All-Star Redfining Positions In Stunts

[King]

It sounds cold, impersonal, and calculating to phrase it that way, but it is true. Everything we do has a level of risk to it. There is always a chance that something terrible will happen regardless of the safeguards you put in place. There is simply no way to eliminate ALL risk of serious injury from cheerleading. The goal should be to minimize it within reason.

The trick is deciding (and calculating) the "acceptable" level of risk. That is difficult to do. We all think that being afraid to play Russian Roulette would be a reasonable fear. It would be unreasonable, however, to fear walking outside because you might get struck by a meteor, even though that technically has a greater than zero chance of happening. Somewhere in between is that "sweet spot" where we want to avoid going over.

This task is not made easier by the fact that we are often extraordinarily bad at estimating risk. (Compare the perceived safety level of handguns in the home vs. backyard pools for example - or sharks vs hippos, driving to the airport vs flying in a plane, flu vs. anthrax, etc.) No one wants children hurt, but no one wants to eliminate fun or physical activity either. Finding the balance is difficult, but we must make every effort to take risk into account and eliminate those risks which we think are unreasonable.

I don't mean to over focus on one particular example, it is just the one we have used quite often. You cannot think about the 3 suzies in your gym when creating a bracket like this. You have to draw on your many years experience from teaching kids across the country in camps, choreography, working competitions, and what not. When you taking the emotion out of your athletes and what would happen to them it allows us all to make clearer choices.

 

[CGAcheer]

Well put. I think this is where certain things, like my requirement of 3 attentive athletes in level 3, seems like a hindrance to some. The thing is when you require 3 people you know that for level 3 and the first time they are ever extending a one leg skill that that there is a very low level of risk. I believe the level of risk by allowing 2 athletes only is quite a good bit higher and not acceptable. Yes there are athletes who compete level 3 who can do it with only 2 bases (my earlier example if Orange or Panthers competed level 3), but that does not account for everything. By having a proper level of risk management (which may mean being more restrictive in certain parts) we might be able to be LESS restrictive on the higher end.

But you also can't base rules off of the teams that go level 3 because they have 4 kids who can throw a round off tuck either. It's about a max skill allowed at the level, not what the average team at the level is capable of.

Back to the double ups at 5, they are allowed, but how many teams can compete squad double ups. You are also allowed double twisting high to high tick tocks haven't seen one of those yet.

 

[BlueCat]

But you also can't base rules off of the teams that go level 3 because they have 4 kids who can throw a round off tuck either. It's about a max skill allowed at the level, not what the average team at the level is capable of.

Back to the double ups at 5, they are allowed, but how many teams can compete squad double ups. You are also allowed double twisting high to high tick tocks haven't seen one of those yet.

I have to disagree with you. How easy the stunt is for them, whether they are at the bottom of the level or top, really isn't the issue. The level of danger from the stunt as it relates to the experience level of the athlete is the real issue.

I agree that few L5 teams could do squad double ups and make them hit. I do think, however, that nearly every team with experienced L5 athletes could attempt them with reasonable safety. They theoretically should be experienced/skilled enough to be able to spot the flyer as the stunt is attempted and keep her from landing head-first on the ground - even if the stunt doesn't hit.

 

[CGAcheer]

I guess there just seems to be a philosophical difference-
I think the rules should be the max skills allowed at the level
Others think that it should be more about what the avg to below avg athletes in a level can do.

Within our Level 3 team there are kids going into their 5th season, and former gymnasts in their 1st season. Do I trust some of them more in stunts than others, of course. But there is a variety of experience at each level. Its up to the coaches to know what their kids are capable of and what they can do with an acceptable amount risk.

to me it just seems odd to set the limits at average.

 

[King]

I guess there just seems to be a philosophical difference-
I think the rules should be the max skills allowed at the level
Others think that it should be more about what the avg to below avg athletes in a level can do.

Within our Level 3 team there are kids going into their 5th season, and former gymnasts in their 1st season. Do I trust some of them more in stunts than others, of course. But there is a variety of experience at each level. Its up to the coaches to know what their kids are capable of and what they can do with an acceptable amount risk.

to me it just seems odd to set the limits at average.

In the interest of the sport it makes sense. The system must be setup to encourage the coach to only make the most acceptable choices.

 

[rvnblue]

@BlueCat is a lib considered leg away?

 

[BlueCat]

I guess there just seems to be a philosophical difference-
I think the rules should be the max skills allowed at the level
Others think that it should be more about what the avg to below avg athletes in a level can do.

Within our Level 3 team there are kids going into their 5th season, and former gymnasts in their 1st season. Do I trust some of them more in stunts than others, of course. But there is a variety of experience at each level. Its up to the coaches to know what their kids are capable of and what they can do with an acceptable amount risk.

to me it just seems odd to set the limits at average.

You could also look at it as "some people think that the rules should be focused around the typical teams that make up the bulk of the division, and not the just the elite teams."

I think you are misunderstanding my point. It isn't about what teams are capable of hitting consistently. It is about what they are capable of attempting reasonably safely.

 

[BlueCat]

@BlueCat is a lib considered leg away?

No. It probably should be "foot away from opposite leg", but I was using the terminology already in use.

 

[Drkilluzionz]

With the exception of restricting coed style cradles in levels 3-5 I like the concept.

Our levels 3-5 have typically done quantity stunts (2 bases only) with the max cradle to hit the score sheet.

 

[kristenthegreat]

You could also look at it as "some people think that the rules should be focused around the typical teams that make up the bulk of the division, and not the just the elite teams."

I think you are misunderstanding my point. It isn't about what teams are capable of hitting consistently. It is about what they are capable of attempting reasonably safely.

You always manage to say exactly what I'M trying to say, except better. Isn't this why levels 1-4 large teams are now 30? Not because there weren't SOME teams with that many or more, but that the majority weren't.

 

[Nothanks]

I guess there just seems to be a philosophical difference-
I think the rules should be the max skills allowed at the level
Others think that it should be more about what the avg to below avg athletes in a level can do.

I'd say that's taking into consideration "you're only as strong as your weakest link," which is more than true in cheerleading.

 

[Jennaw]

Havent been on here in a while, and the first thing I read is this thread. So refreashing.

 

[CGAcheer]

You could also look at it as "some people think that the rules should be focused around the typical teams that make up the bulk of the division, and not the just the elite teams."

I think you are misunderstanding my point. It isn't about what teams are capable of hitting consistently. It is about what they are capable of attempting reasonably safely.

Wherever you set the limit, you are going to have the same issues. The typical level 3 team will just be a currently typical 2.5ish team. Your elite teams at a level will still be pushing the max of wherever you set the limit and your average to below average teams will continue to do stuff that they shouldn't really be doing.

you're basically just shifting the bell curve, with no net change in actual safety.

 

[CGAcheer]

In the interest of the sport it makes sense. The system must be setup to encourage the coach to only make the most acceptable choices.

see the above post: but another analogy.
on the highway there is a limit of 70 and a minimum of 40. Not everyone should be going 70, if you are in a 1960 pickup carrying a large trailer you shouldn't be going 70, if you're driving a moped and can only get to 30 then you should be on a different road, Some may be able to safely go 80 but they risk getting a ticket or move to the faster road and become one of the slower drivers and then end up trying to push beyond your capabilities. You can crash at 40 and you can crash at 70.

point is that the limit is the max limit and teams will align with where their coaches think their team fits best

 

[King]

see the above post: but another analogy.
on the highway there is a limit of 70 and a minimum of 40. Not everyone should be going 70, if you are in a 1960 pickup carrying a large trailer you shouldn't be going 70, if you're driving a moped and can only get to 30 then you should be on a different road, Some may be able to safely go 80 but they risk getting a ticket or move to the faster road and become one of the slower drivers and then end up trying to push beyond your capabilities. You can crash at 40 and you can crash at 70.

point is that the limit is the max limit and teams will align with where their coaches think their team fits best

Actually you gave a way better counterpoint to your argument. The speed limit laws are set to what is the safest speed at which you can travel in certain situations, no matter the vehicle. In my neighborhood you can only go 25, because that is the safest speed to travel our neighborhood. On the main highway to my neighborhood it's 45. On the interstate to rays its 65. Those limits are set NOT to care about what vehicle you use, but to create an acceptable level of risk for how you travel. Now what vehicle you use and where you take it is personal choice. That beat up truck is not allowed to go above 70, and per personal choice you may keep it at 60. But that limit helps keep everyone safer.

For our level 3 example the limit 3 attentive athletes is our 45 mph speed limit. Yes some teams have BMW athletes that can easily go 70 or 80 or 100.. but the speed limit for that level and situation to make it the safest for everyone while going the fastest you can (or allowing the most skills to be competed) is 45... or 3 required attentive athletes. Just because you have a BMW and can safely handle going 90 in a 45 (or put up single based one legs with one spot) doesn't mean its a smart rule for us all.