Several good people commented to clarify the 0.1 additional penalty on vault in Finals.
… “close to the corridor line” …
Vague wording. Did judges apply that penalty consistently in Rotterdam?
I don’t think so.
Here’s Nabieva’s landing on the second vault. One foot on the line:
If anything, Mustafina was even more one foot on the line on her second vault:
Those two screen grabs come from this video.
Leave a comment if you were watching for this “penalty”.
We’re clear now that both girls had their second vaults devalued for “lack of stretch”. The clarification in the May edition of the WAG Helpdesk was wrong.
6 comments ↓
“We’re clear now that both girls had their second vaults devalued for “lack of stretch”. The clarification in the May edition of the WAG Helpdesk was wrong. ”
Could you link to the source saying that the WAG helpdesk is wrong please? The link you posted doesn’t seem to clarify anything and this is an area of some debate.
NAbieva is actually over the line and should get a 0.3. Mustafina and Nabieva are both touching the line with one foot (which sure means “near”). The go off the position of the most offending foot.
both of them look like they’re chuck, chuck, chuckin regardless. barf.
Thanks for the line rule clarification because this was seen at Comm Games too. A couple of the Aussies got a 0.1 when they were within the lines and I was confused but now I understand.
I think that FIG should make it more clear and have ON the line 0.1, outside with one foot 0.3 and two feet 0.5. NEAR the line is way too subjective and clearly its not being applied consistantly.
[...] posts – … 0.1 penalty on Vault (compare Nabieva and [...]
[...] might remember the controversy after Worlds in Rotterdam resulting from the reductions from Nabieva, Mustafina’s and Sacramone’s vaults. More information has been clarified on landings within the corridor [...]
Leave a Comment