Rings D Judging - 10 Common Themes
1. Jonasson/Yamawaki - When performed poorly this element, more so the Jonasson then
the Yamawaki, proved to be the hardest element to differentiate. The challenge is to
accurately identify the significance of the support phase and the impact the break in
rotation has on the technical execution of the element. The differentiators were pause in
rotation often supported by the noise of the rings associated with a break on rotation. The
Jonasson element was performed 215 times from which there were question marks against 19
performances we did not give credit for 9 shown. On two occasions this led to D v
Supervisor discrepancy which was overturned. The Yamawaki was performed 210 times with a
discussion on just 2 occasions of which two were not given.
2. Honma To Cross - This element continues to prove the biggest challenge for D judges. The
change to seating position, further along the side, has improved the ability to make the right
judgement. With out doubt the use of IRCOS is a game changer on this element more than
any other. In real time the call is in the majority of cases in favour of gymnast however in many
cases slowed down there is a clear support above 45’. Here experience and knowledge of
video analysis gives the judge confidence the make the right call. The element was performed
68 times, questioned 17 times and not credited 11. A random review of 4 of those questioned
shows two, now 554 and 549 would not have been credited for high entry position.
3. Dismount Double Straight with Full Turn - This element has improved in terms of
technique. Where the first somersault was straight and a pike occurred in preparation for
landing the D value was credited. Where the element started with a pike and this was
maintained through the majority of the element a C value was given, this occurred in 7 cases
from 78 dismounts performed.
4. Press from Held Position - Primarily the judgement here centred around “cross press to
maltese” and at what point did the shoulders move forward to facilitate the maltese position. In
principle they should not raise above 45’ without a clear movement forward. From a high held
position this does not give much scope and often led to lower value for the maltese. This
element was shown 18 times and 10 were down graded to D value. This occurred in the
Apparatus final for one gymnast who was also questioned in qualification. The judges angle
and seating position makes this element a particularly difficult to assess with total confidence.
Two examples, no 560 and 579 show where video replay would have assisted the decision
making process.
5. Azarian roll to Cross - Performed frequently (72 times) often with greater speed then
required for it to be a slow roll. Two question were asked through the competition, does the
speed suggest a kip has been performed and does the height of entry take it above 45’. In fact
on 4 times was there a real concern of which 3 were not credited.
6. Kip to Cross - A favourite amongst many gymnasts as a way of getting element group 3.
Again here the question was how high was the entry position, i.e. 45’ or lower to give credit.
Performed 54 times, 8 questions regarding performance and 4 not credited.
7. Longswings to Handstand - Performed extensively throughout qualification to gain
element group 2. The challenge here primarily surrounded the extent to which the arms were
bent in arriving to the handstand position. Again a very difficult call due to the speed of the
element and the minimal time the arm actually potentially exceeds the 90’ arm bend that would
suggest an excessive arm bend and non recognition. We had questions on 17 performances
and did not credit 3. Others that through video review would have not been credited, now 652,
573, 791.
8. Back Lever pull to Maltese - In qualification two gymnasts performed this F element. In
both cases the back lever was not sufficiently low enough to distinguish it as a back lever.
Therefore the upward movement to the maltese was no more then a shoulder distance. These
were both credited but with insufficient deduction from the E panel. Following feedback to the
judges and coaches in improvement was seen with the exception of one gymnast in the team
event, for which the E did not take a deduction
9. Maltese and Planche - these positions were much more distinct then in previous
championships with very few attracting discussions regarding shoulders being too high.
Other Points
•
•
•
•
Lifts to Handstand, discussed 15 times, an arm bend between 45’ and 90’ poses the key
question to credit an A or B with deductions. The gymnast needs to ensure the element gives
the judges no ambiguity.
The Longines advertising strips that were placed vertically on the Ring straps came loose
during one performance. Following a request to the supervisor table he was allowed to perform
the exercise again.
The position on the D table was changed from the established layout. It was moved further
along the side towards the front corner. Given the types of issues the D panel had to face this
proved a much better position. The alternative is to position the panel at the front of the podium
but to the right as you face the gymnast.
The Longines video camera is in the same visual position as the judges. This may be
deliberate to ensure any enquiry have the same view however it does mean clarity between
press ups and angles in still hard to determine.
In Summary
Rings remains the most subjective apparatus with angles and time needed to be determined
accurately to ensure the correct score is given. The job is made even more difficult with the
removal of IRCOS, that one sense check for when the D1 and D2 really can’t agree. A short video
analysis has shown over 50% of those elements questioned would probably not been given. In our
quest to differentiate E from D and put more emphasis on artistry we do have one opportunity in
our gift and that is to be strong in our technical evaluation of D value. Appreciating that we are
cautious and give the benefit to the gymnast on most occasions if we set our stall out to be clear
about technical expectations then the gymnast will focus on the artistry and simplification of the
routine.
The role of the Supervisor is another factor that could dramatically add to the accuracy and
confidence of our community. At European level, the supervisor remains at the table, as is in World
Cups, at the last European Championships there was just one enquiry. A third person at the table
logically would give the D judges greater confidence to say no whereas a split call tends to give the
benefit to the gymnast. The purpose of this point is to ensure we continue to strive in getting the
balance between difficulty and execution. Appreciating these solutions have been thought of before
however we need to build the appropriate case that is right for the gymnast, the officials and our
sport.