All-Star Cali Ghost Recon Lost Their Paid Bid?

[MissCongeniality]

So say if 2 teams from the same gym got a paid bid at the same competition and they had a cross over, which team would that athlete have to compete on?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The one they announce second ;)

 

[AScheer]

So say if 2 teams from the same gym got a paid bid at the same competition and they had a cross over, which team would that athlete have to compete on?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would assume the team that competed later in the day since that would be the last team the athlete competed with.

 

[AScheer]

If there were only 2 athletes in question, wouldn't it have made more sense for the WHOLE if those two athletes stayed with GR? Both teams can keep their paid bids. No rules broken. No money wasted. It's not like it's a bunch of kids, it's 2. From my understanding they came from 2 separate teams to begin with. The two teams they came from can surely find a replacement for 1 athlete each without it being a massive blow to the original team. I just think that would have been the easier solution and the one that better benefits the program as a whole. I'm not in this situation though so maybe I'm missing something that makes this not a possibility?

 

[Beans100]

If there were only 2 athletes in question, wouldn't it have made more sense for the WHOLE if those two athletes stayed with GR? Both teams can keep their paid bids. No rules broken. No money wasted. It's not like it's a bunch of kids, it's 2. From my understanding they came from 2 separate teams to begin with. The two teams they came from can surely find a replacement for 1 athlete each without it being a massive blow to the original team. I just think that would have been the easier solution and the one that better benefits the program as a whole. I'm not in this situation though so maybe I'm missing something that makes this not a possibility?

Well, if you send "point jumper, super tumbler, star flyer Susie" to help out another team, you probably don't want to lose them. I'm guessing that they used 2 athletes who were really great athletes to fill in and the original teams couldn't afford/didn't want to lose that talent.

 

[dawgshow]

Well, if you send "point jumper, super tumbler, star flyer Susie" to help out another team, you probably don't want to lose them. I'm guessing that they used 2 athletes who were really great athletes to fill in and the original teams couldn't afford/didn't want to lose that talent.

But...but...one athlete doesn't make a difference on a team. That's usually the argument I hear to justify L5 athletes crossing down to L2.

 

[Momof1now]

If there were only 2 athletes in question, wouldn't it have made more sense for the WHOLE if those two athletes stayed with GR? Both teams can keep their paid bids. No rules broken. No money wasted. It's not like it's a bunch of kids, it's 2. From my understanding they came from 2 separate teams to begin with. The two teams they came from can surely find a replacement for 1 athlete each without it being a massive blow to the original team. I just think that would have been the easier solution and the one that better benefits the program as a whole. I'm not in this situation though so maybe I'm missing something that makes this not a possibility?

Both athletes in question are on Ops, one male, one female.

 

[SL&AM]

Both athletes in question are on Ops, one male, one female.

If memory serves me correctly the female is a strong back spot and I doubt they want to lose her.


*What did we even do before the invention of Google?*

 

[Beans100]

But...but...one athlete doesn't make a difference on a team. That's usually the argument I hear to justify L5 athletes crossing down to L2.

Very true, but a team can suffer if they lose a key player... Think back to when Kiara Nowlin was on Smoed. Losing her would have made a big difference on the team. Or, losing 1 boy can highly impact a team as finding a strong level 5 boy isn't as easy.

 

[randomactsofcheer]

If there were only 2 athletes in question, wouldn't it have made more sense for the WHOLE if those two athletes stayed with GR? Both teams can keep their paid bids. No rules broken. No money wasted. It's not like it's a bunch of kids, it's 2. From my understanding they came from 2 separate teams to begin with. The two teams they came from can surely find a replacement for 1 athlete each without it being a massive blow to the original team. I just think that would have been the easier solution and the one that better benefits the program as a whole. I'm not in this situation though so maybe I'm missing something that makes this not a possibility?

Maybe the two athletes were injured enough to be unable to compete at this comp, but will have recovered in time for Worlds and want to compete with their team?

 

[ACEDAD]

I'm way late to the party here, but a couple of thoughts:

1. I would really like to know for sure (and sorry if I missed it) whether the paid bid was declined within the 72 hours after the comp. I think that is a critical piece of information.
2. This is the kind of situation where USASF really should issue a clarifying notice of some kind explaining exactly what happened. A rules interpretation decision, especially on a new rule, cries out for it.
3. Assuming Cali declined within the 72 hour period, I don't mind USASF explaining the potential consequences of a rule. However, I really don't like the example given above of Les helping a gym get around a penalty of cheating the year before. That should NOT be a service of the rules governing body.
4. I do think USASF should fix the use of the words "earned, awarded and accepted" in this rule.
5. With all that said, I do love the intent of the rule.
6. Finally, if I had a CP on GR, I would be discussing how Cali is going to provide the paid bid equivalent $ for the World's trip. Winning and losing as a team is fine, but show me the money.


**A cheer year and a dog year ages you the same.**

 

[luv2cheer92]

I'm way late to the party here, but a couple of thoughts:

1. I would really like to know for sure (and sorry if I missed it) whether the paid bid was declined within the 72 hours after the comp. I think that is a critical piece of information.
2. This is the kind of situation where USASF really should issue a clarifying notice of some kind explaining exactly what happened. A rules interpretation decision, especially on a new rule, cries out for it.
3. Assuming Cali declined within the 72 hour period, I don't mind USASF explaining the potential consequences of a rule. However, I really don't like the example given above of Les helping a gym get around a penalty of cheating the year before. That should NOT be a service of the rules governing body.
4. I do think USASF should fix the use of the words "earned, awarded and accepted" in this rule.
5. With all that said, I do love the intent of the rule.
6. Finally, if I had a CP on GR, I would be discussing how Cali is going to provide the paid bid equivalent $ for the World's trip. Winning and losing as a team is fine, but show me the money.


**A cheer year and a dog year ages you the same.**

I believe it was said that the bid was declined within 72 hours. The team who ended up getting that bid posted about it within that timeframe.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

 

[MomMomMamaMom]

I'm way late to the party here, but a couple of thoughts:

1. I would really like to know for sure (and sorry if I missed it) whether the paid bid was declined within the 72 hours after the comp. I think that is a critical piece of information.
2. This is the kind of situation where USASF really should issue a clarifying notice of some kind explaining exactly what happened. A rules interpretation decision, especially on a new rule, cries out for it.
3. Assuming Cali declined within the 72 hour period, I don't mind USASF explaining the potential consequences of a rule. However, I really don't like the example given above of Les helping a gym get around a penalty of cheating the year before. That should NOT be a service of the rules governing body.
4. I do think USASF should fix the use of the words "earned, awarded and accepted" in this rule.
5. With all that said, I do love the intent of the rule.
6. Finally, if I had a CP on GR, I would be discussing how Cali is going to provide the paid bid equivalent $ for the World's trip. Winning and losing as a team is fine, but show me the money.


**A cheer year and a dog year ages you the same.**

They tried to accept the bid, but submitted a roster without the two athletes in it. Someone( not clear if it was USASF or EP) notified them that roster was incorrect, and that accepting this bid would require them to follow this rule, at which point the bid was declined. This occurred around the 72 hour period. Handed down bid was announced publicly near the end of the 4th day.

I agree, a rule clarification is probably in order, though I think that they tried to do this originally by adding in "awarded" in the second sentence of the rule.

I agree that the poor Cali parents and athletes bore the brunt of this fiasco. I am guessing they were given the option as to if they wanted to still go and opted to travel on the at large. I can't imagine a gym being able to front the $650 for each athlete though. Not sure how many are actually on that team, but since it's a large team I'm guessing that would be a considerable expense.

From my understanding, this comp was not originally on their schedule. And one of the in question replacements occurred because an athlete could not accommodate the change. So sad. People keep saying it was a $1000 comp for the team. Which begs the question of if it was even a great choice to go for a $650 bid to begin with.

ETA: I'm guessing that $1000 must have been less for some of the team... To make his worth it. I'm also hopeful that the gym at least credited the families the comp fee for USA.

 

[5-6-7-8]

They tried to accept the bid, but submitted a roster without the two athletes in it. Someone( not clear if it was USASF or EP) notified them that roster was incorrect, and that accepting this bid would require them to follow this rule, at which point the bid was declined. This occurred around the 72 hour period. Handed down bid was announced publicly near the end of the 4th day.
...

Ok this little bit of info makes me mad. If it is true then it shows Cali knew the rule and made a conscious effort to get around it (by omitting the 2 athletes' names.)

In the future I think if any team/gym submits a bid declaration they should be held to that (meaning if you say you will accept a paid / at-large then you should...no 72 hour rule to check rosters and see how it best fits the gym.)

 

[MomMomMamaMom]

Ok this little bit of info makes me mad. If it is true then it shows Cali knew the rule and made a conscious effort to get around it (by omitting the 2 athletes' names.)

In the future I think if any team/gym submits a bid declaration they should be held to that (meaning if you say you will accept a paid / at-large then you should...no 72 hour rule to check rosters and see how it best fits the gym.)

Not necessarily true. They state( and I believe) that they were unaware of the rule. They thought they could use substitutions the same way they had in the past, and could put the original team members from Ghost back on. When they were made aware of he new rule, they opted not to accept the bid.

 

[AScheer]

Maybe the two athletes were injured enough to be unable to compete at this comp, but will have recovered in time for Worlds and want to compete with their team?

There are two openings on black ops in this scenario. It may be unfortunate but the two originally injured could take their replacements hole that is now on ops. If the fill in was put in the spot then they have a similar skill set, i.e. Backspot, base etc.

It may not be ideal for the two fill ins or the two injured but is it better to accommodate 2-4 athletes or 30? (Estimated. I don't know the team size) For me the decision is easy looking at the situation as a whole. Plus I think catering to an athlete or two over others sets a bad precedence. I'm not personally in this so I can't judge why they did it the way the did, just offering another view that I haven't seen yet discussed on this thread.