← Men’s Artistic
Part ISection 4: Regulation governing Technical CommitteeArticle 4

The President of the MTC

The President of the Men’s Technical Committee or his representative will serve as Superior Jury President. Their responsibilities and those of the Superior Jury include:


a) The overall technical direction of the competition as outlined in the FIG Technical Regulations.

b) To call and chair all judges’ meetings and instruction sessions.

c) To apply the stipulations of the Judges’ Regulations applying to that competition.

d) To deal with requests for evaluation of new elements, raising the Horizontal Bar, leaving the competition area, and other issues that may arise. Such decisions are normally made by the Men’s Technical Committee.

e) To make sure that the time schedule published in the Work plan is respected.

f) To control the work of the Apparatus Supervisors and intervene if deemed necessary. Except in case of an inquiry, time or line revision, generally no change of score is allowed after the score has been flashed on the score board.

g) To deal with inquiries as outlined herein.

h) In cooperation with the members of the Superior Jury, to issue warnings to or replace any person acting in any judging capacity who is considered to be unsatisfactory or to have broken their oath.

i) To conduct a video analysis (post competition) with the TC to determine errors in judgment and to submit the results of the Judges evaluation to the GEF (Gymnastics Ethics Foundation) Disciplinary Commission.

j) To supervise the checking of the apparatus measurement specifications according to the FIG Apparatus Norms.

k) In unusual or special circumstances may nominate a judge to the competition.

l) To submit a report to the FIG Executive Committee, which must be sent to the FIG Secretary General as soon as possible, but no later than 30 days after the event, which contains the following:
· General remarks about the competition including special occurrences and conclusions for the future.

· Detailed analyses of the judges’ performance including proposals for rewarding the best judges and sanctions against the judges who fail to meet expectations within 3 months.

· Detailed list of all interventions (score changes before and after publication).

· Technical analyses of the D-scores.