VAULT - intlgymnast.com · VAULT. OVERVIEW OF CURRENT RULES AND CRITERIA. In 2001 (10 years ago)...

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