vault - intlgymnast.com · vault. overview of current rules and criteria. in 2001 (10 years ago)...
TRANSCRIPT
VAULT
OVERVIEW OF CURRENT RULES AND CRITERIA
In 2001 (10 years ago) the new vaulting table was introduced.Maybe the biggest impact with this change was:
‐modification of techniques (not necessarily better performances)‐reduction of injuries‐development of Yurchenko entry type vaults
But we stop seeing development or continuity in the performance of some type of vaults
‐no vaults with double salto (Produnova)‐few tsukaharas with 2/1 turn‐few stretched front saltos w/wo ½ turn
Participation on VTBest AA are potencially best vaulters? (as in the past)Is everybody trying to achieve a good result/medal on VT or they just follow the rules and meet the requirement?
Why?
Are we going in the right direction?
Current Code of Points (VT):
Total number of vaults per group:
From the 80 saltos:-18 (22.5%) are without salto (G1) / -62 (77.5%) are with salto
From the 62 vaults with salto:-27 (43.55%) have fwd saltos -35 (56.45%) have bwd saltos
From the 62 vaults with salto:-25 (40%) are tuck-14 (23%) are pike-23 (37%) are stretch
Groups used in World Championships 2009 and 2010
Some statistics from the events on current cycle:
Groups used in last 3 European Championships
WC LONDON (107 gymnasts)
VT 1 D high 6.5 / D low 4.0E high 9.000 / E low 6.925
VT 2 D high 5.8 / D low 4.3E high 9.000 / E low 7.025
WC ROTTERDAM (184 gymnasts)
VT 1 D high 6.5 / D low 2.4E high 9.233 / E low 7.300
VT 2 D high 6.1 / D low 4.0E high 9.266 / E low 7.500
Some statistics from the events on current cycle:
12 vaults recognized differently 34 vaults recognized differently
Directional deductions:0.10 – 620.30 – 40.50 – 0
Directional deductions:0.10 – 140.30 – 10.50 ‐ 0
Weight of Difficulty in ideal FS: 36.3Net weight in real FS: 39.01
Weight of Difficulty in ideal FS: 36.54Net weight in real FS: 40.35
Average D‐Score is at the same level of other apparatusLower D‐Score remain high in comparison
After this overview some conclusions arise:
•Less and less gymnasts try to qualify for CIII•Relation between scores on VT and other apparatus is correct, but there is no significant difference between E‐Scores on VT:
‐Lack of clarity of each vault expectation?‐Lack of clarity of each penalization?‐Incorrect placement of judges?
•Among the average, difficulty did not increase. Monotony with only few vaults performed.
•Are we moving along with new techniques?
WTC has recognized some key topics related to these questions:
I. Requirements FIG/Juniors
II. Specific Apparatus Deductions•Height and distance.•Dynamics.•Preparation for landing•Review of other deductions.•Severity of deductions•Modification of deductions according new tendencies of techniques
III. Judges Panel•Placement•Functions
IV. Table of elements
I. Requirements FIG/Juniors
•Do we want everybody performs 2 vaults?•Is it better to lower the demand to those who already perform 2 vaults?
‐Maintain different repulsion‐Different vault only‐Different direction of salto‐Different group
•Risk related to the required vaults: differentiation of vaults where the direction of rotations is not clear
CURRENT FIG RULES
Requirements:CI, CII, CIV – 1 vaultQCI & CIII – 2 vaults with different repulsion phaseJR: QCI & CIII – 2 different vaults
•Is it enough 30 seconds per gymnast?•If groups are big (8‐9), do we want to split the group for warm up? (Not in TR)
CURRENT FIG RULES
Warm‐up:CI, CII, CIV – 30 seconds each gymnastCIII – No touch warm upJR: CI, CII, CIII, CIV – 30 seconds each gymnast
I. Requirements FIG/Juniors
•Height and distance.This aspects make difference between average vaults and
great ones, but sometimes they are not evaluated properly.Should we consider them as “neutral deductions” such air
flight on TRA?Relation between height and distance.(Hardy?)
II. Specific Apparatus Deductions
Are we requesting something impossible?
Video distance
Video height
•Dynamics.Definition/recognition (Hardy)
II. Specific Apparatus Deductions
CURRENT DEFINITION:•Creating an impression of ease of execution.•To make the “very difficult” look effortless•Lightness via strong extension, speed and quickness of achieving ultimate positions
•Preparation for landing Expectations for these actions on different vaults:
Extension, Not maintaining stretch position vs body alignment
during 2nd phaseUnder rotation
Hardy
II. Specific Apparatus Deductions
Video Video
•Review of other deductions.Severity of deductions
Missing degree of LA turn (how about round-off into springboard?)
Exactness of LA turn-Is it enough 0.10?-To include exactness of BA rotation?
Poor technique (hip angle, arch)-Allowed positions
II. Specific Apparatus Deductions
Video Video
Modification of deductions according new tendencies of techniques
SnapBending of first arm in tsukaharasCompletion of 1/1 turn on 1st flightPiking/arching on 1st flight
II. Specific Apparatus Deductions
VideoVideo
Video Video
PlacementFunctions
Do we need to breakdown the evaluation among the judges being the total score for one single element?
III. Judges Panels
•Is the relation of DV coherent with the difficulty of the element?Progression of vaultsComparison between vaults from different groups
•Inclusion of vaults (direction of saltos)Cuervo vs fwd saltos with ½ turnTsukahara vs Kasamatsu
IV. Table of Vaults
Video Video
•Survey
Thank you very much for your attention