Bonus = Pandora’s Box; an inherently difficult (and herein I believe deleterious) idea though prompted by our collective joy of seeing the big move at the right place.

The inherent difficulty is that it will be next to impossible to fairly administrate a hugely subjective element such as this. Thus Bonus points will be inevitably awarded (by the proposed definitions) across the board resulting in larger point swings based upon greater subjective response than even our current system. (Or with many personalities it will be awarded based upon the similarity to our own styles thus self actualizing.) This will be dependent upon who is judging at any given time. My take is that we currently DO reward the big move and the bonus is not necessary. (I do it in difficulty and AI b/c the big move often has more risk and is efforted toward accent points in music.) – ADDITIONALLY big moves per se are not always all that difficult for the people doing them. They are ‘trademark’ in many cases and this subverts other potential rewards very much deserved by more technically demanding, often AS physically demanding moves; simply because they are more subtle, fluid, etc. and do not conclude with someone (frequently) crashing to the ground. Certainly those of us in the crash move category will be for the bonus as it’s readily interpreted as ‘big’. Yet I must harken to agree with much of what is being said in regards to expanding our scope of expectations rather than rewarding a narrowing of scope. The bonus idea, although a very, very, fun concept, seems woefully infeasible from the application standpoint and will narrow our scope. Will the bonus reward Matteo’s absolutely flawless spinning phlaud pull set to a phlaud in 2010 FPA semis? …that was BIG from a flow and continuity standpoint, yet would not be rewarded, or Pat Carrasco’s double spinning osis to end perfectly balanced and holding the pose for presentation while jamming on the sidelines (still relevant as an example though he was not competing). Those are far more compelling acts of athleticism than leaping really high for a catch. I fear that is what the bonus will reward (and I can jump really high when I want to : ) ), and that’s going backwards in my opinion because it narrows our scope of play. Simultaneously we would contend with even larger clouds of subjectivity than we do currently. — Fact of the matter is that a Bonus rule is redundant as well as overly subjective and will skew judging b/c we already reward such moves.

I’m not disinclined to have our sport be different than other sports (no other judged sport has a ‘bonus’ point system??) as that’s a great virtue of our sport and fuels our passion.) Simply don’t think that the current proposed bonus idea is necessary, or can be fairly implemented and/or workable.

Again huge thanks to the committee for their tireless efforts and for providing a forum for all to lend feedback and stimulate ideas. Fantastic to be a part of this community!!

Judging of performances is intended to reward excellence. These bonuses seem to be intended to sometimes reward excellence and sometimes reward things the committee wants to see.

This proposal neither makes judging more fair nor makes judging less demanding. It decreases accountability and adds 1 thing each judge needs to track.

Let’s not kid ourselves that judges will give less than 0.5 points each. The full 4.5 points will be in play during each round. Rather than creating more accountability in the system, it creates purely subjective swings in point totals. Let’s also not kid ourselves that judges won’t discuss the bonus points or look to their fellow judges’ sheets for insight on who to give bonuses to. Need for validation is a strong force.

Speed Flow elements: this is promotion of a specific style of play, not a measure of excellence. If the committee has decided that routines should have speed flow, they should say that clearly. From my perspective, there is no consensus that speed flow should be a component of all freestyle routines. Instead, there is a respect for the craft of speed flow and a desire that well-performed speed flow be rewarded in a way judges aren’t seeing right now.

Unique/creative style of play: This is already covered in AI, especially if Show has 40% of the AI mark. It’s piling extra points onto something that’s already rewarded more than technical proficiency.

Consecutivity: I’m biased toward rewarding this with an infinite number of points because this actually is a measure of excellence. That said, I don’t think it should receive extra gifts of points. I believe better ways exist to reward teams playing technically superior delay and brush freestyle.