This is a discussion about judging the 2014 Compulsory Sequences for Artistic Events (outdoor), both Freestyle Skydiving and Freeflying. The 2014 IPC rules are utilized in this discussion.

This discussion focuses on individual Compulsory Sequences and does not include the judging complete compulsory routines. When judging complete compulsory routines, remember to consider the Presentation criteria. Remember that 6.3 states, "Presentation in the Compulsory Routines is scored for the beginning and the end of the routine, and move(s) performed between the Compulsory Sequences. If the Judges cannot identify any Presentation element the score for presentation will be 0,0 points." In other words, if nothing extra is shown, the score for Presentation is 0.0 points. Teams do not earn Presentation points for adding any special finesse to a Compulsory Sequence, such as creative arm movements. For the Presentation score, more may not always be "better"...a very original single movement between Compulsory Sequences can add to presentation just as much or more than a large number of movements performed quickly and in poor form/control.

Some discussion points do not offer definitive answers, but rather they are designed to get new judges started in thinking. This discussion is designed to help enhance observation skills. To prevent this from being a very long discussion, every single defect in performance for each video clip is NOT discussed...as your observational skills improve, you will notice these defects.

New artistic events judges mistakenly factor in the difficulty of the Compulsory Sequence compared to a different Compulsory Sequence when deciding how much to award or penalize. An easy Compulsory Sequence performed 50% bad should earn the same score as a difficult Compulsory Sequence performed 50% bad. The rules do NOT indicate that difference in difficulty of the different Compulsory Sequences is a consideration.

All competitors tend to perform an easy Compulsory Sequence well and teams may score high and close together. For a novice team, new judges make the mistake of tending to score more harshly on a performance of an easy Compulsory Sequence that is nearly as good as that of a top team.

The competition rules are the platform for the competition. Never judge according to some philosophy or concept that is not given in the rules. And always judge according to what is written in the rules.

That said, it is very important to pay attention to the following points.

1) Performance requirements are not all included within the description of a Compulsory Sequence. It is necessary to refer to other sections of the rules, such as Addendum B. For example, the requirement for the legs to be at least 90 degrees apart in the split during the Double Eouzan (FR-2) is not mentioned within the description of that Compulsory Sequence...it is given in Addendum B.

Important Body Positions mentioned in Addendum B and the Compulsory Sequences in which they apply are as follows:

Both the Straddle and Split have the requirement of "at least a 90 degree angle" between the legs.

2) Not all details are always given for each compulsory sequence. For example, the body position for Full Eagle Trick Sequence (FR-4) is not given...it only states that the "legs must be in line with the torso (when viewed from the side)." In this situation, a judge should not penalize the Team's score if the Performer has the legs apart rather than together or vice versa.

Animations of the Compulsory Sequences can help one to visualize what each might look like. The animations of the compulsory sequences can be viewed here:

However, when an animation is created, the animator must decide what body position will be shown in the animation. For example, for FR-4, the Full Eagle Trick Sequence, the animator has chosen to show it performed with the legs together. However, judges must remember that if the Performer has the legs straddled, they are still in compliance with the rules!

Also, note that no specific arm positions are required in the Compulsory Sequences. Teams are not obligated to use the arm positions shown in the animations. And judges should not deduct points for using arm positions different than shown in the animations.

3) Assignments given to Videographers are not always "specific." Practically none of the Compulsory Sequences have the orientation of the camera specified. FR-1 can be filmed with an upside-down video image with the ground at the top of the frame for the entire sequence. FR-4 can begin and end with an upside-down video image, provided that the video image is in normal orientation with the sky at the top, halfway through the sequence.

4) Teams may perform Compulsory Sequences immediately after exit and thus are presented on the "hill"...in other words, the vertical axis, though aligned with relative wind, is tilted with respect to the earth or ground. Addendum B C. Orientation states, "There are six (6) different basic orientations which a body can have to the relative wind or ground." Does this allow each judge to choose whether he will judge by reference to the ground or to infer the Team's alignment to the relative wind? If a Compulsory Sequence is performed perfectly aligned with the relative wind, but during exit transition, will some judges penalize due to the angle with respect to the ground? How do Teams know if both are not accepted?

5) Sometimes the rules may seem a little vague. So sometimes it's necessary to read carefully and think.

a) FR-1 indicates that "the Helix must spin rapidly," but the term "spin" is not defined elsewhere in the rules. Common sense implies that "spin" means to turn fast...and given the required head-up orientation for the Helix Spin, this also implies a rotation about the head-toe axis with that axis aligned with the vertical axis.

b) Above we stated that FR-3, FR-6, FR-7, FF-4, FF-7 and FF-8 involve the Layout position. However, FR-3, FR-4 and FR-7 indicate that the legs must be in line with torso, without any bend at the waist. Addendum B permits a slight arch for the layout position. Therefore, do you consider it correct to state that a slight arch is acceptable for FR-6, FF-4, FF-7 and FF-8, but not acceptable for FR-3 and FR-7? And for those Compulsory Sequences where a slight arch is acceptable, do you also consider a slight reverse arch also acceptable? The phraseology in Addendum B B-1 does not indicate positive or negative arch.

c) Number of rotations. Because the rules use the terms "minimum" or "at least" (except for FR-5), judges and Teams must know when all of the rotations or the exact number mentioned for a particular Compulsory Sequence will be judged.

If the Performer performs more than the minimum number of rotations, will all rotations will be judged? When there is a certain number of rotations required within a certain number of seconds, will all rotations within the specified seconds be judged?

The description for Head Up Straddle Spins (FR-5) indicates an exact number of rotations, i.e., 3.5 rotations. However, a rule in the header of the Compulsory Sequences states, "The judging of each sequence begins when the Judges see the Team beginning the sequence from the described beginning position (after a transition from the previous move with or without a momentary stop). The judging of each sequence ends when the Judges see the Team completes or abandons the performance requirements of that sequence." Thus, a Performer is allowed to perform more rotations. In this case, are the judges limited to judging only 3.5 Straddle Spins? The answers to these questions should be understood by judges and Teams.

d) The above introduction to Addendum A implies that there is technically no requirement to show a static start and stop. In other words, judges begin judging when the Team is beginning the Compulsory Sequence from the described beginning point (after a transition from the previous move with or without a momentary stop). This rule does NOT indicate a change in direction (translation or rotational) must be made.

The words "momentary stop" appear only in FR-3 and FF-1...in those specific cases a momentary stop must be shown.

However, in the descriptions of the Compulsory Sequences, you will also notice the following phrases, but without the phrase "momentary stop"...

These phrases have been interpreted to imply a momentary stop must be shown at these points as well. This leads to judges ignoring the introductory rule allowing flow of the routine when that rule was, in fact, written to remove the requirement to show a static start and stop. And competitors sometimes may not know what is expected. Some examples are presented below in discussions about specific Compulsory Sequences.

The 2014 IPC rules introduce "judging guidelines" for some of the Compulsory Sequences and it introduces new judging considerations.

1) Addendum - A1 states, "Toes must be pointed and knees must be straight, except as noted in descriptions. Otherwise, the maximum possible score is 8.0." However, judges should remember that a Performer momentarily flexing the feet is not the same issue as the Performer always having the feet flexed with absolutely no effort to point them.

2) The introduction of "judging guidelines" introduces the concept of a judgment call. If some judges apply a judging guideline while others do not for the same Compulsory Sequence, this can cause a wide spread in the scores. Examples will be presented later in this discussion.

For each of the Compulsory Sequences, view the samples. Review the discussion points. And put the samples of each Compulsory Sequence into a ranking order from the best to the worst. Learn to develop your view point based on actual observations you make.

Judging the Helix Spin (FR-1)

Which samples will you limit the maximum score to 8.0 points due to lack of toe point? Sample 1 clearly has pointed toes. If you look closely, the foot of the leg that is in the Helix position is pointed, but "curled inward." Ballet dancers refer to this as a "sickled foot" and it is considered unattractive. With good toe point, the toes should be in a straight line with the ankle, however, only professional ballet dancers are familiar with this concept. "If" this Helix were to be otherwise perfect, this sickled foot would be a reason for no perfect score of 10. Do you limit Samples 2 through 5 to 8 points due to lack of toe point?

The judging guideline for FR-1 states, "When the upper bent leg is not rotated as described and pointing straight down, not crossing the other knee ("open stag"), the maximum score will be 3.0." Is Sample 1 the best example of how the leg should be positioned into the Helix position? Why or why not? To which samples do you apply this judging guideline? Do you apply it to Sample 2 and 3, or do you consider the leg to be slightly deflected sufficiently and slightly crossing the straight leg enough to not limit the score to 3 points?...this is an example of a judgment call where some judges will apply the guideline and others will not. Do you limit your score for Sample 5 to a maximum of 3 points?

The next major element to check is whether or not the required five rotations within five seconds are performed. Less than five rotations are completed in Sample 1 and 5. The rotations are performed too slowly in Sample 3, 4 and 5. In Sample 2 and 4, six rotations are performed. Do you judge all six rotations, including the slight loss of the Helix position at the end for Sample 2? In Sample 4, do you stop your judging at the five second point or judge all of the rotations? And in Sample 4, does the judging start with the first sloppy rotation, judging all six rotations, or do the judges judge the five cleanest rotations, ignoring the first sloppy rotation?

The Videographer must be on the same level with the performer. How do you determine if the Videographer is level?

In sample 3, the horizon appears directly behind the hips of the Performer.

In sample 2, the horizon appears directly behind the head of the Performer.

What is considered level with the Performer...when the Videographer's lens is level with the Performer's hips or head (assuming terminal velocity)? Or is both considered to be level? In Sample 1, the level is variable between the Performer's hips and head, where in Sample 2 and 3 the Videographer held a consistent level for the entire sequence.

In sample 4, is the camera slightly high or slightly low? The video image is upside-down...is this allowed? The horizon appears above the Performer's head with the ground in the background, demonstrating that the Videographer is too high.

Given the clouds, how do you determine if the Videographer is level in Sample 5? When the Performer emerges from the clouds, the Videographer is level with the hips. But was this so when in the clouds? Look more carefully...While in the clouds, you do not have a direct face-on view to the Performer...the Videographer is actually slightly high and recovers to a level position as the Performer emerges from the clouds.

Also, the Videographer must remain in place...there should be no horizontal drifting. But for Sample 5, how do you know if the camera remained in place? When the horizon/ground does become visible, it has the appearance of sliding slightly, meaning the Videographer is drifting a little bit. Do you assume the Videographer was drifting for the entire sequence? Does the Team need a rejump because there is not enough information on the video screen to judge whether or not the performance requirements were met?

Judging the Double Eouzan (FR-2)

Do you consider Sample 1 a pretty good example of this Compulsory Sequence? Why or why not? Do the legs become split slightly less than 90 degrees? Do you see the legs buffet somewhat? Does the Videographer precisely maintain a view from exactly the side?

In Sample 2, this Compulsory Sequence is performed within a cloud. Do you say that the sync roll is not at all performed because you can not see the background rotating? Does the cloud adversely effect your judging?

4.5.1 states, "In a situation where the video evidence is considered insufficient for judging purposes by a majority of the Judging Panel, the freefall video equipment will be handed directly to the VRP for assessing the conditions and circumstances of that occurrence. In this case, a rejump situation will be handled as follows;" and

4.5.1.2 states, "In the case the VRP determines that the video's evidence insufficiency is due to weather conditions or any other cause not controllable by the Team, a rejump will be given."

If you look closely, you can detect that a sync roll is being performed. By watching the feet, you can detect that the Videographer has begun the sync roll about 45 degrees early, because the rotation of the Performer appears to stop with the torso 45 degrees before the head-down orientation.

At the finish, does the Performer lose heading? How many degrees? 180 degrees?

In Sample 3, how accurately is the sync roll performed? Is it more or less accurate than the sync roll in Sample 2? The Videographer in Sample 3 is almost 90 degrees late in starting his sync roll. When viewing a sync roll, watch the head or the feet of the Performer. During a good sync roll, the head or feet should appear "locked" to the top or bottom of the video frame.

In Sample 4, how is the body position? Knees bend and legs wash in the air a little bit. How many loops did the Performer make? 1 or 2? A poorly timed sync roll can make it appear that the Performer made one loop! Also, the Videographer exhibits sloppy framing during the sync roll. (At the end, you have an oblique view of the Performer, no longer directly a side view.)

FR-2 has a judging guideline, "When the Videographer makes a synchronised roll with the Performer during his/her first loop instead of the second loop, the maximum score will be 5.0."

Sample 5 & 6 have some very obvious performance defects, but the sync roll is worthy of discussion. And one other issue is introduced.

In Sample 5, there is a counter sync roll...if the performance were have been otherwise perfect, how much deduction should a counter sync roll cause given that a sync roll on the first loop would result in a maximum score of 5.0? Is it appropriate that judges create another judging guideline that will limit the score to 5.0 if a counter sync roll is performed? If this is done, then how do Teams know about it when such a concept is not written in the rules?

In Sample 6, no sync roll is performed, yet there is no judging guideline for missing the sync roll entirely. How should a judge respond?

In Sample 5, the loops do not stop in a head-down orientation. If the performance would have been otherwise flawless, how does it effect your score if the Performer continues the looping rotation after the end of this Compulsory Sequence? See above discussion about momentary stops.

Judging the Straddle Loops Sequence (FR-3)

The rules state, "One complete 180 degree back layout loop must be performed in the layout position." and Sample 1 shows the Performer doing his best to do exactly that. In Sample 2, the legs begin opening almost 90 degrees of rotation before the stopping point for both stops. Following the description as exact as possible results in a more jerky appearance. If the quality of the Videography were to be exactly identical, do you give the better score to the Sample that most closely matched the description given in the rules?

What is the difference in the Videography between Sample 1 and 2? In Sample 1, the Videographer is slightly high. The Videographer is required to be on the same level as the Performer.

In Sample 3, did the Performer do the first 180 degree back loop in the layout position? At the finish of the sequence, did the Performer open the legs early? Did the videographer film the front of the Performer as required?

Is there a difference in performance between Sample 4 and 5? Why or why not? Did either Performer show a momentary stop in the head-down orientation? In Sample 4, the Performer backslides from the Videograher at the end increasing the distance even more. In Sample 5, the Videographer is making a nodding motion with the head in the beginning of the Compulsory Sequence. Can you see straight knees and pointed toes during the nodding? The introduction to Addendum A states, "Each Team must ensure that clothing and/or the camera do not hinder the ability for Judges to clearly see the performance requirements being met. (E.g. if Judges cannot see straight arms and/or legs then they may assume that the Performer does not have straight arms and/or legs)."

Judging the Full Eagle Trick Sequence (FR-4)

Do you consider Sample 1 as an example of a good performance? What defects do you see?

Do you consider Sample 2 to be nicely performed as well? Notice that the rules state, "Legs must be in line with the torso (when viewed from the side)." Where the legs in line with the torso, i.e., no arch or reverse arch at the hips? How much do you deduct for the slight arching exhibited?

How does Sample 3 compare with the first two samples? Does the Videographer perform his role correctly? The camera does two half rolls! How much do you deduct for this? How does your score for this sample compare with your score to the following samples?

Sample 4 introduces some things to think about.

The rules state, "The Performer must perform a front tuck loop (trick) in the middle of the second part of the Eagle" and B-7 states, "The torso is bent forward at the waist such that the angle between the torso and thighs is less than 90 degrees. The legs are bent at the knees, such that the angle between the upper and lower legs is less than 90 degrees." Were these requirements met? Which is a greater defect, the Videographer adding two half camera rolls in Sample 3 or the failure to tuck with angles less than 90 degrees as well as looping a little early in Sample 4? Or, are both defects about equally bad?

The introduction to Addendum A1 states, "Toes must be pointed and knees must be straight, except as noted in descriptions. Otherwise, the maximum possible score is 8.0" In Sample 4, the knees bend...will you apply the limit of 8.0 to your score when the only statement about the legs is that they be in line with the torso? What if the Performer deliberately wanted the knees bent to 90 degrees for the entire sequence? However, in Sample 4, the performer bends the knees for aerodynamic aid and thus judges would penalize the score.

The introduction to Addendum A1 also states, "The Videographer must maintain a consistent distance from the Performer throughout each Compulsory Sequence" Did the Videographer maintain a constant distance from the Performer? As the Performer proceeds to move under the Videographer, s/he appears to move towards the Videographer. In other words, the Eagle movement is not "round."

Watch Sample 5 carefully. The Team is in the clouds. Can you recognize what is happening? The aspects of the body form are most obvious...the hips bend at some point when the legs should be in line with the torso...and the Performer ends head-down before the Videographer reaches the finishing position. To observe more aspects of this performance requires more careful observation, especially due to the cloud. During the first half of the Eagle, the Performer does not pass directly under the Videographer. Even though in the cloud, you can observe this because you do not see a direct view onto the Performer's front...you have an oblique view. Watch Sample 3 again...the Performer does not travel directly below the Videographer.

Because the Team emerges from the cloud (Sample 5), by noticing the horizon coming into view after the loop is performed, you can detect that this Performer made the loop before reaching the second half of the Eagle.

In Sample 6, can you see if the toes are pointed? Should this Team get a rejump due to the clouds and lens fogging up? Or, do you think the feet would have been visible if the Videographer was closer to the Performer and thus the Team should earn a lower score? Also, can you detect if the trick was performed at the correct time?

Judging the Head Up Straddle Spins (FR-5)

Do you consider Sample 1 as an example of a good performance? What defects do you see? Is the framing steady or not steady? What are the feet doing?

Is Sample 2 a better performance? Why or why not? In Sample 2, the feet are well pointed and the framing more steady, but the Videographer is slightly farther away than in Sample 1.

What is your evaluation of Sample 3? The feet are "partially" pointed...are they sufficiently pointed or do you limit the score to 8 points? Phrased differently, will some judges on the panel limit their score to 8 points while other judges do not? Did the Performer make the required number of rotations? Or, did the Performer in Sample 1 and 2 make too many rotations? Given that the camera must perform a 180 degree roll in the opposite direction to the Performer's rotation, it should look like the Performer is making four rotations on the video screen.

Other than the framing problems, is Sample 4 correctly performed? Look closely at the actions that the Videographer performs.

In Sample 4, the Performer makes extra rotations. See above discussion about "Number of rotations" in the introduction. Do you judge all rotations when the rules indicate 3.5 rotations? Do you select which 3.5 rotations to judge? In the Straddle, the legs are split 180 degrees. Do you give more points because this Performer showed greater flexibility? The rules state, "The legs are split apart, from side to side, with at least a 90 degree angle between them," which implies that all Straddles with the legs at least 90 degrees apart are equal. If you do give more points for more flexibility, then how do the other competitors know in advance by reading the rules that there is more award for this? Also, watch the motion of the Videographer...The Videographer starts with some distance and zooms under the Performer at a closer distance and ends again at a farther distance.

In Sample 5, are the feet pointed? Do you limit your score to a maximum of 8 points? Does the Videographer correctly meet the performance requirements. The judging guideline states, "When the Videographer passing under the Performer makes the camera roll to the wrong direction, the max score will be 5.0." Do you apply this judging guideline?

Judging the Head-down Loop Twist Sequence (FR-6)

The rules require the Performer to be in a head-down orientation in a layout position. Addendum B indicates a slight arch is allowed for the layout position and the head-down orientation has the torso vertical.

Which of the first three samples is more ideal? In Sample 1, the torso is vertical, but is there too much arch? In Sample 2, the torso is head-down and with much less arch. If the legs would have been together and the knees straight, would Sample 2 be a better example? Why or why not? In Sample 3, there is less arch, but the torso is less vertical. In Sample 1 and Sample 2, the Performers made better effort to keep the torso vertical head-down.

Sample 4 is performed on the hill, during exit transition. Does this effect your score? Why or why not? Is there enough information in the rules that Teams will understand how performing a Compulsory Sequence on the hill will effect or not effect their score?

What defects do you see in Sample 5? Is the layout position maintained for 360 degrees of carving? Is the Videographer showing the front of the torso? Or, do you see a slightly oblique view of the front of the torso? Is the torso vertical, head-down?

Judging the Head-down Loop Twist Sequence (FR-7)

Are Samples 1 and 2, both good examples of good performance? Though in Sample 1, the legs split during the last loop. And the camera is a little far and drifting slightly in Sample 2.

In Sample 1, the Performer shows a static start and stop in a head-down layout position. The Performer in Sample 2 embeds this Compulsory Sequence into the flow of the routine. The introduction of Addendum A1 states, "The judging of each sequence begins when the Judges see the Team beginning the sequence from the described beginning position (after a transition from the previous move with or without a momentary stop)."

What defects do you see in Sample 3? The Videographer does not show a direct side on view and is recovering to the level position from higher. Was there a full twist? Or, was there only a half twist, thereby limiting your score to no more than 6.5 points?

How do you score Sample 4? The judging guidelines allow a maximum of 3 points for each good loop. In which direction were the loops performed? In what body position where the loops performed?

Judging the Flip Through (FR-8)

Do you consider Sample 1 to be ideal performance? The scenery shifts behind the Performer, implying that the Videographer did not stay in place, however, there is no requirement for the Videographer to stay in place! Did you deduct from your score due to the camera wiggle? Or, was that camera wiggle after the three flip throughs were completed and the Performer was transitioning into the following maneuver?

Other than the fact that the Videographer is a little high and a little distant, is Sample 2 a good example of good performance? Did you deduct points due to bending in the hips? Notice that the description for the Flip Through does not indicate layout! The description describes the orientations that the torso must pass through.

Are the Flip Throughs performed well in Sample 3? The legs come up high on one side due to exit transition. Does this effect your score? Why or why not? Is there enough information in the rules that Teams will understand how performing a Compulsory Sequence on the hill will effect or not effect their score?

In Sample 4, does the torso pass the back down orientation? Is the Videographer level with the Performer? You see the horizon line above the Performer. How is the body form?

In Sample 5, how fluent are the Flip Throughs performed? Are all three Flip Throughs performed?

When judging the Compulsory Sequences in Freeflying, judges must pay attention to body parts. Performance requirements are not all included within the Compulsory Sequence description. Certain maneuvers may require a grip or dock on a "specific" part of the body.

Important Body Parts from Addendum B are as follows:

Judging the Double Joker Reverse (FF-1)

Do you consider Sample 1 as an example of good performance? What defects do you see? The Videographer is required to show a side view and, in this sample, the Videographer drifts a little out of position. Also, there is a little wiggle in the framing during the sync roll. A judge should not "over penalize" a performance due to being very observant of small details/defects.

Is Sample 2 a good example of good performance? One of the judging guidelines states, "Wrong grip location (not right-to-right hand or left-to-left hand), the maximum score will be 7.0." Carefully examine the grip and determine what score you would give this sample.

Or, is Sample 3 a good example of good performance? Do you consider the grip to be made hand-to-hand? If not, how much do you penalize the score? Which sample is better? Sample 1 or Sample 3?

In Sample 4, the camera is very jittery, but if the camera was smooth, how would it compare with Sample 1 and 3? Pay Attention! Addendum A2 states, "The face to face requirement means that the Performers must be with their heads at the same level and looking at each other" and "One Performer is in a head-up orientation, the other in a head-down orientation, face to face." Are the two Performers face-to-face in this Sample? In Samples 1, 2 and 3 the two Performers paid careful attention to performing this sequence face to face. The Teams who strove to perform it while face-to-face hope to receive credit for that.

Judging the Vertical Compressed Switch (FF-2)

Do you consider Sample 1 and Sample 2 to be examples of good performance? Is it OK that the Videographer has presented an upside-down video image in Sample 2? Is the lighting angle ideal or not ideal in Sample 1? Do you deduct a few points due to distance in Sample 2?

One of the judging guidelines states, "When grips are not taken simultaneously, the maximum score will be 8.0." And the description of FF-2 includes, "Both Performers retake both grips at the same time." In Sample 3, were the grips simultaneously taken after the half front loops were performed? Actually, look at Sample 1 again. Does this judging guideline apply only for retaking the grips?

If the camera shake were to be less, is the performance good in Sample 4? There is another judging guideline to pay attention for. "One or both grips in wrong location (i.e., not on lower leg), the maximum score will be 7.0" and Addendum B states, "lower leg: the part of the leg between the knee and the ankle." Do you apply this judging guideline to Sample 5 as well, and limit your score to no higher than 7.0? Is this a judgment call were some judges on the panel will apply this judging guideline and others will not?

How do you judge Sample 6? This sample maybe involves both judging guidelines! When they retake their grips, one Performer grips at the knee and corrects it to the lower leg.

In Sample 7, can you see the required grips? If the required grips are hidden by the sun and condensation, do you assume the grips are incorrectly performed? If there was only the condensation or only the view into the sun, would you be able to see if the grips were performed correctly? If yes, does that mean this Team should not receive a rejump?

How do you judge Sample 8? There is no judging guideline for when the Performers dock facing the wrong direction. Must you limit your score to 3 points according to rule 6.3? "3 points - Move is performed and filmed with one or several major mistakes"

Judging the Cat Barrel Roll (FF-3)

In Sample 1, the performers legs are straight...does that call for a better score than if the knees were bent, as in Sample 2? There is no requirement for the knees to be straight, but there is a requirement for the upper legs to be in line with the torso!

The Videographer must remain on level and remain in place. Watch Sample 1 carefully. Near the end, you see the background scenery shift behind the Performers...this means that the entire Team (of all three members) has shifted heading slightly...so then did the Videographer remain perfectly in place?

Look at Sample 3. Does the Team lose heading slightly or does the Videogapher slightly lose his position on the side? By watching whether or not the background shifts behind the Team, you can determine. This is a very subtle point. A judge should not "over penalize" a performance due to being very observant of small details/defects.

Compared to Sample 2, the camera in Sample 1 is a little bit shaky.

Ultimately, which sample do you consider to be better?

Does Sample 3 have any serious performance errors? Do the upper legs of the back Performer remain in line with the torso? FF-3 also has a judging guideline. "One or both grips in wrong location (i.e., not on lower leg), the maximum score will be 7.0." And Addendum B states, "lower leg: the part of the leg between the knee and the ankle." Does the back Performer take grips on the "lower legs"? Do you limit your score to a maximum of 7.0?

What defects do you see in Sample 4? The roll dips significantly head-low. Also, are the feet considered a part of the lower leg or do you limit your score to a maximum of 7.0 per the judging guideline given for this Compulsory Sequence?

In Sample 5, where is the grip taken? Do you see it well enough to consider at least a part of the hand to be on the lower leg? Did the Videographer stay on level? Is the Videographer high or low? Because the video image is upside-down, one might think the Videographer is high. Actually, the Videographer is low because you see the sky in the background behind the Performers. In both Sample 4 and 5, the video images is upside-down. Is this OK?

Judging the Turning Totem (FF-4)

Do you consider Sample 1 to be an example of good performance? The camera starts to shake more by the end of the sequence. Is Sample 2 an example of good performance? Did you notice the Performers leaning forward slightly? But there is something else to notice.

The description states, "The Videographer must show the front of both Performers at the beginning, on level with the head of the lower Performer, stay on level and remain in place." In Sample 1, the horizon is behind the head of the lower performer, however, in Sample 2, the horizon is behind the head of the upper performer. (Note that comparing the head to the horizon works when the Performers are at terminal velocity, no longer on the "hill.")

Is Sample 3 an example of good performance? Why or why not? FF-4 has a judging guideline that states, "Wrong body position (when the lower Performer is sitflying/kneeflying, instead of layout position), the maximum score will be 5.0" Is the bottom Performer in Sample 3 in a layout position?

Is Sample 4 better? The bottom Performer is not sitflying or kneeflying, but he is also not in a layout position. Given this, do you limit your score to a maximum of 5.0?

Judging the Head-up Head-down Carve (FF-5)

Is Sample 1 an example of good performance? Why or why not? Is Sample 2 an example of a better effort to follow the written description? The description states, "The carving Performers must stay on level (head to feet)" Was that accomplished in Sample 1? Does the Team with good levels control get a better score even though they did not fly with heads and feet level? It is more difficult to fly with the heads and feet level. Is Sample 3 better? Or do you deduct points for the body position used...that the headup Performer is deliberately flying in an Open Stag position? The description does not provide a body position. So, if you do deduct points, how does the Team know that this will happen?

In Sample 3, given the background, can you determine if the minimum rotations were made? If you observe the high clouds, it will be easier to see that the Team made slightly less than 360 degrees.

Because the Videographer and Performers must make 360 degrees of rotation, it appears that the Performers rotate 720 degrees! There is a question to be answered...must the Team complete the carving with respect to the environment or with respect to each other? If it is OK for the Team to accomplish it with respect to each other, then the Performers could do 720 degrees of rotation while the Videographer does not move. The interpretation of the rules is that the Performers and the Videographer must carve 360 degrees with respect to the environment.

Is Sample 4 a better performance? While the Videographer carves, the horizon is tilted quite a bit. (The horizon is slightly tilted in Sample 3 too.) Under 6.2, Presentation, the rules state, "No parts of the Videographer's camera helmet/equipment showing in the frame." Therefore, do you deduct points for a portion of the camera housing showing in the video?

In Sample 5, more than the minimum required 360 degree rotations are performed? Do you judge the best rotations or all of the rotations?

What is happening in Sample 6? Is the Videographer carving in the correct direction? It does not require the presence of a judging requirement to determine that the score for this performance will be significantly lower.

Judging the Full Eagle (FF-6)

Do you consider Sample 1 to be an example of good performance? Note that the description for FF-6 states, "One Performer is in head-up orientation, the other in head-down orientation face to face." Is this requirement better met in Sample 2? Judges need to beware that the darkness of the sky does not cause them to deduct points.

How do you score Sample 3 and Sample 4 in relation to Sample 2? The rules do not "require" the Performers to maintain a constant distance between them. However, maintaining a constant distance is a characteristic of good execution and thus would earn a better score. In Sample 3, the distance between the Performers increases on the vertical in the second half of FR-6. In Sample 4, the Performers lose distance on the horizontal.

Judging the Stand-up Star (FF-7)

Do you consider Sample 1 to be an example of good performance, even though it is performed during exit transition? Is exit transition the sole reason that the two Performers appear not level with each other, or did the Performers really get off level with respect to each other?

Do you consider Sample 2 to be an example of good performance? The legs are not completely together, yet they are not in a sit or kneeflying position. Do you limit your score to 5 points? Also, the judging guideline states, "Wrong body position (when the lower Performer is sitflying/kneeflying, instead of layout position), the maximum score will be 5.0." Do you apply common sense and interpret this to apply to both Performers?

For Sample 3, does one or both judging guidelines apply? The Performers were "trying" to stand...compared to a Team who blatantly sits, should your score for this team be limited to 5 points? Also, did the Performers retake grips simultaneously? Did the Videographer meet performance requirements?

Judging the Synchronized Back Layouts (FF-8)

Do you consider Sample 1 to be an example of good performance? Do you observe any other minor defects other than the shaky video image?

In Sample 2 and 3, are the half twists performed in the same direction? In Sample 2, do both Performers make a twist, or do you observe a motion more like a half cartwheel followed by a loop?

If you have limited your score for Sample 3 to no more than 5 points due to opposite direction twisting (and if their execution were to be flawless), are you possibly giving Sample 4 a slightly better score, especially given that the execution in Sample 3 is not flawless?