Olympic Games Tokyo 2020

At the Olympics, the Averin sisters were judged fairly. Judge from Ukraine Lydia Vinogradnaya dispelled all the myths of the gymnasts' finals

Let's start with who I am? My name is Lydia Vinogradnaya . I am an international judge. She won her first European Championship back in 2007, and her first World Championship in 2009. I do not work in sports, I do not receive money for my judging work (with the exception of daily subsistence allowances at competitions), so I can express my opinion. My passport and my occupation do not affect this in any way.

I have great respect for Russian gymnasts (and indeed for all gymnasts) and the specialists who work with them. At competitions, we communicate well with your team members: we say hello, we can discuss the situation with the coronavirus, and talk about topics that are distracted from sports. Colleagues from Russia even helped one of our girls, who was diagnosed with an aggressive form of cancer (in February 2021, gymnast Valeria Yuzvyak announced that she had rhabdomyosarcoma. - Approx. Sport24). She needed a large amount of funds for treatment in Germany. Not without the help of Russian colleagues, it was assembled, and our girl is now healthy. Many thanks to everyone for that help. But when it comes to judging, we must fairly judge all athletes - regardless of the country they represent, their origin and relationships with each other.

It must be admitted that the best conditions for training, the most top gymnasts and coaches are now in Russia. This can be seen only in Azerbaijan and Belarus. And the political influence of Russia is also obvious. The most important person among the judges in rhythmic gymnastics is the Russian Natalya Kuzmina . She is a really good person who works hard to make the current rules better.

It is surprising to me that the Russian delegation wanted to open the assessment for the difficulty. She got her way, thereby reducing the impact of performance on grades. It was because of this that the Averina sisters lost. Here's a paradox. According to the rules that were from 2013 to 2016 (in my opinion, one of the best rules in the entire history of gymnastics), the Averins would definitely have won. But what can we say about the past.

Let's move on to dispel myths in order to explain at least a little what happened. Unfortunately, videos from the Olympics are blocked due to lack of rights to them, so I cannot illustrate examples with them, but I think you will understand everything.

Myth 1. Rhythmic Gymnastics has never had a losing champion.

After the victory of the Ashram, everyone began to say that no one had ever won with losses. This is wrong.

Let's remember the 2016 Olympics in Rio. There, if someone forgot, the Russians dropped the ribbon, but got gold in the group exercises. The Spanish team, which did everything without loss, was only second.

In 2018, at the World Championships, Dina Averina dropped the ribbon, but still became the winner of the competition.

There are many such examples, but these were the first to come to mind.

Myth 2. Losses are very severely punished (Ashram should have received large deductions)
Until 2017, the impact of the loss on the final result was stronger: the assessment of the difficulty was closed (maximum 10 points, which was absolutely for all top athletes), and the performance was dominant.

Now the difficulty of the best gymnasts in the world reaches 18 points, and the performance has remained the same (10 points). That is, the impact of the loss has decreased significantly, almost by half.

Ashram with the ribbon made mistakes both in qualifying and in the final. In qualifying, she did not finish the risk (-0.3 trajectory error with 1 step + -0.1 incorrect catch). In the final, she had a loss of 0.7. In terms of difficulty, she completed the risk in the final (+0.4 to the assessment of the difficulty of the apparatus) and made one more additional element with the apparatus at the very end before the last risk (+0.2 to the assessment of the difficulty of the apparatus). This is at least.

Apparently, she also changed the pattern of movements on the carpet. Perhaps the judges were able to credit her with something else (they saw a deeper slope in some catch). We cannot know for sure: in rhythmic gymnastics, assessment cards are not published. It's a pity! All coaches in the world would really like to receive cards after the competition in order to correct their exercises.

Of course, Lina has performance problems (feet, elbows, knees, etc.), but due to the low influence of technical performance, no one pays attention to this. Similarly, the Averin sisters also have mistakes (low hip when turning to atitude, inaccurate position of the body in lateral tilt, and so on). You can find fault with everyone, but it needs to happen in both directions.

Myth 3. Dropping a tape is scarier than replacing it
In the final, Ashram lost the ribbon, but received fewer deductions than Arina Averina, who replaced her. And this is not a judge's nagging of the Russian woman.

Replacing an item is not so scary. The reason for replacing it is important. It is not the first time that Arina has difficulties in the exercise with the ribbon: she already had knots, and the stick came off the ribbon. Unfortunately, the situation repeated itself at the Olympics - her ribbon tied the knot.

In gymnastics now there is a strange rule (in the next cycle it will be changed): even with a small knot on the ribbon, a gymnast does not consider anything but risks. That is, all elements of the body, apparatus and dance floors can be performed, but the judges do not count anything. Accordingly, it was not the very fact of replacing the apparatus that influenced her assessment, but the moment when the knot was tied and until she continued to perform the exercise with a new ribbon. The judges in this interval did not credit her. Therefore, her assessment of the difficulty in the tape suffered so much.

Myth 4. The Averins lost the difficulty after qualifying
Take Dina, who won the Games, for example.

Hoop (qualification) - 4.9 / 13.5.
Hoop (final) - 4.9 / 13.3.
Difficulty decreased by 0.2.
Ball (qualification) - 4.8 / 13.9.
Ball (final) - 5.1 / 13.9.
Body difficulty increased by 0.3.
Clubs (qualification) - 4.8 / 14.2.
Clubs (final) - 4.8 / 13.9.
Item difficulty decreased by 0.3.
Ribbon (qualification) - 4.7 / 9.1.
Ribbon (final) - 4.8 / 10.0.
Body difficulty increased by 0.1.
The difficulty of the subject has increased by 0.9.
Total: Dina remained in positive territory by 0.8 in difficulty. This is a significant increase in qualifications.
Therefore, it is incorrect to say that they had one and a half points more in each event in the qualification.

Myth 5. The Averins did everything perfectly
There is no perfect performance. In the live performance mode, the judges do not have video replays, slow-motion viewing. Because of this, gymnasts usually get a lot higher than they could be, see the referee. Accordingly, if I now take and sit down to disassemble element by element of all the gymnasts, their grades will be much lower. In this case, the ranking will not change.

It should be understood that there are a huge number of mistakes that are invisible to the average fan, but which have a significant impact on the assessment.

Here the gymnast wanted to earn 0.5 in body difficulty, 0.3 + 0.4 in apparatus difficulty. Perhaps, in her opinion, she did everything for this, but in reality: body difficulty 0 (imprecise trajectory on the throw during the element), apparatus difficulty 0 (imprecise trajectory of the throw) + 0 (there were not enough criteria for catching: I caught not for head, and with the hand to the side). For the performance, the judges will deduct her another 0.5 for a run. It may seem to the audience that she did everything well, but in reality she was not counted and she owed the judges 0.5.

Averins at this Olympics were not perfect. For example, Dina's risk with the ball with a somersault was successful in qualifying, but in the final she did not. And this is a solid minus from the assessment of the difficulty. But since the difficulty did not decrease, it means that she did something else better. This can be the raised height of the throw (in order for the throw and catch to be counted by 0.3 + 0.4, the gymnast must throw the apparatus at least 2 of her heights. If there is only one height of the gymnast, 0.2 + 0.2 is counted. If below one height of the gymnast , only 0.2 counts). Dina has just a lot of similar examples.

It should also be noted that 2 out of 4 exercises (with a hoop and a ribbon) Dina finished after the music, and this is a deduction of 0.5 in each exercise.

By the way, it seems to me that the injury greatly influenced Averina's program. Let's look at the risks she took in 2017. Then we looked at that exercise with our mouths open, were shocked, not believing that it was really possible to perform it.

In Tokyo, there were no such complex risks. They were either simplified or completely disappeared from the program.

Myth 6. How did Ashram gain in points in the final if she lost to Averin in qualifying?
If you carefully watched the qualification, then Lina dropped the hoop over the site and lost the maximum number of points. After the first stream, Linoy was in 15th place. There were fears that she would not make it to the finals with such performances. This loss was very expensive in terms of technical performance (-1.0). But from the point of view of the difficulty of the subject, everything is different: 0.3 + 0.4 + 0.4 + 0.3 = +1.4 (only at the end).

Myth 7. About the same turn in pansha
At the Olympics, I first saw this turn of an Israeli woman with an incredibly clear half-finger. Previously, she twisted it extremely unstably (at the Games, by the way, she was not given it in all exercises). But where I succeeded, there immediately arose a break with the Averins.

I think that due to the injury, Dina stopped making more expensive body parts. But you have to give her credit that she has learned others where it is not necessary to use the flexibility of the back (for example, half turn in the side, atitude in a spiral turn). True, the cost is still lower than the same turn by Lina.

In general, Dina has extremely low marks for body difficulty in almost all forms. In the final for the exercise with a ribbon and with clubs, her body difficulty is on the 9th place among all participants in the final. Here, the influence of trauma is obvious, because of which she simply could not perform more expensive elements.

Top gymnasts score at least 5 points for them. It's just that Dina planned that her gap for the item should be enough. Nobody expected a half-finger from Lina.

Myth 8. The Ukrainian judge is to blame for everything
Ukrainian judge Natalia Eremina judged the subject where Dina had just the advantage.

In the same myth we will add gossip that she was removed from somewhere. The Ukrainian judge was never removed from anywhere. She could not go to the last Olympics even theoretically, since she did not have the necessary category for this.

Myth 9. The judges showed up at the Olympics from the yard
The judges who were at the Olympics, if not the best, then some of the best in the world. And we have won a lot of competitions in this Olympic cycle.

Plus, there is a technical committee of the International Federation (FIG) at the Olympics. These people are elected by the FIG Congress for 4 years. There will be elections again soon and most of the members will be replaced due to the fact that they have already served their maximum term. Only Kuzmina and German Isabelle Sawade , who works only the first cycle, can remain in the technical committee .

I don’t know where to find people with more competent judges than those who were in Tokyo. On the same level with them - perhaps, but it is simply not better in this cycle. Accordingly, it is not clear who should re-judge the all-around final. All the tops were at the Olympics.

Myth 10. Protests show that the refereeing was incompetent
Protests are the eternal entertainment of rhythmic gymnastics coaches. If suddenly some kind of protest is accepted from someone, then the coaches feel the "blood" and begin to apply for everything and always.

At the Olympics, the FIG clearly hit the jackpot in protests. And the fact that so few protests were satisfied proves that the refereeing was competent.

Let me give you a simple example of how the system works in difficulty. The score is given by two judges and a supervisor. If there is a difference between them, the system is blocked, the assessment is reviewed by the superior jury and a verdict is issued, whose assessment counts. If the coach submits a protest, the score is revised by the superior jury, but if there was a block before, then in fact it does not make sense, since the superior jury has already revised the exercise and made its decision.

Myth 11. Dina deliberately did not give a grade with a tape for a long time, calculating the difference with Linoy
The Olympic Games are interesting competitions: there is only one panel of judges judging. Usually at competitions there are at least two teams - each judges through the view (in the all-around one judge the hoop and clubs, the second - the ball and the ribbon). Thus, the competition is faster. There were significant pauses, so the competition was extended.

Of course, giving the final mark when the fate of a gold medal is being decided is a very nervous thing. The judges are people too, but no one could calculate the difference there. The judge gives his mark, but he does not know the marks in other teams and cannot calculate how much must be set in order for this or that participant to win.

The president of the technical committee sees all the assessments and broadcasts the final result. And it was a Russian woman. It is unlikely that she was doing the calculations that the gymnast from Israel won.

I understand that I cannot answer all the questions: most of them are like “I hear the ringing and I don't know where it is,” but I tried to answer the most common ones. I think my answers will generate a couple of hundred more questions. And if a person is convinced that the results were wrong, and the judges were bribed (who?), Then it is unlikely that my article will change their opinion.

My article is for those who are interested in learning about the existence of an alternative reality, where the results were fair. It is a pity that not everyone wants to be in it.