OU and LSU Start Strong
Both Oklahoma and LSU started off strong, shaking off injuries and trying out both their depth and newcomers successfully. Each featured fabulous debuts by frosh, including Kailin Chio at LSU and Lily Pederson at OU. With frosh, their first year performances seem to be sometimes tricky to predict. Some, like the aforementioned pair, adapt super quickly, while others take a year or more.
Other Contenders Do Well
Utah had a few mistakes this week, ones that were not evident in their preseason preview. Even future superstar frosh Neff showed a few nerves, stumbling on the FX (front full to front double full). Cal was solid, using mostly veterans and showing the good progress made by their sophomore class and by gymnasts like junior Ella Cesario. A lot of potential contenders are relying on frosh to step up, and we'll know more about these teams as the season wears on.
"SCORE Board" Debuts
The NCAA launched a new judge evaluation process this season, called the SCORE Board. The board is intended to drive feedback and accountability to judges over the scoring they are performing. In the past, the evaluations were completed by Coaches. Now, the judges will be evaluated by video by a panel of SCORE board judges, two per event. The judges will be rated on variance from the posted reference score. Judges that produce "impossible scores", aka scores that exceed the maximum value after all "obvious" errors have been deducted, will have points deducted. The eventual plan, if the system is successful and the system is allowed, is for the judge's selection to score post-season meets will be impacted.
Our First Impossible Score(s)
It did not take long to get our first impossible score. One athlete in the Utah vs. USU meet received a score of 9.7. The range of the two scores was 9.6 (Brevet judge) and 9.8 (National). The athlete performed a front layout (B) to punch Rudi (D, +0.2 Connection Value (CV)) as her first pass. She also had a switch full (D) to sissone (A) in her dance passage, plus a tour jete 1/4 (B) to a kneel. Finally, she dismounted with a front layout (duplicate B) to front layout half (B, +.1 CV). This equates to 0.5 in bonus. The dismount was normally planned to be a front layout (B) to front layout full (C, +0.2 CV), but her landing on her first salto has a bit off. Because she did not have a C salto in her last pass, she lost 0.2 points from her start value due to missing the special requirement for a C in the last acro pass. In addition, because she did not have a C in her last pass, she missed the "Up to the Level" compositional requirement for the NCAA on two fronts: First, there was not a C+bonus in her final pass and second, her two pass routine did not include a pass with a D and another pass with 0.2 in CV. Although she missed on two fronts, only 0.1 points can be deducted. Thus her maximum score on this routine, before execution errors, was a 9.6.
In another example, one in which fans were very confused, an athlete on FX in the American Gold Classic meet received a score of 9.775, with a 9.85 from one judge and 9.7 from the other. The athlete performed a double layout mount (E), then a Strug (C) to wolf full (C, 0.1 CV). She then dismounted with a front tuck stepout (A) to double tuck (D, +0.1 special bonus for D in combination in last pass of two pass routine). There was also a dive roll (A) and an abstract jump half turn to prone (A) in the routine. Gymnasts are required to have 3 A, 3 B and 2 C skills or higher in the routine. This routine was a short of a B, meaning an A had to be counted in its place, leading to a loss of 0.2 points in the maximum score. Thus, 9.8 was the maximum score for this routine. One judge therefore had an "impossible" score.
(Note: Virt.us may not be showing missing Special Requirements deducted from the Start Value as indicated in the NCAA Modification document. We are also making assumptions based on the final score, as we can not definitely say which deductions the judge has taken).
Waiting Times Extend
One change the NCAA made for this season was to narrow the allowable difference between scores produced by the two judges, on routines that average 9.8 or higher. This allowable difference has shrunk from 0.2 to 0.1 points, through the balance of the regular season. As expected, when combined with enhanced judicial accountability via video review, this has produced an increase in the number of judging conferences being held. In at least one case, disagreements between the judges took an extended period to resolve.
Watch those Connections
Fans were left confused by the judges' increased attention on connections, particularly on BB. As explained in this video connections in dance or mixed series should show continuous movement in line with the beam. On dance series, legs that drop and raise again or where trunk movement stop are considered broken. All series are considered broken when there is a stop in movement, loss of balance, deviation of movement not in line with the beam, repositioning of a foot or pivoting, bending and strengthening of a leg, and of course a hop/jump/step. For acro series, raising a free leg above 45 degrees breaks the series. We saw all of the above (except the obvious step/hop/jump) in connections this weekend. In many cases the deductions were taken clearly, in others one or neither of the judges appeared to have taken the potential deduction. To be clear, the deductions are not new (although they changed a few years ago), but potential heightened scrutiny is.
High Variation in Week 1
Looking at meets held coast to coast, we still saw variation between how strictly panels were evaluating routines. In one meet, we saw numerous broken connections taken, including for moments with momentary pauses. In another, we saw clear mistakes and broken connections passing through. We can probably expect that for the next month, as judges get their SCORE board feedback, they will narrow in on just how severe to judge certain aspects of execution.
Habits are Hard to Change
The approach to connections was strengthened a few seasons back, but the enforcement has been uneven. Likewise, many finer points of execution like swing quality, turn completion, and dynamics may not have been important in the past. What's more, athletes may be used to performing and training skills in a certain manner, and never suffering a deduction. Under heightened scrutiny, they may have to adapt the way they approach certain skills and combinations during training to avoid costly deductions.
Another habit that is hard to change is the need to hold a finish position after a routine. On UB, BB and VT, this is when a gymnast fully presents and have brought their feet together, and have remained completely still (arms included) for 1 second. On FX, this means a gymnast needs to hold their final pose for 1 second. We saw numerous examples of potential deductions this weekend, much of it due to the first meet excitement.
Two Passes Endure
Despite moves to strengthen requirements for two pass floor routines, they are continuing to endure, if not proliferate. Athletes are compensating by adding another dance or dance combo, or moving their D double salto combination pass or E-rated double twisting front to their final tumbling pass.