Russian protest on Vault Finals


Russian protest

In vault finals, Aliya Mustafina’s second vault RO-1/2 on full-twisting front layout off (6.1 D score) was downgraded to a pike (5.7). Both of Tatiana Nabieva’s vaults were downgraded – the Amanar (6.5) to a a double twisting Yurchenko (5.8) and her second vault in the same way as Mustafina’s. The Russian delegation attempted to protest the D scores for both gymnasts but were denied. „They told us we were four minutes too late,“ head coach Andrey Rodionenko told The All Around.

I still don’t know what the 0.1 penalty was for Mustafina.

Leave a comment if you know.


#1 PolyisTCOandbanned on 10.23.10 at 10:46 am

Usually those 0.1s are from off line?

#2 PolyisTCOandbanned on 10.23.10 at 10:48 am

Could you figure out what happened with Macko’s D score on UB in prelims? Was it something we knew was an issue or a surprise? And was it protestable? Did she get it in finals? I’m confused…

#3 Worlds Today 23/10/10 – Mens & Womens Individual Apparatus – A Quick Round Up on 10.23.10 at 10:48 am

[…] Gymnastics Coaching reported that the Russians protested Mustafina’s score on vault. […]

#4 Dana on 10.23.10 at 11:16 am

Rick, have you run into to Rodionenko at all? Give him a big hello from me if you do! I haven’t talked to him since he tried to talk me back into coaching back home!

#5 SportySpice on 10.23.10 at 1:34 pm

I think the downgrade is a step in the right direction for judging – they need to be consistent though and not wait until finals to do it.

#6 Quentin on 10.24.10 at 12:18 am

The .1 ND is a landing fault. In the 2009 CoP landing near the external line got you a .1 deduction. I don’t know if that changed in this years update. The interesting twist on this rule is that the men didn’t have it when I checked last. It’s 8.3.1 in the CoP for WAG.

#7 Should Mustafina & Nabieva’s Vaults have been downgraded? on 10.24.10 at 11:40 am

[…] there care to explain to those who are still confused? There was some confusion yesterday as to why both girls vaults were downgraded. Aliya Mustafina, aliya mustafina vault, gymnastics world championships 2010, Tatiana Nabieva, […]

#8 J on 10.24.10 at 4:07 pm

It was obvious that the body position on Mustafina’s vault was not a layout. It was obvious that other Russian did not complete the twist. What is there to argue about?

As usual, the Russians were rude and obnoxious about it. Poor losers.

#9 coach Rick on 10.24.10 at 4:16 pm

No argument. The FIG help desk file is wrong.

The question is the 0.1 deduction.

#10 Kechaera on 10.24.10 at 4:42 pm

Am I reading the help desk file wrong. It said that they are allowed a snap as long as they are no longer piked past the point there head is vertical. When I watched the video, Mustafina definitely looks piked past this point. According to the help desk instructions, that would be a pike.

I admit the first paragraph explanation is kind of confusing. However, to me, it seems like it is more of an explaination of why they allow the snap. The three points below seem to be the final instructions on how to define a pike. To me, it seems like there saying anything that doesn’t qualify as a pike, but is excessive in the snap gets an execution deduction.

Leave a Comment