points, updated version valid from 1st of February 2018
Milena Baldassarri keeps the ball between her hands without doing any movement. There is no apparatus technical element.
Dina Averina is grasping/squeezing the ball. This is not valid as "unstable balance" (see image below).
WCH Difficulty and TE 2020 | FIG Web presentation final
Viktoriia Onopriienko (backscale and utyascheva) do not show any clear apparatus technical element. It was probably supposed to be spirals, but the patterns are extremely unclear (not 4-5 spirals shown or medium circle of the ribbon).
2017-2021 Code of Points, updated version valid from 1st of February 2018
- BALANCE AND APPARATUS TECHNICAL ELEMENT
Technical apparatus elements are counted in a specific way for balance (yes, yes, everyone forgot about this one, but here it is, lost in the middle of the code).
2017-2021 Code of Points, updated version valid from 1st of February 2018
This does not necessarily mean that a gymnast must start the apparatus technical element when the shape is fixed. It means the entire apparatus technical element must be seen when the shape is fixed.
Example: a roll of the hoop on the left arm, elbows and then right arm is a valid apparatus technical element (large roll of the hoop). If the roll is only done on the left arm and elbows, this is not a valid apparatus technical element (small roll of the hoop does not exist).
Now, if the gymnast starts the roll before the shape is fixed (let’s say, the hoop roll on the left arm first), it means only a part of the roll will be done when in position. The balance will not be valid because a small roll of the hoop is not a valid apparatus technical element.
To be honest: Ah well… no one doing balance with medium/large throw (and sometimes catch) is caring about this rule. When a gymnasts decide to throw during a balance, it is usually “throw while getting into position for the balance” and then “fixed balance shape”
Why can’t judges see that?
1. for the throw it’s only visible in slow-motion
2. it’s been done for so long; no judge seems to have ever thought about this problem
Therefore I decided to close the eye on this problem. \_°|°_/
>>Snakes/spirals
2017-2021 Code of Points, updated version valid from 1st of February 2018
Like for AD, this is a very common mistake:
-managing to have 4-5 spirals/snakes (which is why the AD is still valid with 2 criteria) but not when the shape is fixed (Dina Averina and Nicol Zelikman during their ring balance for example)
-fixing the shape but managing to have only 3 spirals (Arina and Dina Averina front split, Linoy Ashram, Milena Baldassarri and Anastasiia Salos back split and Alina Harnasko ring balance)
>>Roll
The ball must roll over 2 large body segments. An arm is one large body segment. The trunk too.
2017-2021 Code of Points, updated version valid from 1st of February 2018
Boryana Kaleyn and Arina Averina both have a balance that does not allow the ball to roll over 2 large body segments when the shape of the balance is fixed. Besides, Arina Averina’s roll is not large: the ball does not roll on the right forearm and is quickly saved.
Milena Baldassarri starts the roll before the shape was fixed. Anastasiia Salos unfixed the shape before the roll is complete.
>>Rotation of the hoop around a part of the body
2017-2021 Code of Points, updated version valid from 1st of February 2018
Both Viktoriia Onopriienko and Milena Baldassarri manage to have a complete rotation of the hoop around their elbows but not while being in fixed shape.
>>Passing through the hoop
2017-2021 Code of Points, updated version valid from 1st of February 2018
Arina Averina passes completely though the hoop (the whole body is going through). However, the shape is fixed after when the hoop is not going through any part of the body anymore. To see a correct execution of this element (ie passing through while the hands left the floor), you can look at Linoy Ashram’s hoop during 2019 Grand Prix Thiais Final (although the shape is not perfectly fixed like Arina Averina).
>>Rotation around the axis on the floor
2017-2021 Code of Points, updated version valid from 1st of February 2018
Nicol Zelikman manages to have a complete rotation of the hoop but not while being in fixed shape.
>>Mills, circles …
2017-2021 Code of Points, updated version valid from 1st of February 2018
Anastasiia Salos execute what seems to be a mix of a mill with small circles… however neither of them are presented when the shape is fixed.
>>Catch
Dina Averina and Viktoriia Onopriienko caught the hoop before the shape of the balance is fixed (for a correct example of this element, see Alina Harnasko during the hoop rotation EF).
- BODY DIFFICULTY EXECUTED WITH A TECHNICAL FAULT WITH THE APPARATUS (TECHNICAL FAULT OF 0.30 OR MORE)
Summary: a Body Difficulty is not valid is there is a technical fault of 0.3 or more with the apparatus.
2017-2021 Code of Points, updated version valid from 1st of February 2018
>>Imprecise trajectory: Khrystyna Pohranychna throws the club, makes steps to save the clubs and catches it. The balance is not valid because of the steps made in order to save the club from falling.
Newsletter 3 (January 2021 revised February 2021)
- DANCE STEPS MUST LAST FOR 8 SECONDS, NOT 6 SECONDS, NOT 7 AND A HALF
2017-2021 Code of Points, updated version valid from 1st of February 2018
Viktoriia Onopriienko has a Dance Steps with the right duration during the ball routine. However, there is a technical fault of 0.3 (unvoluntary catch with contact with the body):
To conclude on Dance Steps:
-more than half of the Dance Steps were not meting the time requirement (and I’m not even counting Arina Averina, Alina Harnasko and Viktoriia Onopriienko ribbon Dance Steps that were shortened because of big mistakes).
-Linoy Ashram and Nicol Zelikman were the only gymnasts to not show any 8 seconds Dance Steps in all their routines
-Milena Baldassarri was the only gymnast to show 4 complete Dance Steps
TECHNICAL EXECUTION
I will not explain every technical mistake, because some are easy to understand with the name of the deductions. However, some are not: deviation, kip, and (maybe) hops with travelling at the end of the pivot and asymmetrical shoulders.
By the way, did you notice? Why is there so much difference with my scores ? I think it’s because I had more time to pause and look at things (spotting underrotated base rotation, hop with travelling at the end of a pivot etc…), but also because I notice judges were quite kind about the 0.3 penalty for balance not held during 1 seconds. When you have a routine with 5 balances that are not held 1 second, this is already a –1.5 in ET!
- DEVIATION
So… there is degrees explanations (and texts, like a lot),
2017-2021 Code of Points, updated version valid from 1st of February 2018
2017-2021 Code of Points, updated version valid from 1st of February 2018
…but those degrees also are guidelines…
Newsletter 1 (March updated June 2019)
…and there are drawings.
2017-2021 Code of Points, updated version valid from 1st of February 2018
Anyway, is here the most common deviation in at the 2021 Olympics
-bent back leg and/or head not touching the back leg during turning split leap with back bent
-trunk lower or higher than the horizontal during Difficulties that are supposed to be with horizontal trunk (back split, side split, front split)
-bent front leg during a stag leap
-bent back leg during attitude pivot
By the way, if you wish to have the safest position for your knees for side split with horizontal trunk, Boryana Kaleyn is the best one.
- KIP
Newsletter 3 (January 2021 revised February 2021)
Large kip are easy to identify; they are obvious. However, how do you make a difference between a no kip and small kip? A small kip and a medium kip?
To do that I used the frame count: how many frames are between the front leg leaving its maximal amplitude and the back leg reaching its maximal amplitude (the files I used have 25 frames per second). Based on how roughly a small/medium kip look like and on FIG examples, I decided 4-5 frames for a small kip, 6-7 for a medium kip, etc…
This method is not 100% accurate, because depending on when the frame cut the movement, but it was the best way I found to apply the same measure to everyone.
The turning split leap with backbend of Dina Averina during the clubs routine is without doubt the best leap of this kind during the competition. Alina Harnasko during the ball routine could come close if there wasn’t a more visible knee bent (no extreme but still there).
- ASYMMETRICAL SHOULDERS
I think this is a pretty clear explanation:
- HOPS WITH TRAVELLING
Nicol Zelikman had hop with travelling during her fouetté, but here I wanted to talk about often unnoticed hop with travelling at the end of ring/back split pivot with help (performed by Arina Averina and Alina Harnasko). Hop (the foot raises of the carpet) is different than sliding (foot travelling but still touching the floor); sliding is not penalised.
What make Alina Harnasko’s ring pivot during hoop routine stunning to any eyes:
-correct form
-nearly 3 turns (ring pivot usually start to look impressive at this point) with difficulty handling of the hoop
-AND NO HOP AT THE END
ARTISTIC EXECUTION
With 2017-2021 Code, most of artistic penalties were rather objective (“““rather”””). A refreshment course can be found here, for people who wish to see how much Artistry evaluation evolved from 2017-2021 to 2022-2024. Connections, dynamic changes, staying in one place, ending after the music and even character can be identified and quantified.
For connection, I penalised not smooth connection (according to the code):
—due to adjusting the position / technical mistakes (for example, Anastasiia Salos catching a club after running and then walking to go for the risk)
—due to the composition/choreography itself (for example, planning one Difficulty after another, but having to do extra steps to start one the “right” leg or level; Khrystyna Pohranychna and Nicol Zelikman have choreography that suffer a bit with that). Arina Averina’s ball routine, in which she goes from a backward walkover straight into a front split balance, is a good example of good and simple connection; nothing fancy like Karpushenko-2013-2016-connections, but it does the job).
For character, I counted every movement that were showing a character (arm movement, stylized connecting steps, body waves and apparatus connecting elements emphasizing the rhythm and character were all consider ways of showing character, change of level). If more than half (majority) of the movements, but not all, show character (including the Dance Steps), this is a 0.1 penalty; if less than half of the movement show character (but there is still some movement showing it), this is a 0.3 penalty. No gymnast was worth getting the 0.5 or 0.7 penalties as they were too extreme (and 2021 standards for Artistic penalties were non-existent very low). It means that a 0.1 character penalty could apply to a routine with good dance steps and 60% filled with connections but also 90% filled with connections (which does not look the same, you can feel it. If you can’t, count to be sure. (Count always, it’s even better).
Side note (but very important): this code left a grey area around gymnasts who had routine with excellent Dance Steps and with the rest of the exercise filled ≈25% character (example: Milena Baldassari's clubs). In this case, 0.5 penalty could not be applied because there was still a character presented outside of the Dance Steps, but technially, the 0.3 penalty could not be applied because of "A defined character or style is not fully developed in the Dance Steps" s actually false. Facing a dilemma, I still choose that it was better to apply 0.3 penalty, than 0.1 or 0.5.
Here is a video showing some movements that show character. Some gymnasts show elements with a more present character (example: Kaleyn with hoop in this video). ↓
But then come *****RHYTHM INTERRUPTION***** (things exploding in the background)
Come yell at me if you disagree wth any of my rhythm interruption penalties, because let’s be honest, rhythm interruption is the only part where disagreements become the best discussions.
However, for this review, I obviously tried to keep feelings and my extreme pickiness at bay when it comes to music/movements matching by only looking for the examples given by the code (see image below):
2017-2021 Code of Points, updated version valid from 1st of February 2018
But even that can be a hard task. Accents? Some accents are more obvious to some people than other. Unintentionally behind? How do you know it’s unintentional?
Some cases are obvious, and I'm sure we can agree on many things (especially the more common the culture and references are), but sometimes... it’s hard to find common ground.
2019 Worlds is mentioned, but not Kapranova, nor Bessonova. Well, now they are, cheers!
Ok, one anecdote, now that this is not a Kapra/Besso free-zone anymore: Dina Averina waited longer for her results (4’40’’) than Anna Bessonova in 2008 (≈3’30’’). The real question is: who will beat the 5 minutes wait?
One other thing, totally not related to 2008 Beijing: when I say “judges counted everything” it means they gave points for every movement that could have been awarded points, even if the movement was not correctly executed and should have not been valid (I only talk about DA). Sometimes the gaps (or underscoring or overscoring) between my score and theirs are explainable (errors and/or poor execution which are difficult to identify live) and some are less so (this is when I say that the judges are generous/kind).
LINOY ASHRAM
Ashram had already at Worlds, according to the judges, the highest D-score since 2019 Worlds (and she also had a very costly loss with hoop). I do agree. What she needed was just to close the gap with the E-score, which happened when judges started to give her consistent 9+ in 2020. I disagree on this.
My point is: Linoy Ashram winning over Dina Averina (and Arina Averina) was going to happen soon, and it was fully clear after the Olympic qualifications. No surprise. She is one of the least overscored gymnasts in Difficulty. It is typical and best example of an optimal and ergonomic version of the routines under the 2018-2021 code: series of 0.6 jumps (4-5) and back split pivot on relevé (the 2 ultimate body difficulty weapons), 0.7+ risks (often with catch during backwards walkover), fewer AD compared to the Russians with a lot of 0.7 throw/catch, 180° rotation and outside of visual control criteria.
Judges seems to have given her every Dance Steps, except for ball, which is reassuring, because that one was hella short (6s.). They also had difficulty spotting heel touching the ground for her only pivot during the ball routine.
In DA, judges counted everything for hoop and clubs routines.
She remains one of the least overscore gymnast in total.
ARINA AVERINA
2 Inquiries: ball’s score unchanged // clubs’ score changed +0.4
I would say, until ribbon, she had one of the best competitions of her life, better than at the European Championships. Much precision, clever changes made to her choreography to suit her strong points (for example putting the 2 pivots at the beginning of her ball routine, she often hit 1080° better if the pivot are among her first moves than in the last third of the routine), and even though she started with a Difficulty disadvantage on the paper (as always since 2018), given the competition (and before her ribbon routine), she was in position for a medal, bronze or higher.
In DA, judges counted (nearly) everything for hoop and clubs routine (after inquiry).
DINA AVERINA
2 Inquiries: clubs’ and ribbon’s scores unchanged
Dina Averina had to abandon some of her most difficult risk over 2018-2020 due to focusing on 0.7 AD, and obviously the back injury didn’t help. She had to abandon:
— her strong backscale pivot (0.5-0.7) from floor and/or standing
— her 0.6 jumps series in most of her routines. It was one of her strongest points, if not her strongest point; she had the best series of the entire quad, no one beats her on that: 3-4 jumps, perfect form from start to finish, no kip, no heavy landing, no arched back. She still did 2-3 series in Tokyo, but it was visible (when comparing with pre-injury form) that she was struggling (no touching during hoop, which gave me a lot of pain to watch).
Instead, she focused on the side split balance/pivot (which is clearly not her best skill) and never included the split with horizontal trunk pivot (a crucial skill, mastered by Linoy Ashram, Alina Harnasko, Milena Baldassarri and Anastasiia Salos for this competition) or even the penché (like Arina Averina, who included it regularly since 2018).
Judges didn’t counted everything for Dina Averina. So what?
Judges were not deliberately trying to be harsh with Dina Averina (During the hoop, they gave her a catch while passing through on the floor (nothing more) and a saved catch being the back, as if it wasn’t too easy). What gave the impression that she was underscore of few cents is because compared to previous competitions during the same season they didn’t pull the ‘’we count Everything™’’ card. Some elements with not the correct execution were rightfully not counted; meanwhile, in smaller competitions (Europeans, world cup…. Worlds) they were. And that’s probably why they inquired, not understanding why a routine performed with all the element wasn’t giving them the maximum score. The ribbon inquiry was particularly telling: they were lucky the judges didn’t lower. If you can give the benefit of the doubt for catches in live, many of them are clearly not valid when put in slow-motion or re-watched multiple time in real time.
MILENA BALDASSARRI
1 inquiry: clubs’ score changed +0.2
Peak competition, very impressive job, and progression, both on difficulty and execution side (the best trunk position and most consistent relevé on the “Back split pivot, without support, trunk horizontal”, a pivot also executed by Harnasko, Salos and Ashram with various success), with a very good ranking with clubs (2nd). I think it’s worth mentioning: the only gymnast to have full 8 seconds dance steps on her 4 routines.
I managed to agree with judges with DB score for clubs (and EA for ribbon)!
ALINA HARNASKO
1 Inquiry: clubs’ score changed +0.2
On the paper, she was one of the most complete and well-balanced gymnasts of the competition: high difficulty and very good execution. However, underrotated turns and no-fixed-balance as well as heel down during back split with horizontal trunk (“penché with relevé” if you like to call it this way) came to play in my scores.
One of the least overscored gymnasts on the DA side, with one of the best catches outside visual control during walkover (and similar), if not the best, with Milena Baldassarri and Linoy Ashram, nearly always catching with the trunk well bent, below the horizontal line.
BORYANA KALEYN
1 Inquiry: hoop’s score unchanged
Afff Kaleyn, I am so sorry: the most difficulty DB difficulty attempted and yet so much overscoring, in BD, DA, ET and generally, due to me not counting so many of her pivots, catch in backward walkover and giving 0.3 penalty now and then…
Side note: It would have been interesting to see how high she could have placed for the Olympic judges without that ball’s mistake (probably above Arina Averina, since the gap is around 1.5 and she also lost around 1.5, if not more, with a missed 0.8 risk and 0.7 penalty).
VIKTORIIA ONOPRIIENKO
Probably the gymnasts who suffered the most in her ranking from the “overscoring” of other gymnasts, particularly with hoop. Judges were very strict for her hoop, nearly getting the same score as me, which is surprising since no other gymnasts seem to have suffered from unvalidated “borderline catch outside of visual control”, “fake cabriole AD” or similar common mistakes…The least overscored gymnast of the competition.
KHRYSTYNA POHRANYCHNA
Despite consistency, Pohranychna suffered of some execution problems on several element (especially risk with step, catch outside of visual control, or even with a risk missing two 360° uninterrupted rotations), which put make her quite an overscored gymnast in DA, but not in DB (very few mistakes). Overall, she was one of the least overscored gymnasts.
She was also the only gymnast for which I gave 0.3 character penalty for every routine: despite behind executed efficiently, quite a lot of element are executed the same way for each routine, without displaying any character.
In DA, Judges counted everything for hoop routine.
ANASTASIIA SALOS
Not much to be said, the competition wasn’t the best.
However, Anastasiia Salos’s ball routine is probably what the closest we got to 0.0 character penalty, without the big loss (to be fair, it should be a 0.1, but given that it is Nearly All, but compared to other routines, it could be totally a 0.0).
NICOL ZELIKMAN
Not much to be said: planning far less Difficulty than anyone in this final, but with average-correct execution, making her a not-very-overscored gymnast.
In DA, Judges counted everything for clubs and ribbon.
Ok, let’s be honest: this is a “I think this could be FAQ” section
A lot of “what if…”
Bias from the D judges? Corruption?
Let’s get this straight: D judges were okay. We were at the Olympic Games, not some local competition.
I have seen worse (aka, where do those points come from?!?). The main problems concerned spotting:
-borderline underrotated pivot,
-uncoordinated criteria/base (especially outside visual control / during a rotation),
-4-5 spirals/snakes in the ribbon pattern (leading to very big differences in scores!),
-whether or not the apparatus is well coordinated with the body difficulty (especially the balance and rotation),
-cabriole, scissors, and attitude forms.
These are problems with all the gymnasts, and even if some gymnasts benefited more from those mistakes than others, it’s fair to say that there was no bias shown.
What about Execution?
Why is there so much difference with my scores? –2 for flawless routine?? A lot of –3? What is going on?? Are the Olympic Games a local sub-junior competition???? Also interrogation points???????
Ok. I think it’s because I had more time to pause and look at things (spotting underrotated base rotation, hop with travelling at the end of a pivot etc…), but also because probably because judges were quite kind about the 0.3 penalty for balance not held for 1 seconds. Most balances in that competition weren’t held for 1 seconds, often only for a third of it. When you have a routine with 5 balances that are not held 1 second, this is already a –1.5 in ET! And please, don’t tell me that backscale is hard to hold for 1 seconds, because 1. Several gymnasts did it during this competition (see Arina Averina with clubs), but also because that exactly the example FIG gave for holding a balance during 1 second. Yes. They gave a backscale as an example (Minagawa Kaho with ball during 2018 Worlds Qualifications, if you want to look at).
Take for example Alina Harnasko hoop routine: my total ET is 2.6 which is enormous….”Alina Harnasko had a loss, but come one, –2.6 is for gymnast who made several big mistake or who has very poor execution, which not Alina Harnasko’s case!” you might say.
And I will answer (yes, I am now writing a theatre play): “Yes, you’re right, but look at the breakdown of my ET score: –0,9 for 3 unheld balance, –0.6 for 2 underrotated base rotation (backscale and side split) and –1.1 for the rest (including the loss). And the judges gave –1.0. So I’m not that far from them; they were just kind about unheld balance (and not only for Alina Harnasko) and the underrotated base rotation were actually hard to spot.
This is why I will have gymnasts with routine looking less well executed, but with less (or no) unheld balances and underrotated base rotation have less ET deduction than gymnasts with beautifully executed routines but 5 unheld balances and 2 underrotated 180° pivot.
Everyone is overscored.
This is always something that happened because judges usually give the benefit of the doubt. “Not sure if you saw well the difficulty, but it seems good? Valid!” Sometimes it’s completely understandable (certain skills details are very hard to see in real speed, for example the starting and the finishing point of a ring pivo, Dance Steps 8 seconds which often transform into 7-6 seconds); sometimes it’s less clear why the Difficulty was given value (different angles? concentration?).
I have video, so benefit of the doubt is less a thing, unless the angle is not helping at all, and it happened (Linoy Ashram in particular, as a couple of catches with ribbon and ball for which the angle isn’t helping AT ALL, but also Alina Harnasko and Milena Baldassarri).
This is probably the reason why FIG will never release breakdowns, not until we had a more transparent system, with AI controlled skills form and execution and computer help showing at what exact time and for what a judges penalised/counted. This is also why FIG did not talk about scores when it comes to Tokyo, but about results, ranking and bias, because yes you can overscore everyone with consistency and get a correct podium.
I personally admire gymnasts for going on the carpet and knowing human eyes will judges them.
System broken or broken system?
When Alina Harnakso said “we have broken the system”: yes, on the outside they did; for the first time since 2000, Russia didn’t win gold. However, on the inside of the system is still the same: judging live is extremely inaccurate. The system has not been broken in Tokyo, it was already broken and gymnasts who should have got on the podium were lucky enough to get fair ranking.
Key elements to Olympic medal
Something that I saw the most when doing the Olympics review is how 0.5 pivot (720° and 180° base rotation), 0.6 turning split leap and 0.5 jumps were the key to medal but also very high risks. In 2018-2019 it was more interesting to do 0.7 AD (throw + catch) as the difficulty level to get a medal was lower. But as squeezing more and more AD soon became impossible, it became obvious that having 0.9-1.0-1.1+ risk was a good way to catch a lot of point quicker. Except that… you don’t train those type of skills in a year, they take time.
Arina, Dina and Linoy only met twice before Olympics.
In 2020 and 2021 Dina Averina, Arina Averina and Linoy Ashram only met three times: 2021 World Cup Pesaro, 2021 European Championships and Olympics Games. To compare: Arina Averina, Dina Averina and Alina Harnasko met four times (2021 WC Tashkent, 2021 WC Pesaro, 2021 Euros, Olympic Games), which is more in the average.
Linoy Ashram understood that judges weren’t caring much about the execution (technical and artistic (aka 2019 World Championships, in which, by the way, she already had the highest difficulty score even with a similar loss of the apparatus during the hoop routine), but also that judges could count element even if they weren’t strictly respecting the rules. She just upped her difficulty to equal Dina Averina and waited for judges give her 9+ in Execution.
The Russian team sure understand of the code in its use thanks to year of experience. They know how the judges act, or at least it seems so, given the scores. With the 2017-2021 code they knew that by adding more difficulty than other, there was also a chance of having more D validated. Judges can’t look at every element, especially DA judges. Badly executed elements slip through the net and go unnoticed. This method had been a total success since 2017… until Tokyo. 1. Because judges are supposed to be the best ones 2. Linoy Ashram also upped her Difficulty a lot to fight for that E-gap with Dina Averina. Choreographers and coaches maybe misjudged this threat; they didn’t totally ignore it, because the Dina Averina’s routines underwent some changes (you can compare WC Pesaro to European Championships to Olympics Games), but it wasn’t enough. For the first time Dina Averina wasn’t going to a competition with a planned difficulty advantage, even a small one. Linoy Ashram was, and she isn’t exactly known for major inconsistencies. Let’s just remind ourselves that if Dina Averina didn’t miss a catch of the ball trapped in her legs during a forward roll, she would have won gold, according to the judges.
A very costly mistake from Dina Averina…
planned – 0.9 risk: throw without the hands and outside of visual control, 3 rotations with change of level and axis (cartwheel, vertical rotation, forward roll) and catch during a rotation without the hands and outside of visual control
executed – 0.5 risk: throw without the hands and outside of visual control, 2 rotations with change of axis (cartwheel, vertical rotation) and catch of the ball with 2 hands
Without Arina’s mistakes during the ribbon routine what would have been the podium according to you?
This is assuming no knot + no imprecise trajectory + doing correctly all the D she was supposed to do and that was missed (including the Dance Steps that were shortened) and without any execution mistake. She would have got bronze, around more than 1 point above Harnasko (who, by the way had lost 1.2 points with 2 losses). I would even dare to say that Arina Averina could have been a potential silver medal (but that’s another discussion).
Arina made 2 big mistakes, but Linoy did too? Why did Arina lost more points then?
Arina Averina had high difficulty but not as high as Linoy Ashram to compensate for big mistakes. Moreover, Arina Averina took more time to recover from her mistakes (13 missed or unvalid elements – 3.8) than Linoy Ashram (2 missed elements – 0.7). This is a gigantic difference; a knot always has been more harmful than a loss that remains close to the gymnast, but especially with this code. And unfortunately, Arina Averina experienced it:
**knot is formed**
0.5 180° Backscale (done but knot)
0.3 throw (done but knot)
**knot noticed**
0.4 catch (not done)
0.2 small roll (not done)
**new ribbon taken**
0.5 Front split (done)
0.7 Throw/catch (done)
0.2 AD (not done because of lack of time)
0.2 AD (not done because of lack of time)
0.3 Dance steps (not enterely done because of lack of time)
0.2 AD (during the Dance Steps)
0.3 boomerang (not done because of lack of time)
0.7 AD (not valid because of imprecise trajectory)
**
From this point the routine is identical to qualification except at the end
**
0.2 AD (not done because of lack of time)
0.3 throw (not done because of lack of time)
Let’s push further: without Arina’s mistakes AND Harnasko’s losses, what would have been the podium? Would Harnasko have won silver?
It would have been very close, Arina Averina and Alina Harnasko were technically both strong contender for silver/bronze medal with their programs as performed in the Final (minus the big visible mistakes).
***
Yes, this is the ending.
Thank you for making it this far and for reading my very poor English, I hope it wasn’t too horrible.
Anyways, bye!
Clematis
Clematis
