All-Star Goodbye Stunt Bobbles?!

[Ashley]

I don't like the arbitrary nature of scoring bobbles that this opens up. If there are doing it this way, there needs to be consistent training of judges as to what type of bobble constitutes a certain deduction amount.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It's not really opening it up though - counting of bobbles was never consistent before anyway. There are tons of bobbles that never got caught before and some bobbles are more severe than others. We're so used to seeing bobbles as a deduction, but it really is an execution issue.

 

[Hi-Phlyer21]

I don't like it. How any of us drill into our athletes heads "Just because it stayed up does NOT mean it HIT"? Because I know I do and is reenforces the idea that "just don't fall" "just keep your stunt up" mentality that I hate. I see that it will still be noted when looking at execution, but it was much more clear beforehand. It was cut and dry. Easy to understand and everyone knew what was going on. To make this change is to take a step backwards from where we were.
It just makes things easier for the team that stayed up vs. the team that hit. The team where the coaches don't drill technique and emphasize cleanliness. If you thought there were a lot of angry coaches by the judges stand already.. Just wait.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[cheernerd5678]

I'm fine with them taking off bobbles, because they're inconsistent and sometimes taken off if coaches argue. However, stunt technique (in the past) was only 1 point. So if all 5 of your stunts bobble, even if you get a 0 on execution (which I'm pretty sure they don't give) you're still not being hurt as much as you were before. If they're going to change this they need to make execution worth more points because there's not enough room to be picky with only a .1-1 range.

 

[Ashley]

I'm fine with them taking off bobbles, because they're inconsistent and sometimes taken off if coaches argue. However, stunt technique (in the past) was only 1 point. So if all 5 of your stunts bobble, even if you get a 0 on execution (which I'm pretty sure they don't give) you're still not being hurt as much as you were before. If they're going to change this they need to make execution worth more points because there's not enough room to be picky with only a .1-1 range.

Technique is 2 points now I believe.

 

[12stepCheermom]

Technique is 2 points now I believe.

What was it before?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ashley]

What was it before?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think this is last year's. It was 1.

http://register.varsity.com/VAS/2014-15-Score-Grids-6-17.pdf

And the deductions from last year:

http://register.varsity.com/VAS/14-15-Unified-Deduction-System.pdf

 

[Ceacea]

I’m not a fan of all tumbling falls being created equal. In my opinion a kid putting a hand down because their angle was slightly off is not the same as completely busting on a skill.

 

[uhhlyssa01]

I don't mind it being taken off technique. I heard so many arguments last year in the score area that went something along the lines of "That wasn't a bobble! It was a...." Judges are responsible for seeing so much in so little time, if something looks off on the far right stunt, by the time they move their attention to it, it could be over. How do they know whether it was just a balance check, or full on bent legs and flailing arms for a split second, without having to go back to video? And whatever it was, it was bad technique either way. This would also eliminate some of the time spent arguing at accuscore and score check and help keep awards on time.

 

[Ashley]

I’m not a fan of all tumbling falls being created equal. In my opinion a kid putting a hand down because their angle was slightly off is not the same as completely busting on a skill.

That's not a change from least year though as far as I can tell.

 

[Ceacea]

That's not a change from least year though as far as I can tell.

For some reason I thinking there was a small difference, like .25 for hands down and .50 for other body parts touching the ground. I could definitely be wrong though. I can’t 100% remember.

 

[Ashley]

For some reason I thinking there was a small difference, like .25 for hands down and .50 for other body parts touching the ground. I could definitely be wrong though. I can’t 100% remember.

I posted what I'm pretty sure is the deduction pdf from last year and it's not different.

ATHLETE FALL - .25 Examples:
• Hand(s) down in tumbling or jumps
• Knee(s) down in tumbling or jumps
• Multiple body parts touch the floor in tumbling or jumps
• Drops to the floor during individual skills (tumbling, jumps, etc.)

 

[NJ Coach]

That's not a change from least year though as far as I can tell.

no it's not.

Athlete Fall is still .25 (same as last year)
Building Fall increased from .5 to .75
Major Building Fall increased from .75 to 1.25
Maximum increased from 1.0 to 1.75

Out of Bounds is still .25
Time limit violoation increased from .5 to 2.0
Tumbling violation increased from .5 to 1.0
Building violation increased from 1.0 to 2.0
Unsportsmanlike increased from 2.0 to 4.0

Bobbles were .25 and now exist only in technique which will probably wind up hitting teams harder than the original deduction. There's also no set deduction for them, so it's entirely up to the opinion of the panel judge how much to take off. Also, since coaches are not allowed to contest technique scores, being that it is completely subjective, there's no way of knowing how each potential bobble/balance check has impacted your score.

 

[Ceacea]

I posted what I'm pretty sure is the deduction pdf from last year and it's not different.

ATHLETE FALL - .25 Examples:
• Hand(s) down in tumbling or jumps
• Knee(s) down in tumbling or jumps
• Multiple body parts touch the floor in tumbling or jumps
• Drops to the floor during individual skills (tumbling, jumps, etc.)

Thank you for the update. I do still wish there was a small variance. :)

 

[Official OWECheer]

I feel like the things listed under 'Building Falls' are what happen WHEN a group bobbles, so maybe they're onto something?

 

[SL&AM]