All-Star A Night With The Popes.

[Mclovin]

Does the USASF say "An athlete may not be on the floor more than three times" or does it say "An athlete may not COMPETE more than three times"?

A few pages up I posted exactly what it says regarding crossovers. I believe the phrase was something to the effect of "crossing over" to 2 additional teams. It did not specify competing vs. performing. Just BEING on 2 additional teams.

 

[Rudags]

A few pages up I posted exactly what it says regarding crossovers. I believe the phrase was something to the effect of "crossing over" to 2 additional teams. It did not specify competing vs. performing. Just BEING on 2 additional teams.

Semantics. I see both sides, I just don't feel an exhibition is a team since they normally don't pay.

 

[CoachMandiCF]

If a choreographer comes in and gives me a stunt and tells me it is legal and I compete said stunt and get deducted, it is ultimately my fault because I as a coach should know the rules. Yes the choreographer told me it was legal but I still need to check the rules.

 

[tumbleyoda]

I completely and totally agree and I remember when that happened. And I was harping on the USASF for that mistake as well! And I 1000% agree that CS needs to be liable. I think I've made that clear. My comments on this thread aren't to continue bashing CEA for their mistake. They have done what they were asked to do to rectify it. I initially posted on this thread to clarify what the actual USASF rules stated. Then I got sucked in to the debate. For the record, I would be harping on this regardless of what gym had done it.

Most of us would be harping on it regardless of what ever gym had done it or whatever competition company allowed it. That in itself is not anti CEA but somehow always gets twisted to that position by those who are protecting their program, owner, etc which makes discussing the real issues nearly impossible.

It is like I said a few years ago. Anytime you post anything that is remotely connected with CEA that is not gushing of praise you have to put a disclaimer in your post or else.

 

[Mclovin]

Semantics. I see both sides, I just don't feel an exhibition is a team since they normally don't pay.

The rule was not to prevent a gym from having an unfair advantage. It was to protect the safety of the athlete from "over" performing thus causing more chances for injury. 4 teams is WAY too many regardless if one was exhibitioning or not. Knowing that it was 4 level 5 teams makes it even harder to understand...

 

[Rudags]

If a choreographer comes in and gives me a stunt and tells me it is legal and I compete said stunt and get deducted, it is ultimately my fault because I as a coach should know the rules. Yes the choreographer told me it was legal but I still need to check the rules.

To me.... a choreographer is not a person of authority. And stunts sometimes have various grey areas. Even if you get a BLATANT illegal stunt that is obvious (example: Toe Touch Basket in Level 2) - I agree it is the coaches fault. But choreographers aren't hired to give you legal routines, they are hired to give you pretty routines.

 

[CGAcheer]

I (and I think others) feel like this:
The teams in the other divisions she was on teams for probably feel differently. If you go against a gym that breaks a rule, you'd generally want it to be rectified. Yes, there was no competition in THAT division. But since most people are saying they should have to forfeit any titles won in ALL FOUR divisions she competed in, since there really is no way to choose which team would be "the 4th". You could interpret the "last" team she was on to be different things. Obviously CEA would say the YR5 since it's the one that she supposedly wasn't going to compete on, but I would say whatever team she competed last on the schedule (as in "last" in terms of time of day). If that wasn't YR5, then whatever team they competed last in the day should forfeit titles. If that was one of the other divisions then the 2nd place team is owed jackets. THAT'S why it matters. I'll bet it matters a whole lot to that gym.

Also, I think most people feel if you break a rule, you should be stripped of all titles and prizes for the teams that were involved.

As for "They could have laid down on the floor for 2.5 minutes and got banners and jackets"...then what was the need to break the rule? Why not go out there and do the routine without her, since it was so simple that they didn't really need to do anything? Why was is so necessary to make a big deal of asking permission, and having the rules "bent" (broken)?

Because with the situation as it was having no competition, they were using cheersport as a practice for Dallas the next weekend

 

[Rudags]

The rule was not to prevent a gym from having an unfair advantage. It was to protect the safety of the athlete from "over" performing thus causing more chances for injury. 4 teams is WAY too many regardless if one was exhibitioning or not. Knowing that it was 4 level 5 teams makes it even harder to understand...

I agree 4 teams is a lot - but to each their own. What works for CEA might not work Rudags Allstars. I feel in my prime, I could have done four level 5 routines in one day. I also don't know the circumstances. Maybe this girl throws watered down tumbling in some routines. Maybe not, too? Who knows.

If rules are made to truly protect the safety of the athletes, and USASF is concerned about safety - Why not train coaches better? Why not make execution worth more? Why not eliminate gray areas better?

 

[CGAcheer]

Ah, so that explains why I can't find it now - I'm glad I'm not losing my mind! But wouldn't the definition have been in effect last year when this mess happened?

No, they never came up with a suitable definition. Those were potential ones that were floating around and were being voted on but nothing really happened with it

 

[Mclovin]

Because with the situation as it was having no competition, they were using cheersport as a practice for Dallas the next weekend

So in the process of "practicing" for Dallas, they won jackets and a banner all the while having an illegal athlete on the floor?? Why is this okay to anyone??

 

[Mclovin]

I agree 4 teams is a lot - but to each their own. What works for CEA might not work Rudags Allstars. I feel in my prime, I could have done four level 5 routines in one day. I also don't know the circumstances. Maybe this girl throws watered down tumbling in some routines. Maybe not, too? Who knows.

If rules are made to truly protect the safety of the athletes, and USASF is concerned about safety - Why not train coaches better? Why not make execution worth more? Why not eliminate gray areas better?

Trust me Kyle, I agree with you!! But whether we agree with the rules and WHY they created them or not, we have to abide by them. I hate that they have eliminated certain tumbling skills...does that mean I should be able to have my worlds team throw standing doubles and not be punished for it? Because I believe I have taught my athletes correctly I should not have to abide by that rule??

ETA -- Should the event producer allow my team to throw those standing doubles because we are uncontested?? Absolutely not!!

 

[Rudags]

One year the rules read "Level 5 flips must be braced on one side" so Tribe did back tucks using the flyers pony tails. The following year they added "arm to arm connection." Was tribe penalized with a fine or deduction? No.

Two years ago (I think) Gymtyme Coed did an Illegal stunt (although it was deemed legal by Les) that went from Scorpion to prone position. It clearly said stunts could not land in the prone position. They got a FULL PAID bid. Did they get a fine? No. They also added prone positioning being okay in the rules this year.

I dont understand why so many others take grey areas and run with them (where innovation comes from) but only one person gets fined?

Could it be the fact she opened up a gym in Charlotte? Its a possibility.

Could it be the USASF is bitter she became known as a "ring-leader" against the USASF? Its a possibility.

Could it be a big conspiracy theory? Its a possibility.

We will never know, but for someone to get penalized when all these other gray areas have been issues in the past seems unprecedented.

 

[StarshipTrooper]

It is like I said a few years ago. Anytime you post anything that is remotely connected with CEA that is not gushing of praise you have to put a disclaimer in your post or else.

Not the spirit of this thread. I made my feelings clear. I was condemning the lynching of a couple on social media. The rest I have no problem with discussing, as stated early in the thread. Interestingly, even though I had the childs teams mixed up, the spirit of the discussion goes back to my claim both sides were wrong and the problem occured at registration. I'm sure we'll hear more. Carry on, Kingston likes the views.

 

[Rudags]

Trust me Kyle, I agree with you!! But whether we agree with the rules and WHY they created them or not, we have to abide by them. I hate that they have eliminated certain tumbling skills...does that mean I should be able to have my worlds team throw standing doubles and not be punished for it? Because I believe I have taught my athletes correctly I should not have to abide by that rule??

ETA -- Should the event producer allow my team to throw those standing doubles because we are uncontested?? Absolutely not!!

I agree. And you know I typically follow the rules, despite being out-spoken. Rules are one thing. Gray areas are another. I would be singing a different tune if all four teams willingly competed. I would be devastated someone I look up to cheated. However, that is not how I feel about the situation.

 

[Mclovin]

One year the rules read "Level 5 flips must be braced on one side" so Tribe did back tucks using the flyers pony tails. The following year they added "arm to arm connection." Was tribe penalized with a fine or deduction? No.

Two years ago (I think) Gymtyme Coed did an Illegal stunt (although it was deemed legal by Les) that went from Scorpion to prone position. It clearly said stunts could not land in the prone position. They got a FULL PAID bid. Did they get a fine? No. They also added prone positioning being okay in the rules this year.

I dont understand why so many others take grey areas and run with them (where innovation comes from) but only one person gets fined?

Could it be the fact she opened up a gym in Charlotte? Its a possibility.

Could it be the USASF is bitter she became known as a "ring-leader" against the USASF? Its a possibility.

Could it be a big conspiracy theory? Its a possibility.

We will never know, but for someone to get penalized when all these other gray areas have been issues in the past seems unprecedented.

I don't think there's a "grey area" in the crossover rule...It's pretty clear cut to me. The stunts, however, can clearly be seen as a grey area that the USASF cleared up the following year, whether that be by clearly stating what WAS allowed or allowing the skill to be performed altogether.