All-Star Cali Ghost Recon Lost Their Paid Bid?

[DropAndRun]

I know, personally, in my sport I witnessed many coaches watch kids get disqualified over their actions.

If we did not know or follow the rules and students were illegally entered or did something during competition that broke a rule, they were disqualified. Saying "well my coach was not aware of the rule change" did not fly. It was my responsibility as a coaching professional to know the rules inside and out. Every year when they changed the rules, I spent hours going over and learning them. That is why I was a paid professional coaching amateurs..

It was an unfortunate thing to see coaches not educate themselves. They usually lost their clients due to their ignorance.

What do you pay these people for?

 

[kristenthegreat]

Well, hang on though. International Open isn't a new division. This rule is new, however. But that being said, Cali should have clarified before they did this. That's their job. I make mistakes at my job, and they are sometimes costly and I deal with those consequences.

I'm not blaming the athletes, but it sounds like they had every intention accepting the bid until the USASF told them what would have happened if they had. Which leads me to the question: is the USASF so helpful with every program? I'm thinking...no.

 

[torycf]

Well, hang on though. International Open isn't a new division. This rule is new, however. But that being said, Cali should have clarified before they did this. That's their job. I make mistakes at my job, and they are sometimes costly and I deal with those consequences.

I'm not blaming the athletes, but it sounds like they had every intention accepting the bid until the USASF told them what would have happened if they had. Which leads me to the question: is the USASF so helpful with every program? I'm thinking...no.

Exactly-I am paid to do my job and follow and know inside out many rules and regulations. If I were to mess up, there would be consequences including being terminated. No glossing it over or sweeping it under the rug. This, unfortunately, is a real world lesson that the young adults on Ghost Recon are now witnessing (now if the gym will face consequences who knows).

 

[icame2WERQ]

I understand your frustration. However no one has any issue with the athletes. My issue lies with USASF and their failure to enforce rules (a problem since I have been involved with cheer), so when things like this happen and there is zero communication from the EP or the governing body, people are left to piece together what happened on their own. There have been too many issues in the past (generally speaking - not with your gym) to not speculate.

Just out of curiosity -- how do we know when USASF enforces rules or not. And is it anyone elses business besides USASF and Gym XYZ?

 

[CheerBank]

Well, hang on though. International Open isn't a new division. This rule is new, however. But that being said, Cali should have clarified before they did this. That's their job. I make mistakes at my job, and they are sometimes costly and I deal with those consequences.

I'm not blaming the athletes, but it sounds like they had every intention accepting the bid until the USASF told them what would have happened if they had. Which leads me to the question: is the USASF so helpful with every program? I'm thinking...no.

You'd be surprised at how the USASF "helps" teams in situations like this. And it's not just big name gyms either. A few seasons a local team "lost" their AL bid because they weren't truly even eligible for it, having been dq'd at Worlds the season before for having an underage athlete on the mat. Les Stella advised them not only on what they should do - go medium at another comp to try to get the bid in that division - but also how to get around only bringing that team to a comp that required 50% gym attendance in order to be eligible for a bid.

 

[MomMomMamaMom]

Well, hang on though. International Open isn't a new division. This rule is new, however. But that being said, Cali should have clarified before they did this. That's their job. I make mistakes at my job, and they are sometimes costly and I deal with those consequences.

I'm not blaming the athletes, but it sounds like they had every intention accepting the bid until the USASF told them what would have happened if they had. Which leads me to the question: is the USASF so helpful with every program? I'm thinking...no.

I think she said it was a new division for their location, which I think is true?!? Didn't the IOC5 move from San Margos to Livermore? Or was that just speculation? I don't remember.,.

But your point is the one that makes sense to me. Would every gym be allowed to say, "whoops, not what we meant to do?" I don't know? I feel like the rules were written in a way that every team could have been given that chance, but am not sure that whomever accepts the bid rosters would have even noticed if it weren't a big name program.

 

[MomMomMamaMom]

You'd be surprised at how the USASF "helps" teams in situations like this. And it's not just big name gyms either. A few seasons a local team "lost" their AL bid because they weren't truly even eligible for it, having been dq'd at Worlds the season before for having an underage athlete on the mat. Les Stella advised them not only on what they should do - go medium at another comp to try to get the bid in that division - but also how to get around only bringing that team to a comp that required 50% gym attendance in order to be eligible for a bid.

Wait, how do gyms get around the team attendance requirements? I think I've seen it happen a couple of times, and I am so curious about how they do it!

And oh my, interesting that the USASF seems to have any interest in exposing loopholes to any program. That's what I mean when I say that I think they are added intentionally....

Just out of curiosity -- how do we know when USASF enforces rules or not. And is it anyone elses business besides USASF and Gym XYZ?

Umm.. We won't always know I suppose, but it sure ought to be everybody's business if the rules are applied uniformly.,

 

[CheerBank]

Wait, how do gyms get around the team attendance requirements? I think I've seen it happen a couple of times, and I am so curious about how they do it!

And oh my, interesting that the USASF seems to have any interest in exposing loopholes to any program. That's what I mean when I say that I think they are added intentionally...

They basically went as a "different" program that only had those athletes on that team registered in that program. "Released" all the level 5 athletes from the other gym so they were eligible to compete as this one. I think they happened to have the new gym name under their corporation name for an unrelated reason. They therefore had at least 50% of the gym attending.

 

[klynn64]

Was it mentioned that this was a new rule? If so, it's not so unusual for first year rule enforcement to be more lax than subsequent years due to lack of familiarity. I don't question the integrity of the Cali program nor suppose this was a deliberate act on anyone's part. Nor do I believe that Cali received any special dispensation from USASF due to being a larger program. Cali plays by the same rules as everyone else. This topic is visible and newsworthy because Cali is a well known gym. A small gym isn't likely to run into this situation. So just because you don't hear of a small program being afforded the same grace by USASF (if in fact there is a violation) you can't assume that's because of special treatment.

 

[Cheer Dad]

Thank you. Yes as a parent most of what was said my daughter has read and it has truly hurt her. People stating that they "cheated" and basically making fun of them they had no idea of such a rule and used who their alternates for the injured athletes. I just hate that 98% seemed be all bashing this team and their athletes on this thread. Those who have not have been negative I truly appreciate.

I'll put this out there for you now. Cali does take some bashing but it is almost never because of the athletes. The athletes that end up on the short end of the stick are those who cannot behave on social media and are usually instigating it. Sadly, it seems most of those kids are following the example of those in charge at times.

Unless your daughter is one of those posting about how disrespectful it is for teams not to clap for them, bash an athlete for leaving the program, cry unfair if her team doesn't win...she shouldn't feel attacked as hard as T may be for her.

 

[MomMomMamaMom]

Was it mentioned that this was a new rule? If so, it's not so unusual for first year rule enforcement to be more lax than subsequent years due to lack of familiarity. I don't question the integrity of the Cali program nor suppose this was a deliberate act on anyone's part. Nor do I believe that Cali received any special dispensation from USASF due to being a larger program. Cali plays by the same rules as everyone else. This topic is visible and newsworthy because Cali is a well known gym. A small gym isn't likely to run into this situation. So just because you don't hear of a small program being afforded the same grace by USASF (if in fact there is a violation) you can't assume that's because of special treatment.

True, a small gym would have less publicity. But would also have fewer replacements to choose from, and would presumably have fewer well trained eyes to scour rule updates for how changes might apply to them. And it is hard to say if anyone would have said, "hey wait, you can't do this, do you realize you're messing things up for your other team?" Let's face it, the athletes who were chosen to replace the missing athletes were definitely chosen because the coaches thought they would be beneficial to the team, or at the very least wouldn't mess up Ghost's chance at a bid.

That being said, I totally agree that in the first year of a rule, there will be more lenience. I also think that the rule wasn't broken though, because the bid was never awarded. But that's just my take. I also feel like it was an honest mistake, and that it really is a shame for the team.

Just out of curiosity, and you don't have to answer if you don't want to, but do you think there are any instances in which larger programs get preferential treatment?

 

[SL&AM]

People questioning the owner/coaches & USASF, is not the same as bashing the athletes. I get the one team, one family; but let's be real...you pay these people to get it right and that decision is likely gonna cost tens of thousands of dollars once it's all said and done. If you think the FB has been questioning the staffs, I'd expect the Cali parents/athletes to be fiery. After all, it's their money the owners/coaches essentially torched.


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

 

[Beans100]

That being said, I totally agree that in the first year of a rule, there will be more lenience. I also think that the rule wasn't broken though, because the bid was never awarded. But that's just my take. I also feel like it was an honest mistake, and that it really is a shame for the team.

That is ridiculous. Make a rule and enforce it. If they set a rule and then let things slide, it sets a precedent. If Gym X can get away with something, then Gym Y will expect the same.

 

[SL&AM]

That is ridiculous. Make a rule and enforce it. If they set a rule and then let things slide, it sets a precedent. If Gym X can get away with something, then Gym Y will expect the same.

I share this philosophy but I'm normally considered cold hearted and mean.


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

 

[MomMomMamaMom]

That is ridiculous. Make a rule and enforce it. If they set a rule and then let things slide, it sets a precedent. If Gym X can get away with something, then Gym Y will expect the same.

While I understand that a rule is a rule, in the first year of a big change I can see there will be some expectation that the rule will need further explanation, I'm not opposed to this. If they had allowed Cali to keep both bids, I might be singing a different tune. All in all it comes down to whether you think rules are there to be preventative or punitive. Sounds like some people think that there should be a punishment , which is not what I personally think that rule was established to do.