All-Star Cali Ghost Recon Lost Their Paid Bid?

[Ashley]

I don't think its right that they were given the option of "giving back" the bid and still using those kids on Ops. They should have to follow the same rules as everyone else. The rule clearly says that they must stay with the last team they earn a paid bid with. They earned the bid with Ghost Recon, they should have to compete with them at worlds or not be allowed to compete at all. It this had been No Name Athletics that's what would be happening.

You don't know that. First of all, if those Ops athletes weren't on Ghost Recon when they got their AL bid, then they're not eligible to compete with them at worlds.

It just seems really pedantic to me to force those athletes to compete with Ghost Recon at worlds. It doesn't even make sense based on the rules of bid eligibility. They're competing on the AL bid they got awhile ago. If they gave up/lost their paid bid, then that bid is completely irrelevant. I feel the intent of the rule is very clear. I don't think need they add to add an asterisk that says "please disregard if a team later decides to decline that bid."

If they didn't break the crossover rules, then giving up the paid bid seems like a perfectly valid "punishment." Let's not forget that they're an open team who just paid $4-5k to compete for nothing. That sounds like a pretty good punishment to me.

If they did break the crossover rules, then I would hope USASF institutes some other punishment.

 

[cheer25mom]

You don't know that. First of all, if those Ops athletes weren't on Ghost Recon when they got their AL bid, then they're not eligible to compete with them at worlds.

It just seems really pedantic to me to force those athletes to compete with Ghost Recon at worlds. It doesn't even make sense based on the rules of bid eligibility. They're competing on the AL bid they got awhile ago. If they gave up/lost their paid bid, then that bid is completely irrelevant. I feel the intent of the rule is very clear. I don't think need they add to add an asterisk that says "please disregard if a team later decides to decline that bid."

If they didn't break the crossover rules, then giving up the paid bid seems like a perfectly valid "punishment." Let's not forget that they're an open team who just paid $4-5k to compete for nothing. That sounds like a pretty good punishment to me.

If they did break the crossover rules, then I would hope USASF institutes some other punishment.

The rules say that any athlete on a team when it EARNS a paid bid, is to compete with that team at worlds. So according to the rules, from the moment they earned a paid bid with a team, those athletes are only worlds eligible with the team they earned the bid with, unless and until they earn another paid bid as part of a different team. I don't understand what's unclear about that or why there is any debate about what the rules say should be happening here??

If they were really following the rules here they couldn't just give back the bid and all would be good. Those athletes should be required to compete with the team that they last earned a paid bid with. The rule is there to prevent exactly what they did, using personnel from one worlds team to stack another and get additional paid bids. They did it, and they should have to answer for it. We don't get to just decide "oh its Cali, they have been punished enough by losing the paid bid." That's not how it works. There are rules in place that dictate what happens in this situation. They should have to follow the rules same as everyone else and those athletes shouldn't be eligible to compete on Ops. That what the rules CLEARLY say should be happening here. The fact that it isn't clearly points to the idea that the rules do apply to everyone.

 

[Ashley]

The rules say that any athlete on a team when it EARNS a paid bid, is to compete with that team at worlds. So according to the rules, from the moment they earned a paid bid with a team, those athletes are only worlds eligible with the team they earned the bid with, unless and until they earn another paid bid as part of a different team. I don't understand what's unclear about that or why there is any debate about what the rules say should be happening here??

If they were really following the rules here they couldn't just give back the bid and all would be good. Those athletes should be required to compete with the team that they last earned a paid bid with. The rule is there to prevent exactly what they did, using personnel from one worlds team to stack another and get additional paid bids. They did it, and they should have to answer for it. We don't get to just decide "oh its Cali, they have been punished enough by losing the paid bid." That's not how it works. There are rules in place that dictate what happens in this situation. They should have to follow the rules same as everyone else and those athletes shouldn't be eligible to compete on Ops. That what the rules CLEARLY say should be happening here. The fact that it isn't clearly points to the idea that the rules do apply to everyone.

They no longer have the bid. That bid is completely irrelevant. You cannot force those athletes to compete with them at worlds because THAT IS NOT HOW BIDS WORK.

You're splitting hairs here. I'm honestly trying to think of how I would phrase the rule to imply that declining the bid makes it null and void because it's so stupid that they would even have to add that as an asterisk. I literally cannot think of how I would phrase that rule without using the worlds "receive", "earn", or "awarded."

The intent of the rule is VERY clear. You always have an option to decline a bid. At any point in time.

 

[MomMomMamaMom]

The rules say that any athlete on a team when it EARNS a paid bid, is to compete with that team at worlds. So according to the rules, from the moment they earned a paid bid with a team, those athletes are only worlds eligible with the team they earned the bid with, unless and until they earn another paid bid as part of a different team. I don't understand what's unclear about that or why there is any debate about what the rules say should be happening here??

If they were really following the rules here they couldn't just give back the bid and all would be good. Those athletes should be required to compete with the team that they last earned a paid bid with. The rule is there to prevent exactly what they did, using personnel from one worlds team to stack another and get additional paid bids. They did it, and they should have to answer for it. We don't get to just decide "oh its Cali, they have been punished enough by losing the paid bid." That's not how it works. There are rules in place that dictate what happens in this situation. They should have to follow the rules same as everyone else and those athletes shouldn't be eligible to compete on Ops. That what the rules CLEARLY say should be happening here. The fact that it isn't clearly points to the idea that the rules do apply to everyone.

The rule also clarifies that once the team is awarded the bid, the athlete is no longer eligible to compete with their first team. So are you of the opinion that they were awarded the bid even if they didn't accept it?

The rule has worked in that it is preventing Ghost Recon from traveling to World's on a paid bid. ( or at least it forced Cali to choose which paid bid it could use). But it sounds like you are saying that it was intended to prevent them from even trying for the bid?

I don't know. I see both sides. The rule has had its intended consequences, and because the paid bid has gone to someone else, Cali breaking the rule hasn't really negatively impacted anyone but their own team. But I also think it it suspicious that Cali somehow thought this rule might not apply to them.

 

[cheer25mom]

They no longer have the bid. That bid is completely irrelevant. You cannot force those athletes to compete with them at worlds because THAT IS NOT HOW BIDS WORK.

You're splitting hairs here. I'm honestly trying to think of how I would phrase the rule to imply that declining the bid makes it null and void because it's so stupid that they would even have to add that as an asterisk. I literally cannot think of how I would phrase that rule without using the worlds "receive", "earn", or "awarded."

The intent of the rule is VERY clear. You always have an option to decline a bid. At any point in time.

You declare what bids you will accept BEFORE you compete, not after. When they declared that they were competing for a paid bid, they opened themselves up to this possibility. I am not splitting hairs by suggesting the rule should be followed as written. They earned the bid, wether or or they chose to use it. Declining the bid doesn't change the fact that they earned it in the first place. The rule addresses bids earned, not bids used. The rule needs to be enforced as written. If you feel it needs to be changed, then that should be addressed next year. They thought they were going to get around the rules and they were called on it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ashley]

You declare what bids you will accept BEFORE you compete, not after. When they declared that they were competing for a paid bid, they opened themselves up to this possibility. I am not splitting hairs by suggesting the rule should be followed as written. They earned the bid, wether or or they chose to use it. Declining the bid doesn't change the fact that they earned it in the first place. The rule addresses bids earned, not bids used. The rule needs to be enforced as written. If you feel it needs to be changed, then that should be addressed next year. They thought they were going to get around the rules and they were called on it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's not a USASF rule though. That's so an EP doesn't announce a team as winning an AL when they don't want it and rob another team of getting their moment on stage.

You have 72 hours to accept a bid. If they didn't accept the bid within those 72 hours it's not technically theirs.

 

[cheer25mom]

The rule also clarifies that once the team is awarded the bid, the athlete is no longer eligible to compete with their first team. So are you of the opinion that they were awarded the bid even if they didn't accept it?

The rule has worked in that it is preventing Ghost Recon from traveling to World's on a paid bid. ( or at least it forced Cali to choose which paid bid it could use). But it sounds like you are saying that it was intended to prevent them from even trying for the bid?

I don't know. I see both sides. The rule has had its intended consequences, and because the paid bid has gone to someone else, Cali breaking the rule hasn't really negatively impacted anyone but their own team. But I also think it it suspicious that Cali somehow thought this rule might not apply to them.

They declared that they were competing for a paid bid. They earned a paid bid. When push came to shove and they were called on the rules they decided they didn't want it. If the powers that be want to say you can then decline the bid and all is ok the rule needs to say that. It doesn't. It says when a bid is earned.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[cheer25mom]

You have 72 hours to accept a bid. If they didn't accept the bid within those 72 hours it's not technically theirs.

Where do the rules say that they didn't earn the bid if they don't accept it, because that is the verbiage used here? If they want the rule to be contingent on accepting the bid, not earning it, they need to say that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ashley]

Where do the rules say that they didn't earn the bid if they don't accept it, because that is the verbiage used here? If they want the rule to be contingent on accepting the bid, not earning it, they need to say that.

Fine. Maybe the rule should be changed to say "accepted." But if you go off of the literal words in the rule and force those athletes to compete with Ghost Recon, you're breaking all sort of other bid eligibility rules in the name of what? Making an example of someone? The intent of the rule is clear and I hope USASF will correct it next year.

 

[cheer25mom]

Fine. Maybe the rule should be changed to say "accepted." But if you go off of the literal words in the rule and force those athletes to compete with Ghost Recon, you're breaking all sort of other bid eligibility rules in the name of what? Making an example of someone? The intent of the rule is clear and I hope USASF will correct it next year.

In the interest of applying the rules as written to everyone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Deleted member 11199]

From what I was told, the people that were put on Ghost Recon were there due to an injury and a conflict in scheduling not allowing an athlete compete. The kids from ops were needed last minute. I do not believe they were aware of the rule at the time... why would they spend that much money and take the time to go the competition with the risk of losing their bid in the first place?

 

[MomMomMamaMom]

Where do the rules say that they didn't earn the bid if they don't accept it, because that is the verbiage used here? If they want the rule to be contingent on accepting the bid, not earning it, they need to say that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm confused as to what the point of the rule would be if it wasn't contingent upon accepting the bid?

 

[Ashley]

I'm confused as to what the point of the rule would be if it wasn't contingent upon accepting the bid?

Exactly. And technically the bid isn't awarded until the team accepts it. There's a reason USASF doesn't update their bid list right away.

From what I was told, the people that were put on Ghost Recon were there due to an injury and a conflict in scheduling not allowing an athlete compete. The kids from ops were needed last minute. I do not believe they were aware of the rule at the time... why would they spend that much money and take the time to go the competition with the risk of losing their bid in the first place?

I mean, ignorance isn't really an excuse though.

 

[cheer25mom]

I'm confused as to what the point of the rule would be if it wasn't contingent upon accepting the bid?

It would keep teams from risking an athlete's eligibility with team A by having them compete with team B for a bid and hoping they don't get caught. There would actually be some penalty if they are caught rather that "oops, here's your bid back, all is good" Again, if that is what they intended here, it should have been worded differently, but by saying anyone who helps a team EARN a paid bid is to compete with at that team if they compete, that is what should happen.

 

[Deleted member 11199]

Exactly. And technically the bid isn't awarded until the team accepts it. There's a reason USASF doesn't update their bid list right away.



I mean, ignorance isn't really an excuse though.

I'm not saying it is an excuse, I just dont think the rule was made with the thought of replacing for injuries. That is something unavoidable and unforseeable.