All-Star Cali Ghost Recon Lost Their Paid Bid?

[luv2cheer92]

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.

Sorry if I'm not following right, but what if those two injured athletes are over 18?They wouldn't be able to go to ops. Hypothetically of course, idk the ages of the athletes involved.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

 

[cheer25mom]

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.

If they were not aware of the rule, why would they take those 2 athletes off the roster snd short themselves the bid money for those 2, since you only get paid for athletes on the mat when you win the bid?

 

[cheer25mom]

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.)

ITA I think they know what they were doing, and I think this should be the rule.

 

[MomMomMamaMom]

If they were not aware of the rule, why would they take those 2 athletes off the roster snd short themselves the bid money for those 2, since you only get paid for athletes on the mat when you win the bid?

Because, under last year's rules those two athletes ( who were last minute replacements) would not have been required to have been on the bid roster. You are ( and always have been) allowed to make replacements on your bid rosters. It is new this year that those two athletes would be required to be there.

It's fine that you believe that they knowingly tried to skirt the rules... However this particular reasoning is not evidence of that.

ETA: They didn't short themselves two people. They just put two other people on the roster.

 

[cheer25mom]

Because, under last year's rules those two athletes ( who were last minute replacements) would not have been required to have been on the bid roster. You are ( and always have been) allowed to make replacements on your bid rosters. It is new this year that those two athletes would be required to be there.

It's fine that you believe that they knowingly tried to skirt the rules... However this particular reasoning is not evidence of that.

ETA: They didn't short themselves two people. They just put two other people on the roster.

I misunderstood then. The post upthread said those two were left off the roster. I thought that was exactly what they did, left them off, not replaced them with different people.

 

[MomMomMamaMom]

I misunderstood then. The post upthread said those two were left off the roster. I thought that was exactly what they did, left them off, not replaced them with different people.

I picked up in that after I answered... I think I assumed that was clear when it wasn't.