Barra333
Premium
- 6,533
- London, ON
- barra333
That depends on what you call "good". If someone performs a trick and is forced to put their hand down to stop themselves from falling, then they have clearly made a mistake somewhere. Why on earth should you award points to someone on the basis of how good it would have been if they had got it right? And how on earth is that worth more than someone who performed a less-impressive trick, but got it right?
Look at the gymnastics in the Summer Olympics. If one gymnast performs a triple somersault, but is forced to break their stance to stop themselves from falling, they will get marked down for it. Not as badly as if they had fallen over, but it still shows a lack of precision. On the other hand, if they perform a double somersault and land perfectly, they will get a good mark. So why should it be any different in bordercross? The landing is as much a part of the trick as the speed, rotation and the altitude. If two people perform the sane trick and one lands perfectly while the other puts a hand down to stop themselves from falling, why do they deserve the same score?
I am talking about small mistakes, not a faceplant.
In your gymnast scenario, I would imagine the scores (in my mind) should be (highest to lowest)
1. triple somersault done well
2. triple somersault, landed but had to more one foot forward/back for balance
3. double somersault done well
4. any faceplant
You can swap 'step forward/back' with 'hand on snow' in the slopestyle. Ass on ground I agree is a massive deduction.
Also think of the degree of difficulty in diving. That allows for small mistakes in a tough dive to score more than a well executed easy dive.