All-Star S/o Release Discussion Re: Worlds Athletes

[King]

Not what I asked for BlueCat - merely playing devils advocate and clarifying who benefits from USASF and why.
Level 5 programs benefit mostly from USASF because Level 5 teams fund the USASF majorly through the Worlds event. Correct?

No rules are all designated by the USASF and age grids as well. All levels benefit from universal legality rules.

 

[ztaprincess]

So they do not need a release to cheer at another gym, compete with another program at all other competitions besides Worlds, or to even attend Worlds. The only thing they cannot do is be on the mat with that team.

That is the case. There were cases of this happening last year with athletes that even helped their new team win their bid but later was not released and couldn't compete at worlds. This is the part of the rule that I think should be changed to help not screw over the new team. I think it should be said that an athlete who does not have a signed release should NOT be allowed to compete for and win a bid with a new team. If they are not released then they should not be placed on the mat to help another team win a bid only to not be able to compete at worlds. I know that it was up to the second gym to put the athlete on the mat without a release but if that is added to the rules it would help the athletes on the team who's coach didn't care and put them on mat anyway. Of course then would mean the USASF would have to spend more time keeping up with these releases and actually keep file of them and check to make sure they are valid.

 

[King]

I'm ok with that. If the idea is to prevent gym-hopping, then prevent it. A waiting period does just that. My proposal wouldn't impact competing with the new gym at non-bid events, or practicing with them. It just says that if you competed with a gym in November at a world's bid event, you can't compete with a new gym at a world's bid event until February or March. If you wanted to add a rule that said that the waiting period could be waived if the former gym signs off on it, then so be it. I wouldn't have a problem with that.

It does everything people want in terms of asking folks to make good decisions about the gym they choose to compete with. It's a complete disincentive to gym hopping. What it doesn't do is put the power in the hands of the gym owner as to whether they grant a release or not, which is my big concern.

I also think you understate the deal about Worlds. For a level 5 senior athlete, this is by and large what their entire season builds towards. If we told any other elite athlete in any other sport that their former club could arbitrarily choose not to allow them to participate in their sport's World Championships, we would think that's outrageous.

Event producers would never support something they would have to track AND would limit their business.

The reason the release for one competition works is because it is the only competition that the USASF can control.

 

[DJ]

No rules are all designated by the USASF and age grids as well. All levels benefit from universal legality rules.

Okay Kingston....

 

[King]

Okay Kingston....

Yes meanj? Remember there was a time when it wasn't only different scoresheets per event... but also different rules. Whatever the heck level 4 was (excel I think?) at NCA may have meant no fulls but at CHEERSPORT you could throw double back baskets.

 

[BlueCat]

Not what I asked for BlueCat - merely playing devils advocate and clarifying who benefits from USASF and why.
Level 5 programs benefit mostly from USASF because Level 5 teams fund the USASF majorly through the Worlds event. Correct?

I'm not sure I follow. All levels benefit pretty much equally from the rules/guidelines side of the USASF. The "Worlds" side of USASF (the side that mostly funds the whole operation) I suppose benefits mostly those who attend, but they are paying for that benefit.

 

[debbie]

Ok here is what i am getting:
1. USASf has the rule they believe is needed for a greater good but they can't have an appeals process or enforce it because of limited resources.
2. Some gyms want the rule to avoid losing kids to more successful gyms mid season.
3. Parents dont like the rule "mostly" because there is no appeals process and can lead to abuse.

This is what I suggest to satisfy all of the above:

The USASF mandates that all gym owners have a company policy of what situations they WILL NOT release an athlete (Their policy is totally up to them)
ex:
Gym A reasons not to release: "none" if you want to leave we will give you a release and wish you well
Gym B reasons not to release: "all" it is our policy once you compete with us we will not sign any releases
Gym C reasons not to release: money owed, you go to gym A (we hate them), you are kicked off for 5 or more absences, etc, etc

Now every gym must have their policy signed and dated by the parent before the first competition. The USASF would have an appeal process that would be very black and white.
1. does gym have signed release policy
2. if so did kid leave for a reason not on the policy...if yes kid is released if no kid is not
3. loser pays 50.00​

 

[King]

Ok here is what i am getting:​

1. USASf has the rule they believe is needed for a greater good but they can't have an appeals process or enforce it because of limited resources.​

2. Some gyms want the rule to avoid losing kids to more successful gyms mid season.​

3. Parents dont like the rule "mostly" because there is no appeals process and can lead to abuse.​

​

This is what I suggest to satisfy all of the above:​

​

The USASF mandates that all gym owners have a company policy of what situations they WILL NOT release an athlete (Their policy is totally up to them)​

ex:​

Gym A reasons not to release: "none" if you want to leave we will give you a release and wish you well​

Gym B reasons not to release: "all" it is our policy once you compete with us we will not sign any releases​

Gym C reasons not to release: money owed, you go to gym A (we hate them), you are kicked off for 5 or more absences, etc, etc​

​

Now every gym must have their policy signed and dated by the parent before the first competition. The USASF would have an appeal process that would be very black and white.​

1. does gym have signed release policy​

2. if so did kid leave for a reason not on the policy...if yes kid is released if no kid is not​

3. loser pays 50.00​

I don't understand how that would stop a gym from having a bad release policy and not letting go of the athletes?

'Good Gyms' as you call them would probably do the same as they always have. 'Bad Gyms' would just have an 'at their discretion' policy and would work as they do now.

 

[debbie]

I don't understand how that would stop a gym from having a bad release policy and not letting go of the athletes?

'Good Gyms' as you call them would probably do the same as they always have. 'Bad Gyms' would just have an 'at their discretion' policy and would work as they do now.

yes but this way parents know the gym policy BEFORE their kid hits the floor. If the gym has a lousy policy the parent can decide if they want to be part of that gym. As it is now the parent doesnt know what the owner will do until they leave. Gives parents more INFORMED info on what kind of gym they will be joining.

 

[debbie]

I don't understand how that would stop a gym from having a bad release policy and not letting go of the athletes?

'Good Gyms' as you call them would probably do the same as they always have. 'Bad Gyms' would just have an 'at their discretion' policy and would work as they do now.

oh and no "at their discretion" allowed only reasons NOT TO release allowed

 

[King]

oh and no "at their discretion" allowed only reasons NOT TO release allowed

So the main issue you have is that parents are not aware of this policy? Because if all gyms said no release policy they would have even more power.

 

[debbie]

So the main issue you have is that parents are not aware of this policy? Because if all gyms said no release policy they would have even more power.

I disagree. If all gyms started to do that It would only take one to open their policy and they would get a flood of new level 5 kids. True capitalism at work!

 

[Mamarazzi]

debbie , that actually makes a lot of sense. A Gym would have to do no more than say "No waiver will be signed for a (Level 5) athlete release if they have competed with this program," in the Handbook/Agreement that I assume all parents have to sign when they register with the gym. Doesn't change the rule, but negates the need for an appeals process. Puts it in the gym's hands.

 

[King]

I disagree. If all gyms started to do that It would only take one to open their policy and they would get a flood of new level 5 kids. True capitalism at work!

It is more economics. The deliverables are not the same, so it wouldn't work just because of the release rule.

 

[SparkleSpankies]

Is it me or although a good read, starting to give me a headache? I think we have realized as of today, this isn't changing, ways to possibly change, and the outlet to start working on a change which will need to be voted on, correct?