Batista A., Garganta R., Avila-Carvalho L.: DANCE STEPS, DYNAMIC ELEMENTS.... Vol. 9 Issue 2: 177 - 189 DANCE STEPS, DYNAMIC ELEMENTS WITH ROTATION AND THROW AND MASTERY ELEMENTS IN RHYTHMIC GYMNASTICS ROUTINES Amanda Batista, Rui Garganta, Lurdes Ávila-Carvalho Sports Faculty, Porto University, Porto, Portugal _Original article Abstract Analyze of individual elite routines allows to gain more knowledge about the performance of the RG structure. Therefore, the aim of this study is to know the difficulty elements diversity (dance steps, masteries and dynamic elements with rotation and throw) in individual routines of elite gymnasts who competed at the 2013 and 2014 Lisbon RG World Cup and to compare these characteristics across different ranking groups. 288 official difficulty forms of 4 routines were analyzed. The gymnasts' routines were clustered into three groups according to their ranking position. Non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests were used. Pearson Correlation was used to analyze the association degree of the difficulty elements in the gymnasts' final score. The best gymnasts presented routines with some different characteristics, however, we verified a high similarity in the difficulties elements analyzed in the compositions that can compromise the originality and variety of this sport. We observed that the higher gymnasts' final score, have also higher departure difficulty score; lower number of combinations of base and criteria in masteries; higher number of non-fundamental and lower number of fundamental group elements in masteries. On the other hand, higher number of masteries and number of additional criteria of body rotations in dynamic elements with rotation and throw, lower the gymnasts' final score. However, we believe that the real differences in the ranking groups is mostly justified by evaluation of the judges of the difficulty elements presented in the official Difficulty forms and in the execution quality of the gymnasts. Keywords: difficulty elements, individual routines, elite gymnasts, rhythmic gymnastics. INTRODUCTION Rhythmic Gymnastics (RG) is characterized by a high level of technical demand in the difficulty elements and apparatus techniques of rope, ball, hoop, clubs and ribbon, combined with the aesthetic and artistic aspects (Breitkreutz & Hokelmann, 2012; Hokelmann et al., 2012) RG competition routines are assessed according to the international RG Code of Points (RG-CoP). Every 4 years, at the end of the Olympic cycle, this code is improved and published by the RG Technical Committee of the International Gymnastics Federation (FIG) (Avila-Carvalho et al., 2010). The main purpose is to provide a more objective evaluation of the competition routines and promote the sport development (Avila-Carvalho et al., Science of Gymnastics Journal 177 Science of Gymnastics Journal Batista A., Garganta R., Avila-Carvalho L.: DANCE STEPS, DYNAMIC ELEMENTS.... Vol. 9 Issue 2: 177 - 189 2012). The RG-CoP changes increase the difficulty and the demand of the competition routines requirements (Lisitskaya, 1995; Oliveira et al., 2004), according to the actual practice of the sport. However, the Code also determines the direction in which RG will evolve (Trifunov & Slobodanka, 2013). The knowledge of the content of the high level gymnasts' competition routines including the details concerning the specificity of their components, can contribute to characterize the requirements allowing improvements in a gymnasts' preparation for competitions (Ferreirinha et al., 2011). Therefore, to identify trends in the performance structure, to understand how the RG-CoP is interpreted and to meet the compositional strategies used by reference coaches (Avila-Carvalho et al., 2012) can be also useful information to coaches and gymnasts as feedback to determine the training models in order to improve performance (Fernandez-Villarino et al., 2013). However, the small number of studies about competition routines in RG (Agopyan, 2014) can be justified by the constant evolution of RG-CoP requirements. Thus, according to Lebre (1993), it becomes difficult to compare the results. The content of the competition routines is represented by music, composition design and chose/combination of body and apparatus elements (Hokelmann et al., 2013), therefore, it is influenced by several qualitative and quantitative factors. The qualitative factors are highly dependent on subjective perceptions and in the other hand, the quantitative factors are more objective and, therefore, more suitable for performance analysis (Breitkreutz & Hokelmann, 2012; Hokelmann & Blaser, 2006; Hokelmann et al., 2012). The quantitative factors in individual routines in the 2013-2016 Olympic cycle include the difficulty elements: body difficulties; dance steps; masteries; dynamic elements with rotation and throw (DER) (FIG, 2012). The aim of this study are to analyze the difficulty elements diversity and variety (dance steps, masteries and DER) of the individual routines of elite gymnasts who competed at the 2013 and 2014 Lisbon RG World Cup and to compare these characteristics across different ranking groups. Furthermore, to identify the difficulty elements included in the routines that contribute the most to the success in competition. The hypothesis of the study is that the finalists gymnasts (top 8 ranking gymnasts) have routines with higher scores and more complex elements (in quantity and difficulty) than the other lower-ranked gymnasts. METHODS A total of 288 individual routines from different countries performed in 2013 and 2014 Lisbon RG World Cups (Portugal) were analyzed according to 2013-2016 RG-CoP rules (FIG, 2012). This study was approved by the World Cup Organization. Each participant performed 4 routines (hoop, ball, clubs and ribbon) and the analysis was carried out based on the Difficulty forms submitted prior to the competition by the coaches and not evaluated by the judges. The gymnasts were clustered into three groups according to their ranking routine in each apparatus: 1st Group (Finalists) - 1st to 8th place in the ranking; 2nd Group - 9th to 22nd place in the ranking; 3rd Group - 23rd to 36th place in the ranking. The analysis was conducted by two international RG judges. The high intraclass correlation coefficient values in the relative reliability analysis: intra-examiner (0.98) and inter-examiner (0.97), demonstrated high objectivity in the evaluations. Science of Gymnastics Journal 178 Science of Gymnastics Journal Batista A., Garganta R., Avila-Carvalho L.: DANCE STEPS, DYNAMIC ELEMENTS.... Vol. 9 Issue 2: 177 - 189 Table 1 Summary of fundamental and non-fundamental apparatus group elements of the RG-CoP (2013-2016). Apparatus Fundamental apparatus group elements Non-Fundamental apparatus group elements Passing through the Hoop with the whole or part of the body Passing over the Hoop with the whole or part of the body Hoop Roll of the Hoop over minimum 2 body segments Small throw and catch 0 Roll of the Hoop on the floor Throws or catches: Medium or Large throw Rotations of the Hoop around its axis: One free rotation between the fingers or on the part of the body / Series of rotations on the floor Apparatus handling: Figure 8 with ample body movement; Large circles; Transmission of the apparatus around any part of the body or under the leg(s) Series of rotations around the hand / One free rotation around a part of the body Unstable balance on the part of the body Roll of the Ball on the floor: Large (min. 1 meter) or series of small rolls "Flip-over" movement of the Ball; Rotations of the hand(s) around the Ball; Series of assisted small roll; Roll of the body over the Ball on the floor; "Trust"/push of the Ball from different parts of the body Ball Roll of the Ball over minimum 2 large body segments Throws or catches: Medium or Large throw • Catch of the Ball with one hand Small throw and catch Series of small bounces or one high bounce; Visible rebound from a part of the body Apparatus handling: Large circles; Transmission of the apparatus around any part of the body or under the leg(s) Figures eight of the ball with circle movements of the arms and ample movement of the trunk Unstable balance on the part of the body Mills: at least 4 small circles of the Clubs with time delay and by alternating crossed and uncrossed wrists/ hands each time For 1 or 2 clubs: Free rotations on the part of the body or on the floor; Rolls on the part of the body or on the floor; Rebound from the body; "Sliding"; Tapping (min 1); "Trust"/push of the Club from different parts of the body Asymmetric movements of 2 Clubs Small throw and catch of 1 Club Clubs IT Small throws and catches with rotation of 2 Clubs together simultaneously or alternating Throws or catches: Medium or Large throw Throws or catches of 2 Clubs, simultaneous or asymmetric "Cascade" throws (double or triple) Apparatus handling: Figure 8 with ample body movement; Large circles; Transmission of the apparatus around any part of the body or under the leg(s) Unstable balance on the part of the body Ribbon w Spirals (4-5 waves); Spirals on the floor Snakes (4-5 waves); Snakes on the floor "Boomerang" (in the air or on the floor)_ Rotational movement of the stick around the hand; Roll of the stick on the part of the body; Rebound of the stick from the part of the body; Wrapping; Movement of the Ribbon around a part of the body created when the stick is held by different parts of the body_ Passing through or over the pattern of the Ribbon "Echappé" Small throw and catch Throws or catches: Medium or Large throw Apparatus handling: Figure 8 with ample body movement; Large circles; Transmission of the apparatus around any part of the body or under the leg(s) Unstable balance on the part of the body Science of Gymnastics Journal 179 Science of Gymnastics Journal Batista A., Garganta R., Avila-Carvalho L.: DANCE STEPS, DYNAMIC ELEMENTS.... Vol. 9 Issue 2: 177 - 189 Table 2 Summary Table of Additional Criteria of throw, body rotation and catch of apparatus in DER. Additional criteria - throw of apparatus in DER Outside of visual control during the throw Without the help of the hands during the throw Passing through the apparatus during throw Throw with rotations around its diameter; on horizontal or vertical plane Throw with oblique plane Throw of 2 Clubs Asymmetric throw of 2 Clubs Throw under the leg/legs Throw after bounces on the floor, after rolling on the floor, etc. Additional criteria - body rotation in DER Change of body rotation axis under the throw or during the catch of the apparatus Change of level (two levels: flight/standing and floor) Additional criteria - catch of apparatus in DER Outside of visual control during the catch Without the help of the hands during the catch Passing through the apparatus during catch Mixed catch of Clubs Catch under the leg/legs Direct catch in a roll Direct re-throw / re-bound Direct catch in rotation Catch of the Ball with one hand For statistical analyses of the data we used the Statistical Package for Social Sciences - version 20.0. The level of significance was set at a = 0.05. Descriptive statistics were calculated using the mean, standard deviation (SD) and range values. The Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney non-parametric tests were used to compare the ranking groups. Pearson Correlation was performed to analyze the association degree of the difficulty elements in the gymnasts' final score. RG-CoP rules (FIG, 2012): - Fundamental (FGE) and nonfundamental apparatus group elements (NFGE): Table 1 presents the FGE and NFGE in hoop, ball, clubs and ribbon routines. These apparatus elements are performed in the dance steps, masteries and body difficulties, and they should be included in the official Difficulty forms. - Masteries: The mastery consists of, at least, 1 base (1B) - FGE and/or NFGE, plus a minimum 2 criteria (2C). Or 2 bases (2B) plus minimum 1 criteria (1C). - DER: Table 2 shows the additional criteria of throw, body rotation (during the fly of the apparatus) and catch of the apparatus performed in the DER. Science of Gymnastics Journal 180 Science of Gymnastics Journal Batista A., Garganta R., Avila-Carvalho L.: DANCE STEPS, DYNAMIC ELEMENTS.... Vol. 9 Issue 2: 177 - 189 RESULTS Dance steps The gymnasts presented similar number of dance steps and FGE in dance steps (Figure 1). No significant differences were found in the groups in all dance steps variables evaluated: number of dance steps (p=0.981); number of FGE per dance steps (p=0.728); number of dance steps by apparatus: hoop (p= 0.259); ball (p=0.685); clubs (p=0.357) and ribbon (p=0.694); number of FGE by apparatus: hoop (p= 0.899); ball (p=0.208); clubs (p=0.683) and ribbon (p=0.477) routines. In Figure 1, we can see that all groups showed a higher number of dance steps in ribbon routines and higher number of FGE in dance steps in the clubs routines. Masteries (M) The routines presented 6 different combinations (Figure 2) of bases and criteria. Although not necessary, many routines presented more criteria and/or bases than the required by the RG-CoP (FIG, 2012), because the element is valid if the gymnasts perform without execution faults at least the minimum number of base and criteria elements. The most routines presented the combination 1 base plus 2 criteria (3.62±2.11 masteries), probably because this is the easiest combination of bases and criteria required by the RG-CoP (FIG, 2012). We verified that the higher the ranking position, the fewer types of combinations were observed: finalists (4); 2nd Group (5) and 3rd Group (6). The gymnasts of 3 rd Group showed a high range in the number of masteries (Table 3). Furthermore, this ranking routines presented a higher of masteries elements than the remaining groups, although no significant differences were found in the number of masteries in all groups analyzed (p=0.654). On the other hand, we observed a lower range in the number of masteries in finalists' routines. The choice between using FGE or NFGE in masteries showed different values for the different groups (Table 3), although significant differences were found only in routines of 3rd Group (p=0.006). This group have a significant superior use of FGE in masteries. We observed that the higher the ranking position, higher the number of NFGE and lower the number of FGE in these elements in the routines. Significant differences also were verified in finalists versus 3rd Group (p=0.013) in the number of masteries with NFGE. The routines were analyzed by apparatus (Table 3) and we did not observe significant differences between groups in number of masteries: hoop (p= 0.369); ball (p=0.338); clubs (p=0.831) and ribbon (p=0.476). However, the ball and hoop routines in all groups analyzed had a higher number of masteries. When we analyze the minimum and maximum values in Table 3, we observed that all apparatus routines of 3rd Group and finalists presented respectively, the higher and the lower range in the number of masteries. The FGE in masteries are more used in hoop and ball routines, and NFGE are more used in clubs and ribbon routines in all groups analyzed. Significant differences were found in the number of masteries with FGE only in clubs routines (p=0.005), in finalists and 2nd Group versus 3 rd Group, and in the number of masteries with NFGE in hoop routines (p=0.004) in finalists versus 3rd Group. The masteries can be performed in body difficulty elements and we observed in Figure 3 that 39.1% of finalists, 40.2% of 2nd Group and 36.6% of 3rd Group routines presented at least one mastery performed during a body difficulty (jumps/leaps, balances or rotations). However, the 3rd Group showed higher number of masteries per routine, although without statistical significance. Science of Gymnastics Journal 181 Science of Gymnastics Journal Batista A., Garganta R., Avila-Carvalho L.: DANCE STEPS, DYNAMIC ELEMENTS.... Vol. 9 Issue 2: 177 - 189 When we compared the use of masteries performed during different body groups elements, no significant differences were found: rotations (p=0.833); balances (p=0.953) and jumps/leaps (p=1.000). However, the finalists have higher number of masteries performed during rotations and lower number performed during jumps/leaps than the other groups (Figure 3). Furthermore, balances are the body difficulty most performed during masteries in all groups analyzed. Dynamic elements with Rotation and throw (DER) According to the analysis of the official Difficulty forms, we observe that all routines had 3 DER elements. Furthermore, no significant differences were found in the ranking groups in all variables of DER. The 1st, 2nd and 3rd DER presented similar values in each of the criteria analyzed (Figure 4): number of rotations (p=0.337); total additional criteria (p=0.806); criteria of throw (p=0.862); criteria of body rotation (p=0.139) and criteria of catch (p=0.262). The routines showed in average, for each DER element 3.3±0.4 rotations and 3.6±1.0 additional criteria: 0.9±0.6 criteria during the throw, 1.7±0.6 criteria of body rotation during the fly of apparatus and 1.0±0.7 criteria during catch. The DER variables were analyzed per apparatus and no significant differences were found between the ranking groups in all apparatus (Table 4). However, we can highlight some results observed. The ribbon routines have the higher number of rotations and additional criteria of body rotation in all groups analyzed, however, these routines have a low number of additional criteria performed mainly during throw and catch of the apparatus. The additional criteria are more used in hoop and clubs routines than in ball and ribbon routines. Among these additional criteria, we verified higher number of body rotations criteria during the fly of the apparatus in all apparatus and groups, except in finalists hoop routines. The hoop routines showed a high and similar number of the three additional criteria performed in the DER (during the throw, fly and catch of the apparatus). In ball routines, we observed a low number of additional criteria performed only during the throw of the apparatus. In these routines, the DER have a higher number of criteria during the fly and catch of the apparatus. In the clubs routines, we can see a low number of additional criteria performed during apparatus catch only. Therefore, the additional criteria of throw are more used in hoop and clubs routines, and the criteria of catch of apparatus in hoop and ball routines. Pearson Correlation Through of Pearson Correlation (Table 5) were found the significant correlations between variables of study. The positive correlations show that these variables favor the final score, and the negative correlations mean that the increase in the number of these variables reflects negatively on the respective score. Increases in the number of additional criteria of body rotations in imply a decrease in the gymnasts' final score. Routines with higher number of masteries with NFGE, departure difficulty score and difficulty score in the competition presented higher final scores. Science of Gymnastics Journal 182 Science of Gymnastics Journal Batista A., Garganta R., Avila-Carvalho L.: DANCE STEPS, DYNAMIC ELEMENTS.... Vol. 9 Issue 2: 177 - 189 Table 3 Number of masteries elements with fundamental and non-fundamental group elements in Rhythmic Gymnastics routines clustered according to their ranking position. Apparatus Ranking groups Total Number M Number M with Number M with Min Max x±sd FGE (x±sd) NFGE (x±sd) General (all Finalists (n=64) 2 8 4.31±1.56 2.11*±1.93 2.52*±1.14 apparatus) 2nd Group (n=112) 1 10 4.14±1.95 2.22±2.09 2.30±1.24 3rd Group (n=112) 0 13 4.57±2.71 2.78*±2.33 2.02*±1.22 Hoop Finalists (n=16) 3 7 4.56±0.96 2.81±1.64 2.56*±1.03 O 2nd Group (n=28) 2 10 5.04±1.77 3.54±1.93 2.11±0.92 3rd Group (n=28) 1 10 4.54±2.32 3.46±2.20 1.46*±1.04 Ball Finalists (n=16) 4 8 5.88±1.26 3.94±1.73 2.19±1.33 • 2nd Group (n=28) 2 10 5.21±2.10 3.50±1.93 1.96±1.23 3rd Group (n=28) 1 13 6.32±3.38 4.14±2.55 2.32±1.39 Clubs Finalists (n=16) 2 6 3.63±1.15 0.88*±0.96 2.88±1.15 1! 2nd Group (n=28) 1 6 3.54±1.32 0.71*±0.94 2.93±1.25 3rd Group (n=28) 0 10 3.93±2.05 1,71*±1.49 2.25±1.18 Ribbon Finalists (n=16) 2 6 3.19±1.38 0.81±1.28 2.44±1.03 w . 2nd Group (n=28) 1 6 2.79±1.42 1.14±1.60 2.21±1.37 3rd Group (n=28) 1 9 3.50±2.11 1.79±2.04 2.04±1.10 Total number of Dance Steps and FGE 7 6 5 4 3 1 1 0 Number of Number of Dance Steps FGE Number of Dance Steps per apparatus 6 < < i > t ' i i 0 Hoop Ball Clubs Ribbon Number of FGE per apparatus 7 6 5 4 3 I 2 1 0 Hoop Ball Clubs Ribbon Finalists -•- 2nd Group -•- 3rd Group Figure 1. Dance steps data presented in the Rhythmic Gymnastics routines clustered according to their ranking position. Masteries combinations: bases (B) and criteria (C) 4 3 2 ¡1 || I - 1 0 -- - — 2B+2C 2B+1C 1-4 Finalists 1B+2C 1B+3C 1B+4C 2B+3C ■ 2nd Group ■ 3rd Group Figure 2. Combinations of bases and criteria in masteries in Rhythmic Gymnastics routines clustered according to their ranking position. Science of Gymnastics Journal 183 Science of Gymnastics Journal Batista A., Garganta R., Avila-Carvalho L.: DANCE STEPS, DYNAMIC ELEMENTS.... Vol. 9 Issue 2: 177 - 189 Table 4 Number of rotations and additional criteria performed in the DER per apparatus in the Rhythmic Gymnastics routines clustered according to their ranking position. Apparatus Ranking groups N° Rotations Total n° add N° add criteria N° add criteria N° add criteria (x±sd) criteria (x±sd) Throw (x±sd) BD (x±sd) Catch (x±sd) Hoop Finalists (n=16) 3.12±0.49 4.25±1.05 1.02±0.55 1.38±0.74 1.85±0.49 o : 2nd Group (n=28) 3.24±0.39 4.42±0.84 1.27±0.1 1.66±0.61 1.49±0.65 3rd Group (n=28) 3.10±0.43 4.25±0.73 1.04±0.50 1.67±0.57 1.55±0.60 Ball Finalists (n=16) 3.04±0.34 3.19±0.70 0.33±0.32 1.54±0.74 1.31±0.65 • 2nd Group (n=28) 3.16±0.33 2.91±0.61 0.29±0.31 1.51±0.52 1.11±0.51 3rd Group (n=28) 3.07±0.52 3.29±0.81 0.37±0.29 1.74±0.76 1,18±0.58 Clubs Finalists (n=16) 3.19±0.32 4.21±0.47 1.67±0.52 1.73±0.56 0.81±0.50 1Î 2nd Group (n=28) 3.35±0.39 3.85±0.93 1.33±0.59 1.81±0.64 0.70±0.58 3rd Group (n=28) 3.27±0.37 3.92±0.90 1.30±0.51 1.89±0.55 0.73±0.51 Ribbon Finalists (n=16) 3.69±0.31 3.02±0.71 0.73±0.39 1.81±0.61 0.48±0.60 m . 2nd Group (n=28) 3.54±0.38 3.19±0.66 0.73±0.34 2.02±0.51 0.44±0.43 3rd Group (n=28) 3.39±0.54 3.00±0.93 0.75±0.47 1.92±0.66 0.33±0.41 50 36.6% (1.8 M/routine) M DJ C 40 40.2% J (1-4 M/routine) O 30 (1.4 M/routine) 20 10 0 T I 1 T T 'I- T 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Number of M + Difficulty M */\ M +T M +¿ y Finalists ■ 2nd Group ■ 3rd Group Legend: M - Masteries; /\ - jumps/leaps; T- balances; A - rotations Figure 3. Masteries performed during a body difficulty elements in the Rhythmic Gymnastics routines clustered according to their ranking position. Table 5 Dependent Variable Independent Variables Proof value Pearson Correlation N° Masteries with NFGE p=0.002* 0.184 Final Score in the competition N° add criteria of body rotation (DER) p=0.002* -0.190 Departure difficulty score p<0.001* 0.540 Difficulty Score in competition p<0.001* 0.962 Legend: NFGE - non-fundamental groups apparatus elements; DER - dynamic elements with rotation and throw; * p <0.05: Significant differences DISCUSSION At every 4 years, at the end of the Olympic cycle, the RG-CoP changes and as a consequence of the constant and quick evolution of this sport, a permanent upgrade of studies about the composition of competition routines in RG are essential to know the direction in which RG is evolving (Bucar et al., 2013; Caburrasi & Santana, 2003; Čuk et al., 2012; Hokelmann et al., 2012; Massidda & Calô, 2012; Pelin, 2013). Science of Gymnastics Journal 184 Science of Gymnastics Journal Batista A., Garganta R., Avila-Carvalho L.: DANCE STEPS, DYNAMIC ELEMENTS.... Vol. 9 Issue 2: 177 - 189 Dance steps The groups analyzed presented similar characteristics for the dance steps: similar number of dance steps and FGE performed. Therefore, these results showed that the main characteristics of the dance steps presented in the competition routines do not differ the gymnasts according to the ranking position, but the number of validated dance steps by the judges can differentiate them. However, Leandro et al. (2015) verified significant differences in agreement and disagreement on the dance steps evaluation between judges, demonstrating a high variability in the evaluation, probably due to lack of precision in the type of evaluation proposed by the RG-CoP. The authors explain that the dance steps have as criteria to be validate, the duration of at least 8 seconds, evaluated without a stopwatch or other device, but through the sensibility of the judge, and can be serious influenced by the music rhythm. Leandro et al. (2015) recommend that the RG-CoP should include more precise definitions of the technical requirements. Simoes (2000) explains that precise criteria allow a correct judgment of performance, due to the possibility of be understood equally by the various evaluators. We observed that all groups presented a higher number of dance steps in ribbon routines, probably because of the deformable characteristics of the apparatus and the dance steps can bring greater beauty to the compositions. And also, perhaps, due to the length of the ribbon, the gymnasts have to maintain themselves in movement during the all routine duration to avoid the end of ribbon to touch the floor and consequent penalization (FIG, 2012). Therefore, they could choose the dance steps as a way to improve the continuous movement of this apparatus. The clubs routines had the higher number of FGE in each dance step in all groups analyzed, probably because the FGE in these apparatus are technical elements performed with a fast execution. So the gymnast can perform a higher number of apparatus movements in dance steps, showing apparatus mastery. The inclusion of complex abilities in the routines is essential to have a high score in the competition (Massidda & Calo, 2012). Masteries A similar number of masteries were found in all groups. As in dance steps, these results suggest that the number of the masteries presented in the gymnasts' official Difficulty forms do not differentiate the gymnasts according to the ranking position. However, we observed that the 3rd group presented a higher number of masteries than the remaining groups and this ranking position also showed a high range in number of masteries. In the finalists' routines we verified a lower number of masteries. We believe that these results can be motivated for two reasons. The best gymnasts normally present better physical and artistic capacities for the sport, which allows them to perform more and higher level elements with complex execution (Bobo & Sierra, 2006), while the less able gymnasts can resort to the masteries elements that depends especially on coordination, to increase the difficulty value of their routines. Furthermore, the higher number of masteries can be justified by lack of precision of the rules in RG-CoP (FIG, 2012) for these elements: the mastery must be unique and extraordinary because they are not performed on a regular basis as standard apparatus movements in RG. The masteries are complex apparatus handling and probably, several proposed elements in the official Difficulty forms were not considered by the judges as masteries. So we believe that the number of valid masteries elements executed without faults can also differentiate the gymnasts. However, according to Leandro et al. (2015) the masteries evaluation has a high disagreement between judges (62.5%). For the authors, the definition of Science of Gymnastics Journal 185 Science of Gymnastics Journal Batista A., Garganta R., Avila-Carvalho L.: DANCE STEPS, DYNAMIC ELEMENTS.... Vol. 9 Issue 2: 177 - 189 "extraordinary apparatus elements" presented in RG-CoP is vague to allow an accurate evaluate and could be also influenced by the international experience of the judges. Therefore, the preference for the use of masteries can be part of justification of low results in 3 rd group. The routines (ball, clubs and ribbon) of this group had more number of masteries. Probably, these gymnasts present a high departure difficulty score with elements that, in reality, they can not to perform correctly. There is an overvaluation of departure score and there is not a direct relationship to real performance capabilities of the gymnast (Leandro et al., 2016a). We observed that in all groups analyzed there is a higher number of masteries in ball and hoop routines. We can also speculate that in ribbon and clubs routines the gymnasts invest more in dance steps than in masteries due the more execution difficulty in these apparatus and, probably, the opposite happens in ball and hoop routines. The mastery consists of, at least, 1 base (1B) - FGE and/or NFGE, plus a minimum 2 criteria (2C). Or 2 bases (2B) plus minimum 1 criteria (1C). Although we observed 6 different combinations of bases and criteria, the most routines presented the combination 1 base plus 2 criteria, probably because this is the easiest combination of bases and criteria required by the RG-CoP. Through the analysis we also found that the higher the ranking position, higher the number of NFGE and lower the number of FGE used in masteries. Therefore, the finalists showed more NFGE and less FGE in masteries than the other groups analyzed. The NFGE more used in masteries were apparatus handling, throws and catches in all apparatus. The routines of the lower ranking position had a higher number of masteries with FGE than finalists in all apparatus routines. The masteries are spectacular elements (FIG, 2012) and when performed during body difficulty they become more complex to execute without faults. The results found showed that the lower the ranking position, higher the number of masteries in body difficulty elements per routine. Considering only the data of competitive routines with masteries in body difficulty elements, we observed 1.4 masteries in body difficulty elements per finalist and 2nd group routine, while a higher number of masteries in body difficulty (1.8) was verified per 3rd group routine. These data also can probably be one of the justifications for the ranking position. According to Leandro et al. (2016a), rotations, masteries and DER have a higher contribution to the difference between departure and final difficulty score, due the more possibilities of technical faults which cancel the value of the difficulty, mainly the weaker gymnasts. These complex difficulty elements demand a lot of training hours, a singular coordination and high apparatus technical domain (Vitrichenko et al., 2011). To obtain top scores, the gymnasts should present routines with a high difficulty level combined with good performance quality (Agopyan, 2014). The inferior execution quality of middle and lower ranked gymnasts suggest that the coaches do not have a real perception of the performance capacity of their gymnasts in these types of difficulty elements (Leandro et al., 2016a). Dynamic elements with Rotation and throw (DER) DER are complex elements with body rotations during the fly of the apparatus. All groups analyzed presented the maximum number of DER in routines with similar number of criteria. These results suggest that the characteristics of DER presented in the gymnasts' official Difficulty forms also do not discriminate the ranking position. However, the number of valid DER or valid criteria can cause a distinction between the gymnasts. Leandro et al. (2016a) verified a high difference in Science of Gymnastics Journal 186 Science of Gymnastics Journal Batista A., Garganta R., Avila-Carvalho L.: DANCE STEPS, DYNAMIC ELEMENTS.... Vol. 9 Issue 2: 177 - 189 the departure and final difficulty score in DER elements in different ranking groups analyzed, although this difference increases as the gymnasts go lower in the ranking. Through the analysis, we observed that for all groups, the lower the weight of apparatus, higher the body rotations number in DER performed in the routines. The weight of apparatus according to the Apparatus Norm (FIG, 2016) is the following: ribbon (35g minimum without the cane); clubs (150g minimum each); hoop (300g minimum) and ball (400g minimum). In the additional criteria performed during the throw of the apparatus, the groups analyzed presented lower results in ball and ribbon routines, and higher results in clubs and hoop routines; these differences are probably justified by the higher number of specific additional criteria in clubs and hoop routines presented in the RG-CoP (FIG, 2012). There are nine different types of additional criteria of throw (Table 3) in DER, however, 77.8% of these criteria can be used in clubs and hoop routines, while 44.3% in ball and ribbon routines. Furthermore, in the additional criteria performed during the catch of the apparatus, we observed that the gymnasts presented higher results in hoop and ball routines, and lower results in clubs and ribbon routines. Equally, we believe that the higher number of specific additional criteria in hoop and ball routines presented in the RG-CoP (FIG, 2012) explains this difference. There are nine different types of additional criteria of catch (Table 3) in DER, however, 77.8% of these criteria can be used in hoop and ball routines, while 66.8% in clubs and ribbon routines. Similarly to the study by Leandro et al. (2016b), the most used criteria in DER were: "change of level", "change of body rotation axis", "throw/catch outside of visual control" and "throw/catch without the help of the hands". Pearson Correlation The small number of significant correlations among the analyzed variables is justified probably because the gymnasts have similar characteristics in all difficulty elements presented in the routines. However, we highlight the positive correlation between the masteries with NFGE and the final scores. The apparatus elements (NFGE) more used were the throw and catch of the apparatus. CONCLUSION The groups analyzed (finalists, 2nd and 3rd group) presented similar number of difficulty elements (dance steps, masteries and DER) in the official Difficulty forms in all apparatus. Furthermore, the difficulty level also was similar in the dance steps and DER. The similarity observed in these difficulty elements studied in the composition of routines in different apparatus in RG can compromise the originality and variety of this sport. As we only have access to the official Difficulty forms delivered by the coaches and not evaluated by the judges, we believe that the real differences in the groups reside mostly in the validation or invalidation by the judges of the difficulty elements presented in the official Difficulty forms and in the execution quality of the gymnasts in competition. The best gymnasts (finalists) and the remaining groups showed routines with some different characteristics although without statistical significance, especially in the masteries elements. We observed that the higher of the ranking position, lower the number of combinations of base and criteria in the masteries, higher the number of NFGE and lower the number of FGE in the masteries. The routines with worse results in the competition presented high data range and higher number of masteries. Therefore, it seems that the coaches of the best gymnasts are more realistic in intention to accomplish the requirement and complexity of the Science of Gymnastics Journal 187 Science of Gymnastics Journal Batista A., Garganta R., Avila-Carvalho L.: DANCE STEPS, DYNAMIC ELEMENTS.... Vol. 9 Issue 2: 177 - 189 elements inscribed on the Difficulty official forms. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to thank the Gymnastics Federation of Portugal for providing the official form Difficulty of the 2013 and 2014 Lisbon World Cup. REFERENCES Agopyan, A. (2014). Analysis of Body Movement Difficulties of Individual Elite Rhythmic Gymnasts at London 2012 Olympic Games Finals. Journal of Scientific Research, 19(12), 1554-1565. Ávila-Carvalho, L., Klentrou, P., Palomero, M. L., & Lebre, E. (2012). Body composition profile of elite group rhythmic gymnasts. Science of Gymnastics Journal 4(1), 21-32. Ávila-Carvalho, L., Palomero, M. L., & Lebre, E. (2010). Apparatus difficulty in groups routines of elite rhythmic gymnastics at the Portimao 2009 World Cup Series. Science of Gymnastics Journal, 2, 29-42. Bobo, B., & Sierra, E. (2006). Estudio de las repercusiones de los cambios de código de puntuación en la composición de los ejercicios de gimnasia rítmica en la técnica corporal. IV Congreso Internacional de la Asociación Española de Ciencias del Deporte. Breitkreutz, T., & Hokelmann, A. (2012). Performance analysis in individual competitions in rhythmic gymnastics. World Congress of Performance Analysis of Sport IX University of Worcester. Bucar, P., Cuk, I., Pajek, J., Kovac, M., & Leskosek, B. (2013). Is the Quality of Judging in Women Artistic Gymnastics Equvalent at Major Competitions of Different Levels? Journal of Human Kinetics 37, 173-181. Caburrasi, E., & Santana, M. (2003). Análisis de las dificultades corporales en los Campeonatos Europeos de Gimnasia Rítmica Deportiva, Granada 2002 [www.efdeportes.com/efd65/grd.htm], 9(65). Consulted 21-Nov-2016. Čuk, I., Fink, H., & Leskošek, B. (2012). Modeling The final score in Artistic Gymnastics by different weights of difficulty and execution. Science Gymnastics Journal 4, 73-82. Fernandez-Villarino, M., M, B.-A., & Sierra-Palmeiro, E. (2013). Practical Skills of Rhythmic Gymnastics Judges. Journal of Human Kinetics, 39, 243-249. Ferreirinha, J., Carvalho, J., Corte-Real, C., & Silva, A. (2011). Evolugao do Valor Real de Dificuldade dos Exercícios de Paralelas Assimétricas de Ginástas de Elite nos Ultimos Ciclos Olímpicos. Communication presented in From Practice to Science: Formation, learning and training in gymnastics. Gymnastics Federation of Portugal. FIG. (2012). Code of Points for Rhythmic Gymnastics: 2013-2016 [http://www.fig- gymnastics.com/site/page/view?id=472]. FIG. (2016). Apparatus Norms [http://www.fig- gymnastics.com/publicdir/rules/files/app- norms/Apparatus_Norms_I-III_2016- e.pdf]. Hokelmann, A., & Blaser, P. (2006). Quantitative movement analysis of gymnastic performances in group competitions for qualitative assessment and for performance comparison. WCPAS7 Berzsenyi Daniel College. Hokelmann, A., Breitkreutz, T., & Liviotti, G. (2012). Changes in performance structure during group competitions in rhythmic gymnastics. World Congress of Performance Analysis of Sport IX University of Worcester. Hokelmann, A., Liviotti, G., & Breitkreutz, T. (2013). Rhythmic Gymnastics. In P. O. D. a. J. S. Tim McGarry (Ed.), Routledge Handbook of Sports Performance Analysis. New York: Routledge. Leandro, C., Ávila-Carvalho, L., Sierra-Palmeiro, E., & Bobo-Arce, M. (2015). Accuracy in judgment: The Science of Gymnastics Journal 188 Science of Gymnastics Journal Batista A., Garganta R., Avila-Carvalho L.: DANCE STEPS, DYNAMIC ELEMENTS.... Vol. 9 Issue 2: 177 - 189 L., M. Vs of difficulty score in elite rhythmic gymnastics individual routines. Science of Gymnastics Journal, 7(3), 81-93. Leandro, C., Ávila-Carvalho, Sierra-Palmeiro, E., & Bobo-Arce, (2016a). Departure Difficulty Score Final Difficulty Score. The Effect Performance in Elite Rhythmic Gymnastics. Athens Journal of Sports, 3(3), 169-177. Leandro, C., Ávila-Carvalho, L., Sierra-Palmeiro, E., & Bobo-Arce, M. (2016b). Technical content of elite Rhythmic Gymnastics. Science of Gymnastics Journal 5(1), 85-96. Lebre, E. (1993). Estudo comparativo das exigencias técnicas e morfofuncionais em Ginástica Rítmica Desportiva. Porto: Faculty of Sport - University of Porto. Doctoral thesis. Lisitskaya, T. (1995). Preparación coreográfica. Barcelona: Deporte and Entrenamiento. Massidda, M., & Calo, M. (2012). Performance scores and standings during the 43rd Artistic Gymnastics World Championships, 2011. Journal of Sports Sciences, 30(13), 1415-1420. Oliveira, M. M. M. d., Louren9o, M. R. A., & Teixeira, D. d. C. (2004). Incidencias de lesoes nas equipes de Ginástica Rítmica da UNOPAR. UNOPAR Científica Ciencias Biológicas e da Saúde, 5/6(1), 29-40. Pelin, R. (2013). Studies Regarding The Rhythmic Gymnastics From The Olympic Games. Sport si Societate: Revista de Educatie Fizica, Sport si Stiinte Conexe, 13, 61-69. Simoes, G. (2000). desempenho Docente. Editora. Trifunov, T., & (2013). The structure of difficulties in the routines of the best world and serbian rhythmic gymnasts. Physical Culture, 67(2), 120-129. Vitrichenko, N., Klentrou, N., Gorbulina, N., Della Chiaie, D., & Fink, H. (2011). Rhythmic Gymnastics. Technical Manual. Level 3. . In FIG (Ed.). Lousanne: FIG Academy. A avaliagao do Lisboa: Texto Slobodanka, D. Corresponding author: Amanda Batista Sports Faculty Porto University-Gymnastics Rua da Arrabida n° 502 1°andar hab. 06 Lordelo do Ouro Porto Porto 4150109, Portugal e-mail: amandabatistagrd@yahoo.com.br Science of Gymnastics Journal 189 Science of Gymnastics Journal Batista A., Garganta R., Avila-Carvalho L.: DANCE STEPS, DYNAMIC ELEMENTS.... Vol. 9 Issue 2: 177 - 189 Science of Gymnastics Journal 190 Science of Gymnastics Journal