When fans are judging gymnasts at their best from the comfort of their own homes, it’s easy to catch the few small steps or form breaks and get a pretty good guess at what the score might be. However, when things go wrong, scoring a routine can become tricky, as the deductions just keep coming. It’s even harder when something unusual happens, such as an equipment malfunction, an injury, or an incomplete routine.
This week, I’ve found an example of a routine on each event where judges really had to earn their judging stipend. I break down all the different rules and deductions that apply to demonstrate the challenge of remembering and correctly applying all the deductions in such a short amount of time.
Vault
Watch the full routine (timestamp 9:02)
This vault was intended to be a Yurchenko full, but the gymnast’s hand slips on the table, and she’s not able to get a good enough block or height to make it around to her feet. As a judge, at least in my experience, when you see something like this, it’s very shocking and can make you forget everything else you saw in the vault, making judging difficult. I often replay the vaults in my head to try to get all the deductions. Here’s what I saw:
Pre-flight
No deductions
Support phase
- Bent arms (0.2)
- Staggard hand placement (0.1)
Flight phase
- Height (0.3 to 0.4)
- Dynamics (0.2 to 0.3)
- Leg form (0.2)
- Under rotation (0.1)
Landing
- Incomplete turn (0.3)
- Failure to land on the soles of the feet first, which includes the fall (1.0)
Total execution deductions: 2.4 to 2.6
Total Score (9.95 Start Value): 7.35 to 7.55
Judging Panel Score: 7.40
Bars
Watch the full routine (timestamp 18:06, then 24:55)
She starts with a Shaposhnikova, and as she goes to release, the cables come loose, making the bars unsafe. This qualifies as equipment failure, and she’s allowed to resume her routine “at the point of interruption” without any penalty for a fall. Essentially, the judges evaluate the first kip cast handstand and ignore the fall/form breaks associated with the cables coming loose. When she remounts the bar, the judges ignore the first kip cast handstand and start judging again at the second Shaposhnikova attempt. Had the problem been an incorrect bar setting or loose bars at the beginning, it would have been the error of the coach, not equipment failure. The gymnast could still stop and restart but would receive a fall. In this case, the equipment managers checked the equipment, the coach tightened the bars, and she was allowed a quick touch warm-up to test the equipment to make sure it was safe to complete.
On her second attempt, she completely misses the high bar, which means she doesn’t get credit for the E skill, she doesn’t get any bonus, and it doesn’t count toward fulfilling any special requirements. She remounts on the high bar and swings into her Pak salto and does well until her dismount.
On her double layout, she releases early and doesn’t get enough height. She gets her feet down first, which means she gets credit for attempting the E skill and it fulfills her dismount requirement, but she doesn’t receive any bonus. Here’s how to calculate her start value:
Value parts
✅ Minimum 3As, 3Bs, 2Cs
Special requirements (0.2 each)
✅ Minimum two bar changes
❌ Minimum two different flight elements (Minimum one D and one C)
✅ One turning element, Minimum of C
✅ Minimum D/E or C+C Dismount
Bonus
Pak Salto (D) +0.1
Start Value = 9.4 – 0.2 (missing special requirement) + 0.1 (bonus) = 9.3
9.3 Start Value
The panel gave her a 9.5 start value. My guess is they forgot to take the missing special requirement.
Execution deductions
Fall, Shaposhnikova (0.5)
Height of release, Shaposhnikova (0.1)
Late turn completion, half pirouette (0.2)
Bent knees x2, giant swings (0.05 each)
Height, DLO (0.2)
Pike down, DLO, (0.2)
Fall, DLO (0.5)
Total Execution Deductions: 1.8
Composition deductions
UTL, missing a second D release (0.1)
Total Score: 9.3 – 1.8 – 0.1 = 7.40
My Score: 7.4
Panel Score: 8.025
I’m not sure what the large discrepancy is here, other than the panel must not have taken much more than the two falls and been lighter on the other routine deductions.
Beam
Watch the full routine (timestamp 55:23)
This routine seemed to go according to plan until the very end, where the gymnast balks on her dismount, jumps off the end, salutes, and leaves the event. She high-fives her coach, and the camera feed moves on to floor. Surprisingly, it cuts back over to beam, and we see her back on the beam, where she does her roundoff layout one and a half dismount. The question here is whether or not she completed her routine prior to reattempting her dismount.
In my opinion, she jumped off the beam, saluted both judges to signal the end of her routine, and left the event. At that point, her routine should have been over. However, she remounted and completed a valid dismount within the 45-second fall time. Although I can’t see the start value for this routine, I believe the panel decided to give her credit for her dismount do-over. I’ll show both scoring scenarios, so you can see how much this decision impacts the final score.
| With Dismount Credit | Without Dismount Credit |
| Value parts ✅ Minimum 3As, 3Bs, 2Cs | Value parts ❌ Minimum 3As, 3Bs, 2Cs Missing an A (0.1 off the SV) |
| Special requirements (0.2 each) ✅ Acro Series ✅ Dance Series ✅ Full turn ✅ C Dismount | Special requirements (0.2 each) ✅ Acro Series ✅ Dance Series ✅ Full turn ❌ C Dismount There is an additional 0.3 deduction from the start value for not attempting a dismount |
| Bonus (max +0.6) B+D+D acro series = +0.4 C+C dance series = +0.2 B+C dismount = +0.1 | Bonus (max +0.6) B+D+D acro series = +0.4 C+C dance series = +0.2 |
| 10.0 Start value | 9.4 Start value |
| Execution deductions Balance error, full turn (0.05) Foot and leg form x3, acro series (0.1 each) Uneven split x2, switch leaps (0.05 each) Incomplete split x2, switch leaps (0.1 each) Fall, dismount attempt No. 1 (0.5) Leg separation, dismount (0.05) Hop on landing, dismount (0.05) No finishing hold, dismount (0.05)Total: 1.4 | Execution deductions Balance error, full turn (0.05) Foot and leg form x3, acro series (0.1 each) Uneven split x2, switch leaps (0.05 each) Incomplete split x2, switch leaps (0.1 each) Fall, dismount attempt No. 1 (0.5)Total: 1.25 |
| Composition deductions None | Composition deductions No forward/sideward acro (0.1) |
| Artistry deductions* Choreography (-0.05) Movement/style (-0.05)*We rarely take artistry in college, but since she just ran and jumped off the beam, it’s warranted. | Artistry deductions* Choreography (-0.05) Movement/style (-0.05)*We rarely take artistry in college, but since she just ran and jumped off the beam, it’s warranted. |
| Total Score: 10.0 – 1.4 – 0.1 = 8.5My Score: 8.5Panel Score: 9.075 | Total Score: 9.4 – 1.25 – 0.1 – 0.1 = 7.95My Score: 7.95 |
As you can see, it’s over a half-point difference based on a single judgment call in an unclear situation. Again, I have over half a point more execution deductions than the panel even if I do give the dismount credit, and I’m not sure why.
Floor
Watch the full routine (timestamp 1:21:50)
I’ve decided not to include a picture or GIF here out of respect for the athlete since she was injured during her second pass and was unable to complete her routine. If a floor routine is less than 30 seconds, there is an additional 2.0 deduction that comes off the average score, which we saw here at the meet. Here’s how you’d calculate a score for this incomplete routine.
Value parts
❌ Minimum 3As, 3Bs, 2Cs
Round off (A), Back handspring (A), double back piked (D), front layout full (C)
Missing 3Bs at 0.3 each and 1A for 0.1
1.0 for missing value parts
Special requirements (0.2 each)
❌ One acro pass with two saltos, same or different
❌ Three different saltos in routine
✅ Final salto, minimum of C
❌ Dance pass with a 180-degree leap
❌ Minimum of two acro passes on two different diagonals
0.8 for missing special requirements
Bonus (max +0.6)
Double pike (D) +0.1
Start Value
9.4 – 1.0 – 0.8 +0.1 = 7.7SV
Start Value = 7.7
Panel start value = 7.9
Execution deductions
Landing foot slide, double pike (-0.1)
Fall, front tuck attempt (-0.5)
Total: 0.6
Composition deductions
-0.1 UTL
-0.1 lack of dance bonus
Total Score: 7.7 – 0.6 – 0.2 = 6.9
My Score: 6.9 – 2.0 neutral deduction = 4.90
Panel Score: 6.95 – 2.0 neutral deduction = 4.95
Again, you can see our start values and deductions are quite different, which is why the range of scores is different with lower numbers. For example, one judge may have decided that what I judged to be a “front tuck attempt” was a dive roll, and given her credit for an additional A but taken execution but not a fall. Or another judge may have given credit for it as a front tuck but took height and body position deductions in addition to the fall. All of those decisions would impact the start value, which is why judges don’t always have to agree on them.
However an unusual routine is interpreted, judges are expected to do all of these calculations in under a minute, making several judgment calls to come up with the best score possible, not to mention a lot of mental addition and subtraction. It’s not always easy, which is why NCAA judges require a high level of experience and credentials to even be eligible. I hope the next time you want to complain to your friends or followers that the judges are taking too long to score a routine, you’ll take a moment to appreciate all the thought and analysis that goes into every single score.
READ THIS NEXT: Judge’s Inquiry: Good vs. Great vs. Excellent Single-Bar Releases
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. Outside of gymnastics, Franck works at a university as a nursing professor and loves to travel. You can follow her on Instagram and Twitter.
