All-Star Time To Intervene?

[Mclovin]

The gyms would not credential their own athletes. A USASF representative would be in charge of that.

I know my idea has lots of holes in it and isn't the perfect solution, but I fully believe something along the same lines could be implemented and enforced. Somehow someway.

 

[viralscorp]

Mclovin I don't mean to pick on you, I just want to point out some holes and hope someone has some ideas to fill in the blanks.

 

[WorkToWin]

If you are saying a level 3 athlete can take the floor with a higher level team but only do level 3 skills, then it is more involved than just checking names on a list. Someone would need to identify the athlete of question in each skill he/she performs. This requires picture ID, video recording at every event, and somewhat long term storage of hours and hours of videos - which need to be taken close enough to the stage to identify each individual athlete.

Also, if the gyms are responsible for their athlete credentialing, then this system won't work at all as the sketchy coaches will just arbitrarily decide what level to credential their athletes at. So now we are also requiring independent credentialing for every single athlete. We can barely get all coaches certified, and judging is not certified - I still am not sure how this could ever work.

Perhaps we could find a solution that could be more easily implemented into systems we already have in place.
(Ideas I haven't really thought about at all: )
Deductions which increase exponentially until they result in a DQ?
A large generic safety deduction which is reported to and reviewed by someone (USASF?) and then a hefty fine or ban?
A judging system where the difficulty score only includes elements completed safely?
Some letter which must be signed by the parent/guardian of each athlete who receives one of these huge deductions?

These ideas are so much more realistic. Increase the deduction for falls AND scary skills

 

[Mclovin]

Mclovin I don't mean to pick on you, I just want to point out some holes and hope someone has some ideas to fill in the blanks.

I didn't think you were picking on me at all. I am glad there is dialog going on about it, regardless of whether people like my ideas or not. Keep the ideas coming because something needs to be done!!

 

[catlady]

Deductions which increase exponentially until they result in a DQ?

Forgive me but, DQ translates into ice cream at my house. Is that disqualification?

 

[viralscorp]

Forgive me but, DQ translates into ice cream at my house. Is that disqualification?

Yes, I mean disqualification. Oops!

 

[cupieqt]

Yes ^

 

[NEliteSteven]

I disagree with this (respectfully of course). Being a level 3 backspot and backspoting full ups to prep and straight up stunts is WAY easier than backspotting high to highs and double ups or catching a kick double basket.

My only problem with this is the variables that come into play. I can base a rewind with a 100 pound flyer, but maybe not a 130 pound flyer. Or I have kids that can double up with a 75 pound flyer, but not a 110 pound flyer. I think most of my kids could be credentialed to level 5 depending on the flyer. No?

 

[Mclovin]

My only problem with this is the variables that come into play. I can base a rewind with a 100 pound flyer, but maybe not a 130 pound flyer. Or I have kids that can double up with a 75 pound flyer, but not a 110 pound flyer. I think most of my kids could be credentialed to level 5 depending on the flyer. No?

Well that's a very good point. I hadn't really thought about the weight aspect of stunting...And that goes both ways. A flyer could be credentialed level 5 with a beast group but given a weaker group could be that disaster we all speak about in this thread...

 

[NEliteSteven]

Well that's a very good point. I hadn't really thought about the weight aspect of stunting...And that goes both ways. A flyer could be credentialed level 5 with a beast group but given a weaker group could be that disaster we all speak about in this thread...

I totally was feeling where you were going, but I feel like it's easily manipulated and extremely subjective. We all know that groups have to mesh well to become a strong group. Of course you have beasts in all positions that you could just throw together, but normally it takes time to mesh and find your rhythm (sp? I totally am too lazy to spell check it. That's got to be the hardest word to spell in our language, right?).

 

[Mclovin]

I totally was feeling where you were going, but I feel like it's easily manipulated and extremely subjective. We all know that groups have to mesh well to become a strong group. Of course you have beasts in all positions that you could just throw together, but normally it takes time to mesh and find your rhythm (sp? I totally am too lazy to spell check it. That's got to be the hardest word to spell in our language, right?).

lol. There were lots of suggestions thrown out there in the past. I can't remember them all but there were some really good ones.

 

[cheermommaRN]

I think some of the parents know what is going on isn't safe but the glamour of having little Suzy on a level 4 or 5 team clouds their judgement. My cp is friends with a girl on Facebook that literally has a different gym uni every season because her mom is looking for that delicate balance of winning and having her cp on the highest level team she can force her onto.
After being a part of a large gym and a small gym, it seems the small gym environment fosters that "family" atmosphere but that same atmosphere can be toxic. Example....Gym A has 18 teams fully maxed and Suzy is on a level 3 team, well Suzy's mom wants her on a level 4 "or else". She may spread her disenchantment to her friends but the chance of it eating away at any other teams is small. If she leaves? Easily replaced by pulling a kid in off a waiting list or moving a kid up from one of the level 2 teams. Same scenario in a small gym? Could result in losing half the team when Suzy leaves...possibly kids from other teams...and every parent in the gym knows about it.

 

[yojaehs]

Mclovin I will always agree with you I'm not apposed to the athlete credentialing program but I'm anxious as to how it's conducted and monitored. I agree that athletes should be monitored and I think this could produce better research for better long term decisions. I'm very anxious about someone (anyone) telling me how to run my business I guess. There are so many different ways to do it and what's good for one isn't always the best for another.
Again, I'm not apposed to athlete credentialing but I feel that better coaches would help alleviate a lot of the problems.
Rudags I 100% hear you. I guess I look at things that I do that I'm sure others wouldn't and I know others do things I would never do, who's to say what is "right"? I'm not saying that something shouldnt be done, but I'm hoping stiffer deductions could help deter this kind of thing but it never ceases to amaze me things that continue to happen.
To me it's kind of like the new "cover up" rule, I am 100% against this rule. NOT because I don't think that there are little kids running around like they shouldn't but I feel that if this kind of thing were handled by program owners/directors/coaches I don't think it would ever have been an issue to begin with. I guess start at the top is more my point.

 

[Rudags]

Rudags I 100% hear you. I guess I look at things that I do that I'm sure others wouldn't and I know others do things I would never do, who's to say what is "right"? I'm not saying that something shouldnt be done, but I'm hoping stiffer deductions could help deter this kind of thing but it never ceases to amaze me things that continue to happen.
To me it's kind of like the new "cover up" rule, I am 100% against this rule. NOT because I don't think that there are little kids running around like they shouldn't but I feel that if this kind of thing were handled by program owners/directors/coaches I don't think it would ever have been an issue to begin with. I guess start at the top is more my point.

I understand, and I also get their are tactics I do that others would not like and vice versa. I even understand that there have been fluke accidents where I have been in a warmup room and a kid decides to fall out of a stunt and someone might say thats not safe. Im not talking about that. Im talking about a CLEAR and obvious, multiple catastrophic injuries from the same gym that also had several teams dropping to the floor NOT ONLY the entire warmup process, but also on the floor. I would NEVER let a team compete if they didnt hit once in warmups. It would be 'dumbed down' to hit clean. Isn't safety the reason we have those restricted tumbling rules now? I don't want that happening to stunts. Stunts are my strong points as a coach.

 

[yojaehs]

I understand, and I also get their are tactics I do that others would not like and vice versa. I even understand that there have been fluke accidents where I have been in a warmup room and a kid decides to fall out of a stunt and someone might say thats not safe. Im not talking about that. Im talking about a CLEAR and obvious, multiple catastrophic injuries from the same gym that also had several teams dropping to the floor NOT ONLY the entire warmup process, but also on the floor. I would NEVER let a team compete if they didnt hit once in warmups. It would be 'dumbed down' to hit clean. Isn't safety the reason we have those restricted tumbling rules now? I don't want that happening to stunts. Stunts are my strong points as a coach.

No doubt! My gym is built on that (even though I'm the "tumbling" director) lol.