2009-2012 FIG Code of Points
Open Forum

The FIG symposium concerning the 2009-2012 FIG Code of Points outlined the ideas future direction of the code. This was presented by Bruno Grande and Andrian Stoica, who asked for the input of the coaching community world wide. Here is a brief overview of the topics presented.

With the leadership of the FIG requesting input from the coaching community, one approach would be to have two coaches from the top 12 teams from the 2007 World Championships be invited to sit down and discuss the future of men's and women's gymnastics.

Overview
Goals of the Code:
. The code is to cover the beginner to the elite gymnast
. The code is to prolong an athlete's career
. It is a measurement of performance
. A method that directs the coach and athlete
. A way to guide the sport
. It is to maintain artistry

New Ideas for the Code:
. A balanced code is needed (equal number of skills on each event)
. A-Panel now is the dominate part being used
. Possibility of limiting the skills that can be performed
. Possible higher deductions for skills that are not completed
. Rearrange the difficulty tables
. Need for more options in routine construction

Judging Side:
. Accounting vs. Judging issue (right now it is more accounting)
. There are too many steps to obtain the final score (A-Panel)
. Competitions are too long
. Possibility of bringing virtuosity back
. Need to improve the teaching system for judges (better education)
. Possibility of a World Judges Pool

Coaching Side:
. There is a need to have the coach and gymnast contribute to the new code (is this just talk)

Thoughts and Things to Consider:

.Is there a need to keep the chronological order rule?
.The difficulty tables not only need to be equal in number of skills per event but, it has to be equal in potential difficulty. This is really true as it relates to the number of D,E and F skills on each event.
.Should one apparatus be worth more than another? At present, vault is worth more than pommel horse for example.
.Should the B-Panel have no accountability? There is no inquiry here.
.Should the FIG Technical Committee have no accountability? At present, the competition is being controlled by the committee and not the judges on the floor.
.Has video review now taken over the competition? Are the judges on the floor needed?
.Once a rule is in writing should the Technical Committee be able to ignore it and use their own interpretation at the World and/or Olympic Games?
.Is there a need to double the B-Panel deductions or is this just a way to use the available 10 points on the B-Panel side?
.In an open end code once one team pushes the limits of A-Panel then all other countries must follow. There is a need to fight to win and not just be third or lower. No country wants to concede defeat.
.The code should developed parity so the fight for first is an exciting part of the competition.

Hi Ron,

You raise some very valid points and I agree with your comments made at the meeting in Stuttgart.  Of course, I have some of my own:

1. We need to get rid of the chronolgical rule.  It is confusing to judges, gymnasts, and the general public and, as the women have shown, is not necessary. 
2.  We do not need the 4 moves from one group rule, as the girls have again shown.  It will be enough to have examples from 5 requirement groups, much easier to judge, and potentially safer as gymnasts don't go hunting for difficult skills in obscure groups.  Thomas rolls, for example, have been attempted by gymnasts who might not be ready simply because they have exhausted their supply of scoring elements in the more common groups.
3.  The difficulty tables need sorting by a panel of expert and active coaches, not judges.  There are a number of incorrect gradings that add to the problem of coaches selecting easy options and routines becoming cloned.
4.  The difficulty values need to be looked at.  1 tenth increments do not give enough credit to the guy who tries triple twisting double tuck on floor which is worth 2 tenths more than a 2 and a half twist.  Difficult elements should be rewarded more but I do take on board Mr Stoica's sentiments regarding safety.  Poor execution must always be heavily penalised, but mastery of super difficult elements must be encouraged and rewarded.  If the B jury do what is written this should be possible.
5.  All elements should appear in the Code.  It's crazy to say carminucci to support is not in the Code and, therefore, carries a deduction.  The Code should be truly open with elements from A to Z.  This is still easy to judge as the number of super difficult skills (above F) will be small and easily committed to memory.
6.  Competitions are won and lost on rings and the opinion of the A panel at that particular event.  Deductions must be more stringently applied, and no connection bonus should be given, only element values.  Hold positions should be 3 seconds, 1 tenth off for 2-3, 3 tenths for 2, and not recognised for less than 2.  This would sort the order out!
7.  Remove combination bonus on floor- gymnasts will have to do linked elements anyway to fit everything into the 70 seconds. Do what you can to make the judges job easier!
8.  I'm not sure the difficulty skills need to be equal in number per event and we are fairly close to potential parity on the apparatus.  Pommels does tend to score lower than vault but a 7+ tariff is possible on pommels and is waiting to be done!  Hambuchen also proved that high bar can go near to 7, even though a smaller proportion of experts seem to be working in this area.  I think history shows that vault was always slightly easier to score higher than the other apparatus- it is difficult to erase this problem of taking execution from 1 element rather than 10.
8.  B Jury deductions should not be 1,3,5 but 1,2,3,5.  This reduces the potential for political or bias judging.  A judge might always make a subjective decision between 1 and 3 but will do less damage if it is 1 or 2 tenths.
9.  Ron, you are so right about accountability.  What is the point of an A Panel if they are merely puppets for a superior jury that control the event and sit out of camerashot?
10.  I have numerous examples of rule changes and different interpretations from event to event.  More clarity must be given and coaches must be made clear as to what is required.

Finally,  none of this will change until coaches have a voice on the FIG.  This forum is an excellent start, now we need meetings to form proposals that should be sent to the MTC.  Anyone interested?

Biggest concern is unequal events. The present World All-Around champion needs to hit only 3 out of six events to win the All-Around. If he hits SR Pb and vault he can afford a .8 fall on the other 3 events and still win the meet. I don't think this is what the technical committee had for a vision of the open code. Russ

Ron,

If I recall correctly, in the athlete's meeting that John Roethlisberger ran, Stoica told the athletes that the coaches really didn't understand the Code so why would he want the input of coaches in the next Code? Why should any of us think that the FIG TC will actually listen to the coaching community? According to Stoica, none of us knows enough about the Code to understand how it works!

Mike

It is a shame that the events are not balanced, but I don't think the answer is to restrict skills from the Code. Just readjust the values so that there is some kind of parity. For example, upgrade some PH skills, downgrade some SR skills (even though they are already ridiculously hard). I really think SR should be restricted on the strength holds. For example, any form of a maltese should only be allowed once or twice maybe. Then if that guy wanted to do more strength in his routine he would have to get it in the form of planches, crosses, or inverted crosses. I also think the EGs on SR could be reorganized in a better way. I don't exactly know how, but I think it could be done.

Considering the last point in the above quote, if a country (*cough*China*cough*)is good enough to push its A scores up to a much higher point than other countries and have the artistry to back it up, than I will sit back and enjoy watching and get back in the gym and work harder.

Last comment for now: I don't exactly understand the chronology rule in the first place, so I don't know why we should keep it or toss it. Could someone maybe explain it if they know? Thanks

Dom from MN

I thoroughly agree with the last comment that the Country that can push its A score up to the highest point and retain its artistry should be the one we all aspire to.  The problem at the moment is the difficulty tables need redoing by active coaches, not judges, and the B jury deductions do not always make for the most artistic and virtuous performance winning through.  
  I think we have to be careful not to level the playing field so much that even the mediocre teams have a chance to win.  Whilst the 10 system provided a higher percentage of gymnasts hitting top difficulty and therefore having a chance to win, it did not, I felt, always give true credit to the most virtuous gymnasts who worked far beyond the difficulty parameters and yet received the same value as less complex routines.  Great for struggling Countries but harsh for real exponents such as Urzica on Pommel Horse. 
 I am wrestling with the problem that Russ raises regarding falling and still winning.  In the old days if you fell it was game over and now we see the possibility of World Championships being won by people who have fallen.  This is clearly wrong.  I doubt that Yang Wei could have afforded 3 falls in Stuttgart since we cannot assume that he will only lose 0.8 each time rather than combination, requirements etc, but it does highlight the problem.   It should not, however, be a reason for dropping the open system, which can be made much better than it is now .  I would like to see stronger penalties for falling that will make it much more difficult for gymnasts to make finals or win the all around.  Lose the special requirement possibility, lose the combination, take more execution errors before the fall, stop the routine, are all possible ways of avoiding this problem.  For me, it's strange that on vault you can score a zero for a mistake but you can throw a reckless kovacs and still make a final.
 Parity is important but not so essential in my opinion.  I had a look on the Osaka athletics Worlds website and checked out the Decathlon results.  They have an open scoring system and the top 10 athletes ranged from Niklaus of Germany scoring 1004 for Pole Vault, down to Smith of Jamaica with 642 for Javelin (and all around silver). Sebrle won all around with a long jump at 950 points which was top score, and his 1500 metres time gained him 1500 points, 11th best.  Top all around was 8676, down to 8371 for 10th.  You cannot put a ceiling on running, jumping or throwing and specialists will always pick up in one area and struggle with mediocrity in others.  The job of the system is to reward correctly.  Interesting to see the marathon record broken by 29 seconds a few weeks ago, and did you know that no white person has ever run under 10 seconds for 100 metres?  We don't need to give bonus to white men, and I don't think we need to curb top nations that achieve perfection in ultimate difficulty.  I like the open code concept but this current system needs a hell of a lot of tweaking.

Finally, the chronology rule is easy: Judges select the top 10 elements and, when questioned by a coach quote amendment 17 claus 4 subsection 3 followed by their own interpretation at that particular event.  Coaches should select the best 10 elements, read the code 27 times and then cross their fingers that the interpretation given corresponds with their misguided view of what the MTC seems to think is perfectly obvious.


Cheers,

Paul & Ron,

Maybe I'm a little paranoid but if this dialogue ventures outside the realm of coaches (i.e. gets into the hands of judges, federation officials, etc) then perhaps the FIG MTC can squelch our efforts. I personally don't think the FIG MTC will take any input from the coaching community, in spite of what they might say. Watching Stoica run the FIG Course in Texas a few years back it became painfully obvious that he puts himself head and shoulders above everyone in the world gymnastics community and it will be a cold day in hell when he allows anyone but himself any input to 'his' Code of Points.

I think we, as coaches, need to distribute this website to other coaches throughout the world and get them to join the dialogue. Going though the federations may not be the best idea.

Paul, you have some great thoughts and I agree that we should not try to bring down a country that is better than many other countries. China has figured out how to prepare its athletes on the events that will give them the biggest advantage over the other teams. Their strength on rings, vault, and parallel bars have won them two straight World team titles. It would be nice if we could get the events to be more equal - the scores on pommel horse and high bar are much lower than the scores on vault and rings. If a country excels on pommel horse and high bar their team scores will be somewhere around a 45.0 + in the team finals. A good team on vault can score about a 48.0+ and a good team on PB's can score about a 47.5+. A score of 15.0 or higher on pommel horse is very good and only 8 gymnasts in team finals achieved that score. A score of 16.0 or higher on vault is  a very good score on vault with 12 gymnasts posting a 16.0 or higher in team finals. We can go through this exercise throughout the events but the point has been made already - the events need to be more equal and the difficulty tables need to be adjusted so there are equal opportunities to achieve similar start values on all 6 events. Also, the difference in value between an A and a B skill should not be the same as the difference between an E and an F skill. A double twisiting double layout on floor exercise is a lot harder than a full twisting double layout but for only 1 more tenth of difficulty it may not seem worth it. Now if the difference in difficulty was 0.5 it would become a more attractive skill. Do you want to see a triple back on florr? Make it worth 1.6 points instead of only 0.6 points.

It's going to take some work to get it to be a better code but with further discussion amongst those of us in the gym every day I think we can figure it out. Oh yeah, dump that silly chronological rule. What a waste of time that is!!

Edited: 10/21/2007 at 04:47 PM by MikeBurns

I agree with you Mike!  The only thing I am not sure of is that there is a potential at the moment to score high at the moment on all 6 apparatus but floor, bar, and pommels have statistically fewer people doing that.  In the old Code 10 was easiest achieved on horse which was also unfair.  Dragulescu, Xiao, and Hambuchen have all scored above 16 in major events on those apparatus which compares favourably with the other pieces.  Maybe more gymnasts will catch up over time?

  I think that parity might need to be looked at with B jury also.  It is easy to have small deductions on vault and (right or wrong) on p bars and rings also.  The execution deductions on bar are way out of proportion to the other apparatus and will also skew any team result.  Correctly applied deductions on all apparatus together with a coaches reassessment of the difficulty tables will solve most of our problems, I'm sure.  And yes, triple back on floor should be worth heaps but we must recognise the safety implications and not give incentive to the crazies who will go for glory or bust!

  Any of you guys going to Stuttgart?  Will try to give you the latest invert interpretation on my return........

Hi Guys,

Stuttgart was great last week- far more relaxed than a month ago and some gymnasts were, understandably, struggling to find form so soon after the Worlds.  No Korea or Japan and just one Chinese woman so plenty of opportunities for finals for the other nations. 

  Istvan Karacsony lead the judges meeting and made the following points:
Floor- Simple steps on floor were not so rigorously penalised at Worlds and he wanted to see them receive deductions.  I still think the rule is open to debate.  Also, wide arm handstands should be lower, generally, than many of the examples from a month ago.
Pommels- Deduct more for low shears and skewing than was seen in the Worlds.  This was evident on qualifications day when the B Jury were tough, but they reverted to lesser deductions for finals.
Rings- Double back tucked with one and a half twist is confirmed as a D.  Rodriquez of France showed a reverse maltese to straight body lift to inverted cross.  I think they credited the transition as an E part.

  There was nothing really new to report, although I was impressed with Goncharov's high bar routine- Kovacs immediate Kolman and triple back dismount, performed well 3 days in succession.  Sunday was an interesting format: the top 2 gymnasts from finals went head to head with a token German and the 3 scores were not published immediately.  The gymnasts mounted a podium which proceeded to elevate the winning gymnast to the highest position, much to the delight of the audience- a nice idea and one that removes some of the immediate controversy of seeing the publicised score of all judges.

 Maybe the answer is thumbs up or down and losers get thrown to the lions......

Hi Paul,

Thanks for the report from Stuttgart. Sean Townsend is at the Swiss Cup and Arthur Gander meet this week. Have not heard anything from there yet. That's interesting that the double back with 1 1/2 twists is now a confirmed D dismount on rings. Was that another of the FIG"s "on the floor" interpretations? We will probably start seeing a lot more of these if it is in fact a D skill. Also, the straddle press to HS from L seems to be new based on what we saw at Worlds. Did anyone use that at the DTB Cup? Without seeing these things in writing from Stoica it's always a little tough to believe they are true!!!

Hope all is well and your gymnasts are experiencing success. The next 10 months leading up to Beijing should be very exciting all around the world.

Mike

Paul,
Thanks for the update on Stuttgart. It is always interesting to hear the latest skill interpretations from international event to international event. I like the open endness to the comments made and not really saying what needs to be enforced more. Oh well.
On another subject, I am working with some coaches to develop a document that would be suggestions for the 2009-2012 code. Once this is developed I would like to get in the hands of as many countries as possible to get their input as well and have a suggested code changes document that is coming from the men's side of countries around the World. What do you think?
Ron

I think it's a great idea Ron and the only way we will ever get the powers that be to iron out the creases in the existing system.  I look forward to seeing it!  Am off to Scotland for the Glasgow Grand Prix- will keep you posted. 

Ron: I can't help but think of that Star Trek saying from the Borg...what was it...."resistance is futile"...my point is, the FIG Council can continue to resist and resist all they want but eventually enough people will start to question the status quo that it will be to difficult to silence. Keep talking with the other countries, I have a feeling they all feel the same way. The dialog here is great, but limited. It would greatly benifit if more began speaking out. Eventually the FIG council, well, Stoika, will have no choice but to hear. And if not, well, he's gotta die sometime.

Here is my only complaint about the code. At some point it comes down to the dollar. What will advertisers pay for? Well, advertisers pay for crowds. They don't fork over money to be seen by no one. So, then the question turns to: what do spectators want to see? This is where you need to look at our sport from a non-technical eye and try to see it from a spectators eye. An intricate pirouetteing move on high bar that ends in double eagle is not easily distinguished from other skills that pirouette different ways and end up in a mixed grip. BUT, flippy things over the bar, around the bar, in front of the bar, behind bar...they DO make sense to them. Same thing on parallel bars and rings and floor. Pommel horse doesn't make much sense to anyone, even coaches and judges, so there's not much luck for spectators to "get it", but I can't help but think of Sasha's PH routine at worlds last year...at least I believe it was last year. People in the crowd were standing to get better views. The crowd was cheering and people were going wild when that kid broke into flairs and bounced all over the horse, up and down, and up and down till finally he flew off it. They have no idea what he did, what skills were in there, what value they were...all they knew was, well, "this is thrilling" as one commentator said.

Then we manage to ruin these great routines by throwing absurd rules at the kid like..."well you did this skill prior to this one, so, no credit for you" or "connection doesn't work for this skill to another so no credit for either skill". Its a sad day when the coaches, athletes and sometimes even judges dont understand our own rules...and then we expect spectators to "get it" and then pay for it? LOL, am I the only one who finds this comical?

I think one thing that would greatly help the development of any new proposed code would be to take a look at excellent routines that got crowd involvement. Nemov's HB routine from Athens, Sasha's PH from last year's worlds, Hambruchen's current HB, Jovtchev's SR...what about these do the crowds like and why? Then foster any rules that move routines closer to that which crowds like. I understand that there still needs to be technical rules and ways to force athletes to do certain elements; but, any rule that hampers variety, in anyway, is detrimental especially with a sport like gymnastics where there is no ball to follow but rather a "show" to watch...kind of like Cirque de Soleil.

Another thing to keep in mind. I dont see why its bad thing that someone can fall on an apparatus at a championship or Olympics and then win the gold. It creates a story. It creates a legend. There have been a few times I have wandered into a local Wal-mart or Safeway with my national team jacket on and I usually get stopped by people who make comments about Paul (as if I am supposed to know him in person because I coach gymnastics), and they always say what an amazing sight it was to watch someone work so hard, fall, think it was all over but try and try as hard as he could to then pull the gold off. And somehow they manage to remember his HB routine. Perhaps it was the commentators stating that he has to pull off a routine of a life time to win, but regardless, they remembered!

Lastly, if the code is another 500 page document that few understand, but all are required to impliment...well, then we loose more spectators. And as they continue to migrate over to the X-Games and other sports that DO give them what they want to see then we will simply become that old relic that people turn to on TV when there is nothing else on.

In all reality, what I think most of us would like to see is non-bias amongst the judging community as well as the politics play a much lesser role within our sport. Regardless of how the code is enforced, the winner of any competition should be the cleanest gymnast with a well balanced routine full of difficulty and flare. I also believe that our sport is getting away from the "All-around" competition anyway. So the entire conversation regarding who falls and still wins the All-Around is sort of irrelevant. By sorting out which events traditionally score higher and focusing on the skills required to do so, I think that those coaches just thought to train that way first. Therefore they had a jump on the coaches that were a little bit behind in that train of thought, myself included. With that being said, our sport is looking for the top athletes on each event rather than one all around athlete that can compete above average on all the events. This truly is the best way to attract new viewers and solidify the viewers that were on the fence about our sport. This structure also allows the world to see more gymnasts and the true best gymnasts on each event in the world. Thus making the show much more exciting. Regarding the code and it's balance within the events, what are we really asking for? Does there really need to be the same amount of skills on each event? I feel that having taken away "originality" may have hurt the creativity of some coaches across our country. (USA). We should be encouraging creativeness and safety at the same time. While pushing difficulty done cleanly. Things I believe could help: .1 = A .2 = B .3 = C .5 = D .7 = E .9 = F Put together a list of the skills and combinations that we as a community would like to see stressed more due to their difficulty level, their potential upside and the combination potential. To these combinations we allow for bonuses. The downside to this is that the bonus possibilities are greater on some events rather than others so there we will always have some sort of imbalance. But with the all around thrown out the window, it shouldn't make that big of a deal. Just a few of my thoughts. Dave

This is a question to the "higher ups". Is there truly some validity to the fact that gymnastics is throwing the All-Around to the wayside? It just seems that each quadrennium we see more and more all arounders becoming event specialists fro a better chance to win an individual event. When looking from the outside in, a spectator would say that they want to see the highest level of difficulty across the board no matter what. In trying to provide that we would have to air just the top 5-10 on each event. To be the top 10 in the world at an event and still be an all arounder is a very hard thing to do, yet a few are doing it. But I think that in years to come that it will change to specialists. They will gain the advantage of spending more time on fewer events and more rest for their bodies to recuperate. It would make sense anyway.

Great! Alot of good comments and there is a big discussion going on World wide concerning the future of the sport. It is true that the coaches around the World want to see the All-Around strengthened again. It truly represents what the sport is all about. A good way to make comments and help with the direction of the 2009-2012 code of points is to visit the coachs internet cafe new blog site. The first document of ideas is posted there and looking for comments from coaches around the World. That document is just a start to generate thoughts and ideas.
Visit the home page on the coachs internet cafe and click on the link.
www.coachsinternetcafe.wordpress.com
CHECK OUT THE NEW BLOG!

How can a skill such as a stoop through straddle cut be left in the code when necessary skills such as back uprises and straddle presses are not? This is definitely one of the downfalls to the system right now. I for one will not give in to the game and spend even one day training this so called release for the extra .4 even in level 9. Your thoughts. Sincerely, Working real releases.

I think maybe it would be better if the code of points was expanded to include all the skills you mentioned, but at a lower value. You could make a bent arm, straddled press and A on rings, a straight arm straddled press a B, and lock arm pike press a C, and a straight straight a D. You could of course have to start crosses then at a C, and malteses up somewhere near an F or something.... but you could even out everything enough to include all the skills. It would bring back a load of variety, but it would involve a major rework of the code. A back-uprise on parallel bars/or high bar is problematic, because it doesn't finish in a handstand, and would include an extra swing.... As for the stoop through straddle cut, it's a good progression for a non flipping release...if the kid is good enough you can get a C Carballo out of it with a few months of progressions.

-------------------------
Kevin Preston
Co-Owner, Preston Gymnastics Academy
www.prestongymnastics.com
www.eventsatpga.com

Region 7 www.region7men.org
USAG MD www.mdmensgymnastics.org

Kevin - you can also post these ideas on the coachsinternetcafe blog the address is www.coachsinternetcafe.wordpress.com