All-Star Cali Ghost Recon Lost Their Paid Bid?

[cheer25mom]

Agreed. Since it served its preventative purpose, there is no need for punishment.

But there was a punishment. Cali lost a LOT of money. How could the loss of that much money not be viewed as punitive? What is the point of a rule if there is no consequence for breaking it? If the outcome doesn't change?

 

[cheer25mom]

While it prevented what it was designed to do, it did not in my opinion carry through on the consequence.

Had the USASF not said to Cali "hey you can't do this, this will bind these 2 athletes to Ghost Recon and remove them from Blops for Worlds" and instead gone ahead and processed their acceptance - which I'm guessing they submitted since the UDASF already had the roster - then the rule would have been applied in its full capacity.

I have no dog in this fight. I just don't like that time after time we see rules created, put into the Worlds packet or USASF rules in general, and then not followed.

If they did indeed file paperwork and accept the bid, this is what SHOULD have happened. If that is the case and they were allowed to take it back later I have a REAL problem with that.

 

[CheerBank]

But there was a punishment. Cali lost a LOT of money. How could the loss of that much money not be viewed as punitive?

They are actually lucky they were even given a choice of what to do.

 

[CheerBank]

If they did indeed file paperwork and accept the bid, this is what SHOULD have happened. If that is the case and they were allowed to take it back later I have a REAL problem with that.

How would the USASF had the roster otherwise? Or am I misunderstanding how it was brought to light what happened?

 

[cheer25mom]

They are actually lucky they were even given a choice of what to do.

ITA. They shouldn't have been. Particularly if they did indeed accept the bid, as 2 people have now said was the case.

 

[MomMomMamaMom]

But there was a punishment. Cali lost a LOT of money. How could the loss of that much money not be viewed as punitive?

I don't downplay that at all, however that was a result of the program making a mistake, not a USASF penalty. The punitive aspect to this rule would be the USASF binding the BLOPS athletes to Ghost, because the mistake was made. There are some who believe the rule should have been executed this way.

 

[cheer25mom]

How would the USASF had the roster otherwise? Or am I misunderstanding how it was brought to light what happened?

I don't have any knowledge of what did or did not happen so I cannot say for sure. I would ASSUME that to be the case if the USASF did indeed have the roster and were the first ones to catch it.

 

[cheer25mom]

I don't downplay that at all, however that was a result of the program making a mistake, not a USASF penalty. The punitive aspect to this rule would be the USASF binding the BLOPS athletes to Ghost, because the mistake was made. There are some who believe the rule should have been executed this way.

Based on the wording of the rule I feel is should have been, especially if they did indeed accept the bid, but they did not get off scott free here. They paid a price and any enforceable rule has to have that component. it can be the natural consequences of breaking the rule, but it has to exist.

 

[Ashley]

While it prevented what it was designed to do, it did not in my opinion carry through on the consequence.

Had the USASF not said to Cali "hey you can't do this, this will bind these 2 athletes to Ghost Recon and remove them from Blops for Worlds" and instead gone ahead and processed their acceptance - which I'm guessing they submitted since the UDASF already had the roster - then the rule would have been applied in its full capacity.

I have no dog in this fight. I just don't like that time after time we see rules created, put into the Worlds packet, and then not followed.

We still don't know that USASF contacted them. A coach could have been reading through the worlds packet that you get with your bid info and then been like "hey wait! We can't do that!"

And USASF would have had their roster from the competition anyway, everything is done through the USASF portal now. You enter your roster in the portal before each competition. It's how they enforce the rules about replacements and so on between when you got your bid and what team you compete at worlds.

I guess. I really hope USASF changes the wording next year. With the exception of the crossover limits - we should have a punitive result if not followed, the rule is supposed to be preventative. I really don't see a problem with a team declining the bid (even after it's been accepted) if they decide they don't want to use those crossovers at worlds.

 

[Ashley]

But there was a punishment. Cali lost a LOT of money. How could the loss of that much money not be viewed as punitive? What is the point of a rule if there is no consequence for breaking it? If the outcome doesn't change?

It's not punitive. The bid wasn't taken away from them, they chose to decline it when they realized what accepting it would mean at worlds.

Punitive would have been had they accepted the paid bid and then illegally competed those crossovers on blops at worlds.

 

[cheer25mom]

It's not punitive. The bid wasn't taken away from them, they chose to decline it when they realized what accepting it would mean at worlds.

Punitive would have been had they accepted the paid bid and then illegally competed those crossovers on blops at worlds.

I consider natural consequences to be punitive.

 

[cheer25mom]

ITA. They shouldn't have been. Particularly if they did indeed accept the bid, as 2 people have now said was the case.

@purplecheer how is this gossip. I am only stating that 2 people ON THIS THREAD have said they accepted the bid. That is true. read the previous posts. 2 people did indeed state that. Had I said they accepted the bid without any first hand knowledge of that, then it would be gossip. I didn't. Perhaps you would better served giving those making the claims gossip ratings??

 

[astaley22]

@purplecheer how is this gossip. I am only stating that 2 people ON THIS THREAD have said they accepted the bid. That is true. read the previous posts. 2 people did indeed state that. Had I said they accepted the bid without any first hand knowledge of that, then it would be gossip. I didn't. Perhaps you would better served giving those making the claims gossip ratings??

It might have been an accident...
(negative ratings usually are)

 

[cheer25mom]

It might have been an accident...
(negative ratings usually are)

true.

 

[FaithOverFear!]

@purplecheer how is this gossip. I am only stating that 2 people ON THIS THREAD have said they accepted the bid. That is true. read the previous posts. 2 people did indeed state that. Had I said they accepted the bid without any first hand knowledge of that, then it would be gossip. I didn't. Perhaps you would better served giving those making the claims gossip ratings??

It was probably an accident.
ETA: didn't see astaley22 mention that sorry