View previous topic | View next topic |
Author |
Message |
violetblue2u
Joined: 10 Jul 2007 Posts: 71 Location: Australia
|
Posted: Thu, 1-Sep-2011 8:30 Post subject: Leotard going up bottom |
|
|
Can anybody tell me if you can get a deduction for "showing " your bottom cheek. The coaches always tell the girls at gym not to pull at their Leo, but if they don't and it's right up their bottom, could it be a deduction?
Thank you, I'm very curious _________________ you can only do your best on the day***** |
|
Back to top |
|
|
*Kalinka*
Joined: 09 Apr 2009 Posts: 2180 Location: Italy
|
Posted: Thu, 1-Sep-2011 11:33 Post subject: |
|
|
I don't think it's a deduction. But if I had your problem I would put underwear (you won't be penalized). I always wear it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
IrisO
Joined: 18 Jun 2011 Posts: 557 Location: Belgium
|
Posted: Thu, 1-Sep-2011 13:04 Post subject: |
|
|
Are you sure there's no deduction? Like for showing body parts that shouldn't be seen?? I'd definitely give a deduction.
And for 'underwear showing' there's a deduction as well, no? _________________ There is a bit of insanity in dancing that does everybody a great deal of good. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Linnea
Joined: 18 Jul 2011 Posts: 753
|
Posted: Thu, 1-Sep-2011 13:28 Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah because in the code, it says no "suggestive nudity" or something like that.
I'd probably give a deduction if it was REALLY bad. _________________ "What gives me confidence is the fact that everyone gets insecure" - Andrew Garfield |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Youandi
Joined: 26 Oct 2008 Posts: 14025 Location: The Netherlands
|
Posted: Thu, 1-Sep-2011 13:40 Post subject: |
|
|
Yes my former AG coach used to say to us that we should use a thong or anything like that because when our underwear was showing and the judges would notice, we could get a deduction (don't ask me how much it was, i had no idea back then) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Hoops and Grand Fouettes
Joined: 10 May 2011 Posts: 1847 Location: USA
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Youandi
Joined: 26 Oct 2008 Posts: 14025 Location: The Netherlands
|
Posted: Fri, 2-Sep-2011 9:07 Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, although I don't know if it is also a deduction in RG, in AG it is |
|
Back to top |
|
|
*Kalinka*
Joined: 09 Apr 2009 Posts: 2180 Location: Italy
|
Posted: Fri, 2-Sep-2011 10:12 Post subject: |
|
|
In AG there is a deduction for showing underwear, in RG there isn't (fortunately!).
The Code only says The cut of the leotard at the top of the legs must not go beyond the fold of the crotch (maximum).
Anyway I think you won't get a deduction if the leotard moves during the routine, I think you will be penalized only if your leotard is in the wrong position since the beginning of the routine. But I'm not sure... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
andres
Joined: 29 May 2005 Posts: 533
|
Posted: Wed, 14-Sep-2011 5:28 Post subject: |
|
|
i think that deduction there isn't . like you said Kalinka . COP doesn't make mention to the problem and possible way of act .
that happen because the cut of the leotard isn't proper or that isn't the right size?
Linnea if you consider do deduction you would apply on artistic right? and what is score that you should apply to that penalization?
I was figure skating judge and if that would happen on figure skating i would consider raise red flag and that the skater fix the problem of her leotard and return to skate and if that situation happen again ,clearly would apply penalization of 0,50 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
psrgomes08
Joined: 30 Apr 2008 Posts: 779 Location: Portugal
|
Posted: Mon, 11-Jun-2012 22:29 Post subject: |
|
|
Lukonina always had "problems" with her leotards. I think she did it on purpose because it happened all the time.
Like in this picture, that you can see all her butt.
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
*Kalinka*
Joined: 09 Apr 2009 Posts: 2180 Location: Italy
|
Posted: Tue, 12-Jun-2012 12:23 Post subject: |
|
|
I don't think Yana did that intentionally, it was probably because the 90% of her leos belonged to other gymnasts.
Err... When you uploaded the picture on Imagebam, did you choose "Family safe content" option? There is something really wrong if you click on the photo.
"Adult content" is referred to a certain kind of pictures, definitely not similiar to Yana's back scale turn.
andres wrote: |
Linnea if you consider do deduction you would apply on artistic right? and what is score that you should apply to that penalization?
|
No, it's a deduction (0.20) given by the coordinator judge.
Anyway I have changed my mind, in my opinion it would be logical if the deduction could be applied also if the leo moves during the routine. Because this means that the size of the leo wasn't right, and this is gymnast's fault. I find strange that a gymnast isn't penalized if she becomes obscene during the routine... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
psrgomes08
Joined: 30 Apr 2008 Posts: 779 Location: Portugal
|
Posted: Tue, 12-Jun-2012 16:26 Post subject: |
|
|
*Kalinka* wrote: | I don't think Yana did that intentionally, it was probably because the 90% of her leos belonged to other gymnasts.
Err... When you uploaded the picture on Imagebam, did you choose "Family safe content" option? There is something really wrong if you click on the photo.
"Adult content" is referred to a certain kind of pictures, definitely not similiar to Yana's back scale turn.
andres wrote: |
Linnea if you consider do deduction you would apply on artistic right? and what is score that you should apply to that penalization?
|
No, it's a deduction (0.20) given by the coordinator judge.
Anyway I have changed my mind, in my opinion it would be logical if the deduction could be applied also if the leo moves during the routine. Because this means that the size of the leo wasn't right, and this is gymnast's fault. I find strange that a gymnast isn't penalized if she becomes obscene during the routine... |
I'm sorry, perphaps I missed the part where I have to choose family safe, sorry. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
*Shadow*
Joined: 23 Apr 2006 Posts: 2250 Location: Florida
|
Posted: Tue, 12-Jun-2012 20:03 Post subject: |
|
|
are you sure?? back when I was competing in UKR, there was definitely a deduction for the undergarments showing. we would use special fabric glue so that the leo and the undergarment pretty much stuck to your butt. (and in the US too) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
*Kalinka*
Joined: 09 Apr 2009 Posts: 2180 Location: Italy
|
Posted: Tue, 12-Jun-2012 20:13 Post subject: |
|
|
*Shadow* wrote: | are you sure?? back when I was competing in UKR, there was definitely a deduction for the undergarments showing. we would use special fabric glue so that the leo and the undergarment pretty much stuck to your butt. (and in the US too) |
Maybe it depends on the rules of the competition, but this is what the CoP says only this:
It doesn't mention a penality for visible underwear... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
*Shadow*
Joined: 23 Apr 2006 Posts: 2250 Location: Florida
|
Posted: Tue, 12-Jun-2012 20:14 Post subject: |
|
|
*Kalinka* wrote: | *Shadow* wrote: | are you sure?? back when I was competing in UKR, there was definitely a deduction for the undergarments showing. we would use special fabric glue so that the leo and the undergarment pretty much stuck to your butt. (and in the US too) |
Maybe it depends on the rules of the competition, but this is what the CoP says only this:
It doesn't mention a penality for visible underwear... |
maybe the rules have changed |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|