View previous topic | View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Eulucil
Joined: 11 Sep 2008 Posts: 524 Location: Spain
|
Posted: Fri, 2-Apr-2010 0:15 Post subject: |
|
|
You can see in the COP that the triple italian fouetté with rotation, passing by attitude position (and not ring one) is worth 0.5 (when you do it as a flexibility element, of course)
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Iva
Joined: 31 Jan 2006 Posts: 73
|
Posted: Fri, 9-Apr-2010 17:20 Post subject: |
|
|
chik_ucv wrote: | Sery wrote: | Iva wrote: | Sery wrote: | Svet T. wrote: | Sery wrote: |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFr_zsq4nHY
0:43
Interesting example: She writes 0.70 for this difficulty in her form
Passing from a split to another split with rotation +0.40
but the additional swing is attitude! which must be a split or ring. |
Is this difficulty cancelled? Thank you. |
This is 100% wrong technique. |
Why? in CoP it is stated that should be passing from split to another split with additional swing + rotation, but it doesn't say that swing is supposed to be a split or ring. |
oh, then we can do any swings? maybe should i make a swing on just 20 degrees and get 0.10? or only on 5 degrees? how about 1 degree?
swing in those difficulties must be OR split OR boucle, this is flexibility.
Be sure that this is wrong technique - I talked on this element with CT ;P |
I talked to one of the best national coaches about this last year, and he explaines to me that the ONLY difference betwen the flexibility fouettes y and the balance fouette, is the releve, you can use ANY position, even if it´s not a complete split or a ring position, so this one is perfectly fine |
well, I don't think it is right, there's a huge difference in technique and positions. you can't use any positions for flexibility kicks.
Sery - that's how I understand this - by description flexibility difficulties have to be done in maximum amplitude. So yes it would be understandable if the girl will do third split or ring if she is capable of. But because not all of them can do so and CoP doesn't specify the need of doing 3 split/ring, I think any 3 swing ( or kick may be better word) is good as long as she showed that is it maximum she can do that i think should be attitude or higher.
I would really want to have official clarification on this though. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Tahnee RSG.net Moderator
Joined: 11 Jan 2004 Posts: 3296 Location: Perth, Australia
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Olya
Joined: 10 Mar 2004 Posts: 941 Location: Hungary
|
Posted: Sun, 25-Apr-2010 12:40 Post subject: |
|
|
Is it true that you can't have flexibility elements which are in the same row in COP in the routine, so only 1 element per row? (so for example no "front split with side roll" and "back split with side roll" in the same routine?)
I know it's really basic but I don't remember reading it anywhere (could be my mistake) - I know about that list with the 'same form - not the same form" elements, but our federations claims this "same row" rule now. _________________ oLyA |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Tahnee RSG.net Moderator
Joined: 11 Jan 2004 Posts: 3296 Location: Perth, Australia
|
Posted: Mon, 26-Apr-2010 0:10 Post subject: |
|
|
Olya wrote: | Is it true that you can't have flexibility elements which are in the same row in COP in the routine, so only 1 element per row? (so for example no "front split with side roll" and "back split with side roll" in the same routine?)
I know it's really basic but I don't remember reading it anywhere (could be my mistake) - I know about that list with the 'same form - not the same form" elements, but our federations claims this "same row" rule now. |
We heard this too, but I don't think for flexs like that it's followed. Eg. I've been told that you can perform both the E and F value elbow balances (first one to arch, and second from walkover).. _________________ http://www.youtube.com/Tahnee2612 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Eulucil
Joined: 11 Sep 2008 Posts: 524 Location: Spain
|
Posted: Tue, 27-Apr-2010 19:48 Post subject: |
|
|
Tahnee wrote: | Olya wrote: | Is it true that you can't have flexibility elements which are in the same row in COP in the routine, so only 1 element per row? (so for example no "front split with side roll" and "back split with side roll" in the same routine?)
I know it's really basic but I don't remember reading it anywhere (could be my mistake) - I know about that list with the 'same form - not the same form" elements, but our federations claims this "same row" rule now. |
We heard this too, but I don't think for flexs like that it's followed. Eg. I've been told that you can perform both the E and F value elbow balances (first one to arch, and second from walkover).. |
Yes, FIG wasn't very clear about "same elements". I think that is one way to keep the coaches paying the judges in order to know what elements they can put in the routines |
|
Back to top |
|
|
rhythmix
Joined: 31 May 2009 Posts: 16
|
Posted: Fri, 3-Sep-2010 23:45 Post subject: |
|
|
I was told by my coach that it is illegal to do two from one row, but I've seen it done
Also, does anyone know what value/skill this is?
0:44 - 0:47
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7JUDtoWYzw&feature=related
Is it the 0.6 value? _________________ "Aerodynamically, bumblebees shouldn't be able to fly, but they don't know that so they continue flying anyway." |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Tahnee RSG.net Moderator
Joined: 11 Jan 2004 Posts: 3296 Location: Perth, Australia
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
rhythmix
Joined: 31 May 2009 Posts: 16
|
Posted: Sat, 4-Sep-2010 4:36 Post subject: |
|
|
Thank you _________________ "Aerodynamically, bumblebees shouldn't be able to fly, but they don't know that so they continue flying anyway." |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mariav
Joined: 26 May 2007 Posts: 363 Location: israel
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Tahnee RSG.net Moderator
Joined: 11 Jan 2004 Posts: 3296 Location: Perth, Australia
|
Posted: Tue, 14-Sep-2010 15:31 Post subject: |
|
|
mariav wrote: | http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k28u_07oZEM&feature=related
Please tell me is the element on 1:16 is puete worth 0.7? |
This fouette balance is worth 0.8 (Unheld split is 0.3 + 0.5 base). _________________ http://www.youtube.com/Tahnee2612 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
rhythmix
Joined: 31 May 2009 Posts: 16
|
Posted: Thu, 7-Oct-2010 21:41 Post subject: |
|
|
Would this skill be counted? It doesn't even include the base position (two legs straight). _________________ "Aerodynamically, bumblebees shouldn't be able to fly, but they don't know that so they continue flying anyway." |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Tahnee RSG.net Moderator
Joined: 11 Jan 2004 Posts: 3296 Location: Perth, Australia
|
Posted: Thu, 7-Oct-2010 23:31 Post subject: |
|
|
rhythmix wrote: |
Would this skill be counted? It doesn't even include the base position (two legs straight). |
Yes, I would count this. There doesn't need to be a point where both legs are straight - as long as the gymnast shows two positions, this is fine. _________________ http://www.youtube.com/Tahnee2612 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
*Kalinka*
Joined: 09 Apr 2009 Posts: 2180 Location: Italy
|
Posted: Wed, 8-Dec-2010 20:54 Post subject: |
|
|
I would like to ask about this 0.40 souplesse.
In the image the gymnast performs the split position... Is it possible to perform this element without doing the split?
I mean: can I perform this position,
and then to exchange the position of the legs (to bend the left leg and to stretch the right leg)?
I'm not sure of being clear... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Tahnee RSG.net Moderator
Joined: 11 Jan 2004 Posts: 3296 Location: Perth, Australia
|
Posted: Wed, 8-Dec-2010 23:18 Post subject: |
|
|
No, the legs must be straight for the 0.4 elbow balance. In the 0.6 one (with walkover), you can use the stag position. _________________ http://www.youtube.com/Tahnee2612 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|