Did the World Vault Champion land …
… in the Corridor, but close to the corridor line.
If so, that’s a 0.1 deduction.
Screen grab from this video of her Rudi in Finals.
Personally, I think not. That 0.1 penalty has not often been taken in the past. Was not taken for other gymnasts in Rotterdam much more off line.
And the wording in English is vague. It should say “one foot on the line”, or something specific.
In that Final that Alicia Sacramone was easily best.
I’m sure we’ll hear other opinions.
related posts – … 0.1 penalty on Vault (compare Nabieva and Mustafina)
18 comments ↓
They should definitely be more specific in the wording and more consistent with using the deduction.
Now, I cannot guarantee 100% b/c I have not coached in 8 years, but I believe here in Ontario even provincial level athletes get 0.1-.03 in deductions on vault for directionality on landing.
If this is, in fact, correct and those girls are forced to stay in the lines, then Olympic caliber gymnasts should be too.
If anyone can confirm or debunk my thought above that would be helpful.
Last year at worlds it would have been penalized. This year at worlds they had to be touching before it was penalized from what I saw. The application of that .1 ND hasn’t been consistent since the 2009-2012 CoP came out. I’m hoping that it will stay the way it was applied this year with .1 for touching .3 for one foot out and .5 for two feet out.
That sounds very reasonable, Quentin.
Where did you see that clarification? … Some judges I talked to have not heard that.
Just add more lines (sort of serious).
The clarification at the “Help Desk” (p. 31) has
• 0.00—Land in the middle of the center line or 1 foot on the center line and 1 on the side
• 0.10 – Land in the corridor but between center line
and corridor line
• 0.30 – Land outside the Corridor line with one foot
• 0.50 – Land outside the Corridor with both feet
http://www.fig-docs.com/Judges/WAG%20Help%20Desk%20Eng.pdf
I haven’t seen it anywhere Rick. That’s how I saw applied at worlds this year and last. If you can find footage from last year’s vault final and compare with this years vault final you will see what I mean. It’s a more reasonable interpretation but not doesn’t meet the wording of the CoP.
Thanks AJ. … But the Help Desk is not official. And I know it got the forward salto vaults stretched interpretation wrong, so now I don’t trust it.
I’m thinking the evaulation has evolved since that was written. And is now more lenient.
I think they’ve taken an approach that is closer to the way it is in men’s vaulting. There is not a .1 ND for not landing on/near the center line. The men only have the .3 and .5 penalties for out of bounds.
Upon rereading my last comment I have firmly come to the conclusion that I should not post and talk network design at work at the same time. I seem to skip words in posting though my brain has no problem reading what I wrote as I know what I meant.
I think I have seen the men get NDs on vault. Maybe at Nats? Can’t recall but remember scratching my head.
Anyhow…I’m just a blog reader who didn’t know who Produnova was 2 years ago on WWGym. I expect you professionals to know stuff better.
Oh…and that said, the COP is really kind of poorly written. That thing needs to be polished (single language, better layout, better drawings, grammar fixed, etc. etc. etc.)
[...] Rick also poses the question – should Alicia Sacramone also be penalised? [...]
I agree the code does seem rather vague and confusing at times. Does anyone know what language the code was originally written in? Is it written in one language first, and then translated? If so, is it possible that the confusion is because of translation issues?
I seem to recall that German is definitive if there are conflicts between the 3 official languages.
But I’m not sure.
It’s a frigging mess. Do the thing in one language (and English is lingua franca, sorry frogs). Have other versions if you want, for local use, but English for all international competitions. And not the side by side columns of info that look like something from a 1970s mimeograph…separate versions in different languages. And then fix all the grammar. and the logic. and the niggling errors. Cripes.
Mea culpa, Rick. Forgot my no swearing effort. 5 dollars for the Berkely bois.
The WTC Newsletters are 100 per cent official though and here’s what was said about off centre vaults in edition 30 (Jan 2010):
8.3.1 Corridor Markings
Clarification:
The guideline for application of directional deduction (NL#29; …Land in the Corridor, but not in
the center of corridor – 0.10 P) may be used only if an overhead camera with a screen for
review by the Line Judge is available.
If no overhead camera is available, the evaluation will be made by the line judge as published in WAG
COP’09:
– Land in the Corridor, but close to the corridor line – 0.10 P
– Land outside the Corridor line with one foot – 0.30 P
– Land outside the Corridor with both feet – 0.50 P
That edition also had the same controversial guidelines about piked vaults as the WAG helpdesk.
http://www.fig-gymnastics.com/vsite/vnavsite/page/directory/0,10853,5187-191694-208917-nav-list,00.html
I wonder if Nellie had an overhead camera?
Or only the “normal” judge’s view.
[...] one post she expands on the controversy at Worlds regarding the “Corridor Marking” deduction on [...]
[...] might remember the controversy after Worlds in Rotterdam resulting from the reductions from Nabieva, Mustafina’s and [...]
Leave a Comment