Club Elite Homepage
RG Details Homepage
This page is not intended to pass opinions on the code but to help the audience, parents, new gymnasts, coaches working in remote areas, or retired gymnasts, keep in touch with the latest technical happenings. An objective understanding is much needed to better the sport. Even more importantly, once we understand the scoring system, we can choreography better routines as well as pinpointing the problem areas. Without which, the sport will always be a myth.
The definition of rings is that the feet has to touch the head. FIG has taken the effort to change every drawing involving rings to reflect this change. So be prepared, the judges can get serious.
I have also noticed for pike and straddle, FIG has pain-stakingly added the remarks that the jumps have to be performed with the body trunk bent over or between the legs.
Side split leap no longer have its own cell but was just mentioned in the split leap difficulty cell. Can a routine have both element or can one only choose from one of the two?
It is now very explicit that slow turns must not exceed a 1/4 rotation at each thrust.
It is sufficient to have the apparatus in motion if the balance involves 'slow turn'. It is really debatable if slow turn 180 is more difficult than the balance in still with the needed technical movement of the apparatus.
To discourage the use of knee with slow turn, it is stated that anything more than 360 degree will not be rewarded extra value than the 360 degree slow turn.
Balance and mixed combinations cannot have more than one slow turn. This applies to flexibilities as well. I guess the attempt here is to force more dynamics to the routines. In some of the international competitions in the past year, some gymnasts stayed pretty static in one spot doing multiple slow turns which took away the excitment of the sport.
The biggest change has to be the devalue of single and double turns. However, gymnasts who can complete triple turns will be glad that the value of most of the triple turns are kept.
Pivots on knees are listed and allowed but not encouraged, most of them only have a value of B or under.
In pivots, attitude and arabasque is no longer listed separately but just with a little note that they share the same value. I haven't figure out if this means that they actually share the same difficulty cell and therefore is not allowed to repeat or they are the allowable 'variations' like the 2001 version of the code?
Among all the body groups, flexibility/waves probably have the least changes.
There are no changes to the technical maximum. Seniors are still allowed to submit up to 10 difficulties.
The much rumored 'unit difficulties' is now reality. As an example, Alina Kabaeva's Entrelace into a back-split balance with help is one of such unit difficulties. Gymnasts will no longer receive originality moves from these special 'no-step' combinations. For the purpose of counting the major body groups, these unit difficulties will be classified using the body group of the first element.
If you are serious about applying for originality value, you have to submit it to FIG in writing as well as with an accompanying tape before January 15th every calendar year. I guess this is to reduce the number of bulletins and increase the consistencies across competitions.
In 2001, the originality points for original body elements is equal to the value of the movement itself. While this scheme encourages innovation, however, competition can become lopsided when a gymnast possess a full 1.0 point advantage PER APPARATUS before even walking onto the competition floor. (This can translate to a 4.0 advantage in the AA score).
Starting in 2003, the originality for novel body elements will be limited to 0.3 max. Furthermore, the gymnast can only submit originality to FIG for one of her apparatus.
There are no longer limits on the various categories of the Special Artistic Values. A gymnast can fill it up with originalities, large throws/catches or use of apparatus. This is an attempt by FIG to encourage apparatus work as well as to force more 'objectivity' into what would otherwise be much more subjective AV score.
Routine scripts are introduced in 2001. Both Artistic Value and Technical Value are scripted onto the same form. For 2003, each will have its separate forms. While the last code has some sample scripted forms, the latest version of the code has not included an up-to-date sample. This is especially important in areas like unit difficulties and in the Special Artistic Value section to achieve consistency.
With so much change in the code, the routines that was scripted with my program does not convert into the 2003 code. You have to re-script your routine from scratch. However, now all the element names are lined up with the latest version of the code and in the same sequence. This should make it easier to find the elements.