View previous topic | View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Tahnee RSG.net Moderator
Joined: 11 Jan 2004 Posts: 3296 Location: Perth, Australia
|
Posted: Wed, 13-Jun-2012 14:07 Post subject: |
|
|
Kalinka is correct. There is no deduction for visible underwear. There is a 0.20 deduction taken by the coordinator judge for dress not conforming to regulations (lace should be lined, no narrow straps, no ballet skirts or skirts that fall further than the pelvic area etc), but underwear is not mentioned in the regulations. _________________ http://www.youtube.com/Tahnee2612 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
*Kalinka*
Joined: 09 Apr 2009 Posts: 2180 Location: Italy
|
Posted: Wed, 13-Jun-2012 19:07 Post subject: |
|
|
So, do you get the deduction even if the leo moves during the routine? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Tahnee RSG.net Moderator
Joined: 11 Jan 2004 Posts: 3296 Location: Perth, Australia
|
Posted: Thu, 14-Jun-2012 11:33 Post subject: |
|
|
*Kalinka* wrote: | So, do you get the deduction even if the leo moves during the routine? |
There is no deduction for showing underwear, at all. _________________ http://www.youtube.com/Tahnee2612 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
*Kalinka*
Joined: 09 Apr 2009 Posts: 2180 Location: Italy
|
Posted: Thu, 14-Jun-2012 11:49 Post subject: |
|
|
Tahnee wrote: | *Kalinka* wrote: | So, do you get the deduction even if the leo moves during the routine? |
There is no deduction for showing underwear, at all. |
Yes, I know, I wasn't referring to a deduction for underwear. I meant if you get a deduction if the leo you are using is regular, but during the routine it moves and, for example, the cut of the leotard at the top of the legs goes beyond the fold of the crotch (which is forbidden). |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|