What to Expect:  Women's Code Changes For 2006

December 3rd, 2005

Every Olympic quadrennium brings with it expected changes to the Code of Points, the rules that govern gymnastics globally.  Following each change, USA Gymnastics, the governing body for the sport in the US, makes changes to its version of the Code for use in its Junior Olympic (JO) development program.  For women's competition, the NCAA uses rules derived and referenced from the Junior Olympic L10 Code modifications.  In this particular cycle, the global changes made by FIG are shaking the sport to its core.  However, USA Gymnastics will not follow this dramatic shift for the JO program, and instead has pursued a more evolutionary path for this update.  

Thus, the changes in the NCAA rules will not be nearly as dramatic.  This is not to say, however, that the changes in the NCAA code for 2006 are minor.  Following tradition, this new Olympic cycle brings a tougher code to all levels of gymnastics, including the NCAA.  This article will step through some of the major changes in the code and their expected impact to the sport.  If you'd like a primer on the fine points of the previous code, please first check out our article from last season.  Unlike last season, the differences between the NCAA code and the JO L10 code are slightly larger.  Also, it would be overly simplistic and perhaps inaccurate to say that one code is tougher than the other.  In the past, the NCAA modifications were viewed to make the code easier than the JO L10 code.  Since the updates to the Vault Start Value table are straightforward and very minor, we'll only take a look at the three events of interest.  

Before we get started, we should take a look at one global change that impacts the uneven bars, the balance beam and the floor exercise.  In the past, differences in how certain subjective criteria related to composition were sometimes unevenly applied.  This was due to variances in interpretation of the rules.  In particular, there are a series of rules defining what is considered "difficulty up to the level of competition".  Each event has a subjective compositional requirement regarding difficulty of certain classes of elements.  In the past, the "level of competition" was open for interpretation.  For the NCAA, this has been now defined to be the first day of competition at NCAA Nationals.  Thus, the level of competitive difficulty is effectively determined by the skill level of the top 12 teams in the country.  In the JO code, the level of competition is defined by the JO Nationals.  This skill level is overall lower than the first day of the NCAAs, due to the larger age spread and the presence of numerous elite athletes.  We'll revisit later how this change impacts each event.

Uneven Bars:  A Greater Emphasis on Variety

On the uneven bars, several changes have been made, some of which arguably actually weaken the code in some areas and yet also provide for more variety.  Some of these considerations have existed in past codes, but now receive more attention or have been clarified for more uniform application.  One area that has been strengthened is the minimum requirements for releases.  Gymnasts now must perform two C level releases or a D and a B.  The addition of a D and a B as an alternate release requirement is one way the NCAA code differs from the JO code.  In the prior code, only a C and a B were required.  The deduction for missing this special requirement is 0.2 points.  Thus, last year a hecht mount and straddle back to handstand could fulfill the minimum requirement.  This will now trigger a deduction.

Compositional requirements for the level of the difficulty of these release elements remain.  Last year, the deduction was 0.2 points for meeting the minimum in the "choice of release elements not up to the competitive level".  This has now been reduced to 0.1 points, effectively keeping the deduction the same, while providing some additional uniformity for applying it.  However, the waters have been muddied a bit, as judges are also instructed to consider the presence of any other releases in the routine, the amplitude, type or execution of the release elements, and if the releases are directly connected in combination with each other or other elements of higher difficulty.  

This is also one area in which the new "level of competition" definition comes into play.  With the top athletes each performing two D release elements at the NCAA Day 1, the deduction criteria becomes a bit more clear in the minimum case.  A gymnast doing two non-connected, low amplitude C releases (for example, a straddle back handstand and a non-connected hop in handstand) or a D plus B (say a hecht mount and an overshoot to handstand) is only meeting the minimum and should be deducted 0.1 for composition.  

The new code also places a greater emphasis on variety.  There are 0.2 points available for deductions related to "variety in choice of elements and connections".  A gymnast who does higher value skills from one family of skills, such as only twisting backward giants, may be subject to deduction.  The overuse of one group or family of skills, overuse of one element or variation on the element, overuse of the same connecting skill, and the lack of bonus combinations can all result in deductions.  An otherwise very difficult routine that only includes backward giant fulls and giant blind turns may be subject to a compositional deduction, especially when compared to a routine that also includes stalder skills, forward giants, and clear hip to handstands.

The new JO and NCAA codes are somewhat less rigorous in the deductions applied to handstands, and in the loss of value credit.  This will ease somewhat the variation in interpretations of the degree of vertical hit during the handstand phase.  It also provides for more difficult combinations when turns in handstand are combined with other skills.  Thus, the somewhat strong focus on handstand positions has been lessened slightly, after two years of intense scrutiny.  This includes turns in handstand position in circling skills such as Healy turns and the giant full turn.   

Balance Beam:  Tougher Tumbling, More Variety

The new NCAA code for the balance beam places some additional emphasis on the level of tumbling difficulty in the routine.  At the base level, the requirement for the sometimes notorious "flight series" has been changed from two B skills in connection, to a B plus a C.  No longer will a series of two backhandsprings meet this special requirement.  The level of difficulty of the flight series and other acrobatic tumbling skills is now being emphasized.  With the level of competition now explicitly defined, the gymnasts are compelled to add additional acrobatic skills above the minimum.  With the top twelve teams all performing flights series that include saltos, plus additional saltos or bonus tumbling skills, a routine with minimum tumbling should face up to a 0.2 point deduction.  Thus a routine that includes a back handspring to one arm back handspring, plus a cartwheel side element will satisfy the minimum requirements.  However, this tumbling difficulty is not up to the level of the competition and should receive the full 0.2 point deduction.    

Additional variety is expected in dance as well.  There is a 0.1 compositional deduction for overuse of elements in the "same shape".  Thus more than two jumps in "wolf" position will trigger this deduction.  More commonly, the straddle position has been used extensively by some athletes.  An athlete planning to use a straddle-straddle jump combination should avoid adding a Popa (straddle jump full), or risk a deduction for showing the same "shape" (In an area of ambiguity in the code, even though the skills are of a different type, some skills show a "shape" even though the "type" may be different.  For example, a switch leap to wolf is called out as showing the wolf "shape", even though it is a switch "type").  Changes in the value of certain skills could also have an impact.  For example, a split jump is now a B (up from an A), while wolf jumps have been devalued.  A wolf jump is now an A and wolf jump full in now a D.    

In the past, some viewers were familiar with somewhat odd sequences in which the gymnast would drop to the beam and lay back.  This was done to fulfill a special requirement to have the torso touch the beam.  This requirement is gone, however, and has been replaced with a compositional deduction of 0.1 points intended to produce a greater distribution of moves low, mid and high above the beam.  In addition, the gymnasts are now expected to ensure the routine contains backward, sideward and forward choreography and movement.  This is not to be confused with requirements to tumble both backward and either forward or sideward.  This 0.1 deduction applies to choreography:  dance, tumbling, and movement.  It is additive to the existing requirements for variety in tumbling direction (both backward and forward or sideward).  These changes should all result in more variety in the choreography, and some interesting use of the apparatus.   

The NCAA code values skills much the same as the JO code.  However, the most differences between the two codes occurs on the balance beam.  Most of the value changes now remain consistent with value changes from past seasons.  One notable upgrade is the front aerial to a sitting position, which has been raised from a C to D.  This may encourage the use of this skill, as the sitting position is somewhat easier to "stick" without wobble than the regular one foot first landing.

Rules for combinations have been changed slight as well.  The C+C dance combo is no longer 0.2 points in bonus, unless the skills are different.  Thus, the overly used straddle jump-straddle jump combination now only earns 0.1 in bonus.  When combined with the compositional deduction on overuse of positions, the use of this combo effectively "uses up" the straddle position for just 0.1 in bonus, and makes this combo less worthwhile to use in a routine.

Floor Exercise:  Tougher Tumbling Rules the Day

The new changes to the FX code are perhaps the most important and notable of the changes.  Already, it appears that the NCAA teams are hard at work to upgrade their routines and revise their tumbling passes.  Routines from last season will no longer meet the minimum requirements on this event, and will need to be altered.  Most of these changes start with the devaluation of key front tumbling skills.

The front layout (B), front layout full (C), and front pike (A) have all been devalued in this cycle.  However, the changes are not quite as severe as some modifications have been to the bonus combination rules and to the value of dismounts.  Now, a direct combo of a B plus a B earns 0.1 in bonus.  Also, a B directly connected to a C will earn 0.2 points.  Thus, a front layout to front layout now earns 0.1 points in bonus instead of 0.2 points.  A front layout to front pike no longer earns bonus.  The final pass of the routine needs to contain a C value salto or a bonus combination.  Thus a front layout-front layout will meet the minimum requirements still, but the front layout-front tuck will not.  

These new changes to valuation and combination only apply to the minimum standards.  As in other events, the code provides for choice of elements up to the level of the competition.  Thus, the level of tumbling is now defined by the skills shown by the top 12 teams.  A deduction of 0.2 points can be taken, perhaps in the case where a routine only shows front tumbling skills of C value and no backward skill higher than a B.  This is clearly the minimum, when the standard is the NCAA Nationals Day One competition.  When this compositional deduction is combined with devaluation of skills, it practically compels the teams to consider upgrading their tumbling in the off-season, especially on dismounts.  Thus, we could expect to see more backward tumbling skills of higher value, and in more combinations.  Certain skills, like a back layout 1 1/2 twist to punch front layout, still worth 0.2 points in bonus, can suddenly become more appealing.  Other skills, such as a front layout full to punch front, once so popular because it gained 0.3 points in bonus, now garners just 0.1 in bonus.  Time will tell if we see more E level saltos in the routines, however we will more likely see more back layout 2 1/2 twists and double back saltos at the end of routines.  

Also, the latest code prescribes more variety in the choice of skills within the routine.  This is especially important in the dance skills.  Thus, more than two dance skills that show the same position would be subject to a 0.1 point composition deduction.  A wolf jump, a wolf jump with full turn, and a switch leap to wolf position would all be considered to be showing the wolf position.  Thus, a 0.1 point deduction would be applied.  Similar to the balance beam, the choreography of the routine should not only incorporate the full area (same as before), but also changes in all movement directions and levels.  

Summary

All in all, the sport continues to evolve, hopefully for the betterment of the sport.  The changes in the code for this upcoming cycle have the potential to create more interesting, varied, and more dynamic routines.  This should be good for the fans and should also create a greater spread between teams.  The rising parity in the sport could be blunted, as the top teams may be more readily able to handle the challenges of the new code.  However, with higher difficulty comes more risk of error, and this could lead to some additional excitement.  Let's look forward to 2006.