With college students going back to school, gymnastics season is right around the corner. The new 2025 NCAA Gymnastics Rules and Modifications is out, and I highlighted the most notable changes below.
General
Recently, USA Gymnastics changed its policy, allowing athletes to compete wearing shorts or tights over or under their leotard. This year, the NCAA has also explicitly stated that shorts, tights, or leggings are allowed during the competition.
The half-tenth deduction for the failure to hold a “finishing position,” introduced last year, is further clarified in this year’s edition, following several clarifications during clinics, calls, and judging newsletters. A gymnast must stand with their legs straight and arms up for one second, facing the direction of their landing. Gymnasts are not allowed to move during the finishing position, so no more fist pumps, waves, or signs of school spirit during the one-second hold.
I am very excited to tell you all that the judges have updated the allowable range of scores. If a score average is above a 9.8, a two-judge panel must be within a one-tenth range. This rule does not apply to the postseason with four- and six-judge panels. Presumably, any egregious errors in scoring would be dropped in the final calculation, so the risk of a 9.75/9.95 or a 9.85/10.0 split is much less. This season, a 9.85/10.0 split would warrant a judging conference and would hopefully result in a more accurate score overall.
In the event that an athlete is injured or elects not to complete their routine, the judges are still required to come up with their score and start value, which is much more difficult with incomplete routines. If the scores are out of range, rather than conferencing immediately, the judges essentially table the conference for later. The rest of the lineup can compete, preventing the athletes from waiting too long. The judges would complete their conference during the transition period and then finalize the score.
Much to the disappointment of some college gymnastics fans, the names of the judges will be removed from publicly available scoresheets. While I’m sure there will still be plenty of controversy over scores this season, judges will no longer be personally harassed for their errors from those who may take their frustrations too far. With the new SCORE board and judging accountability system being implemented this year, judges’ performances will be peer reviewed and ranked, theoretically rewarding the best judges with postseason assignments and giving valuable feedback to those who are underperforming.
Vault
There were not any exciting updates this year but rather further instructions on how to place the direction lines on the vault landing mats. I would have loved to see some clarification on how to apply the up-to-three-tenth deduction based on where the athlete lands in relationship to the lines, but for now, it will still be subjectively up to the judges’ discretion.
Bars
Bars has two changes to the special requirements. The first is that rather than requiring a C dismount, gymnasts are now required to do a “C dismount preceded by a minimum of a C element OR a D/E dismount.” While this is a change, most athletes currently fulfill this requirement. Failure to do so under the 2024 rules incurred a one-tenth “up to the level” composition deduction. By making this a special requirement rather than a compositional requirement, it’s now a tw- tenth deduction instead of one.
The second change increases the required difficulty of the two required release elements. Release requirements have been upgraded from two C releases (or a D and a B release) to requiring a minimum of a D and a C release.
Get ready to see fewer Maloney to Pak saltos! The NCAA has upgraded the non toe-on entry low-to-high bar releases in a clear hip (Shaposhnikova) and Stalder (Chow) position from a D difficulty value to an E. This gives gymnasts electing to do these releases an extra tenth in difficulty bonus, compared to those who perform a Maloney. Additionally, they devalued the Maloney to Pak Salto and Maloney to overshoot handstand connection from two tenths in bonus to one. For example, an athlete choosing to to a Shaposhnikova (E) + Pak salto (D) would get a total of five tenths in bonus, where a Maloney (D) to Pak salto (D) would now only receive three tenths total bonus (one tenth connective, two tenths difficulty) instead of four tenths as it did in 2024. Hopefully we’ll see more variety on bars with these changes.
Beam
Beam does not have any major changes, but there is an important clarification regarding acro series connections now included. The new update emphasizes that a broken acro series due to “a balance error, extra steps, or a stop in the connection of elements” would cause the athlete not to get any connective bonus or credit for the required acro series. This has always been the rule, but hopefully with it spelled out in black and white, judges will be more likely to take these deductions. I’ll believe it when I see it.
After Leanne Wong inadvertently knocked the beam cap off during her dismount during one of her routines in 2024, she was allowed to repeat her dismount without penalty, as the judges ruled that the beam cap falling off was considered “equipment failure.” If you watch the video, you can tell that Leanne’s foot was beyond the end of the beam, which is why the cap fell off. The new rules clearly specify that if a beam cap falls off, it is not considered equipment failure, and any and all penalties (falls, execution errors, incomplete dismounts) would be applicable. I am happy to see this is clarified so it is no longer up to the discretion of the individual judge.
Floor
Floor added a new special requirement (there are now five), requiring athletes to perform at least two acro passes on two different diagonals. As a judge, I don’t love this rule because I now have to figure out a way to track not just what they did and their deductions, but their floor pattern as well. As a former gymnast, I also dislike this rule because a lot of us have a favorite corner for a reason, and I don’t think it detracts from the athleticism or artistic quality of the routines to only tumble on one diagonal. They already have a half-tenth “insufficient use of the floor area,” so they could have just made that a larger deduction and clarified it regarding the tumbling passes. Honestly, I think I’m just salty because they could have included a C turn special requirement and they chose this instead.
I am very happy about the changes to the double-back-as-a-last-pass bonus. Now, a gymnast with a two-pass routine ending with a double back will have to include a second salto in the pass for the one-tenth additional bonus. For example, a front tuck step out through to a double back, or a round-off whip back to double back would receive the additional bonus. For a three-pass routine, gymnasts will still receive the one-tenth additional bonus for a double flipping salto or for an E acro element. I believe the original intent of this rule was to reward gymnasts with endurance, but the coaches and athletes found a loophole. Hopefully with this update we will see higheroverall difficulty in tumbling on floor.
READ THIS NEXT: Judge’s Inquiry: What Got Worse and What Got Better With Judging in 2024
Article by Rhiannon Franck
Rhiannon Franck is a former national-rated NAWGJ women’s gymnastics judge with over 15 years of USAG judging experience and nine seasons judging NCAA gymnastics.
When I think of beam caps I think of Katelyn Ohashi’s dismount in her freshman year. That was such a scary landing, but again the beam cap only came off because she took off too close to the end of the beam.
What was the reasoning for withholding the judges names? The names of referees and umpires for other NCAA sports are released to the public. Why should gymnastics judges receive special consideration?
This takes away from the transparency aspect. It also allows the fans to make sure that the best judges make it to postseason.
Is the peer review done by only other judges or are coaches part of the review?
I also remember a years ago where a Kentucky gymnast fell off the beam. Remounted and continued her routine and knocked the beam cap off on her dismount. They ruled it equipment failure and she got to do the ENTIRE routine over again so her fall in the first routine didn’t count. They ended up winning the meet because of this.
I enjoyed reading the article above and agree with all of the comments on top of mine. As for the beam cap, I’ve never seen a beam up close in person, so I cannot speak to its construction. However, I do feel that gymnastics is inherently risky enough just by itself, and believe there is no excuse to compound this by not redesigning the beam/cap so this equipment failure is no longer an issue. It’s not rocketry, it’s simple responsibility.
It shouldn’t matter if your foot knocks off the end piece. It wasn’t secure on the beam or it would have stayed on. That is still equipment failure.
” What was the reasoning for withholding the judges names? ” It’s so judges can now cheat and not have to take responsibility for it. Instead of changing the rule, and not allowing schools to pick the judges, they put a band aid on it like skating did. Now the judges can cheat in peace.
The shorts rule is woke nonsense. Hiding judges’ names is cowardice. The new finishing position stipulation would have penalized Bailey Bunn for those nods to her coach after a dismount on bars or beam, which is ridiculous. Sounds like.a lot of new rules designed to make the sport less enjoyable.