All-Star True Coed Stunting Deduction

[King]

So what if your last group needs the side, do you just not put up the stunt at all?

And am I the only one who isn't a huge fan of the unassisted coed requirement? I like watching complex transitions and skills in a two base stunt way more than watching someone do a toss stretch pop down. Really unless you are doing a toss full up to the top, you are getting a lot of credit for a level 3 or 4 skill

I think a boy backing a group stunt, in general, is kinda ridiculous. Boys, in general, are much stronger pound for pound than a female. I have always not overly enjoyed when boys are in group stunts (that doesn't mean I haven't done it... because I will not be stubborn about something if it isn't rewarded just to be stubborn). A single based stunt to the top is actually extremely impressive and highly underrated. But even now it isn't truly rewarded. Anywhere. In college it is better, but there is still the safety net that someone can touch your stunt and make it hit. And I have stunted so long and watch these sequences with choreographed points for touching or what not I watch all this and just don't think it should count. If you have a decent hands lib and a flyer with a back tuck I can side spot you (pop the hips form the bottom and assist the catch at the top) and get you to hit a consistent rewind in about 30 minutes. I will always be popping the hips and catching the top with you, but score wise its the same as an individual throwing and catching completely by themselves. I can also teach someone to side spot that way. They only help the stunts for really brief periods, but its all the most difficult pieces in a rewind. It's like allowing someone to compete a full where a spot just pops and touches the hips for a second. They do the full, but needed that little bit of guidance and gets full credit for it.

The most impressive stunt thing I have ever seen was SFA about 10 years ago. All the spotters took a knee during the sequence (which is technically legal to do.. I almost did it with Rust a few years ago). As a stunter it takes a lot of mettle to know it is solely your responsible to hit something.

 

[BlueCat]

USASF levels are designed around safety/danger progressions, not necessarily difficulty. There are many lower-level-allowed skills that are much more physically difficult than some skills that are only allowed at L5.

My opinion is that EPs should stop letting the safety guidelines determine their difficulty rubrics and instead create their own. (Better yet would be a separate, but standard difficulty rubric.)

 

[CGAcheer]

Both main scoresheets are scaled- max for l1 is 6 max for l5 is 10 and on their rubrics put unassisted stunting in the 8 to 10 range.

If I have kids on a j2 do a walk in straight up to cupie, should they get a 9 even though their max allowed score is only 7?


And as far as visual appeal for coed teams I was talking about the 3 person total groups(flyer and 2 bases/spots)

 

[CGAcheer]

Rule clarification....at what level can you do a true unassisted toss to hands extension in a two leg stunt? What about toss to hands extension in a one leg stunt. I read the new varsity grid but I'm still fuzzy on that. It seemed like you could only hold a two leg at prep level at level three and only extend with two legs at level four. But, I might be entirely wrong, I wasn't really getting that part. ASCheerMan can you help?

In level 2 you can't toss but there are other ways to do an unassisted extension
Level3 you can toss to hands and press to whatever
In 4 you can toss to extended whatever, full up to hands and i believe handspring/handstand up to the top
In 5 you can twist to the top
6 you can flip

 

[ASCheerMan]

I think a boy backing a group stunt, in general, is kinda ridiculous. Boys, in general, are much stronger pound for pound than a female. I have always not overly enjoyed when boys are in group stunts (that doesn't mean I haven't done it... because I will not be stubborn about something if it isn't rewarded just to be stubborn). A single based stunt to the top is actually extremely impressive and highly underrated. But even now it isn't truly rewarded. Anywhere. In college it is better, but there is still the safety net that someone can touch your stunt and make it hit. And I have stunted so long and watch these sequences with choreographed points for touching or what not I watch all this and just don't think it should count. If you have a decent hands lib and a flyer with a back tuck I can side spot you (pop the hips form the bottom and assist the catch at the top) and get you to hit a consistent rewind in about 30 minutes. I will always be popping the hips and catching the top with you, but score wise its the same as an individual throwing and catching completely by themselves. I can also teach someone to side spot that way. They only help the stunts for really brief periods, but its all the most difficult pieces in a rewind. It's like allowing someone to compete a full where a spot just pops and touches the hips for a second. They do the full, but needed that little bit of guidance and gets full credit for it.

The most impressive stunt thing I have ever seen was SFA about 10 years ago. All the spotters took a knee during the sequence (which is technically legal to do.. I almost did it with Rust a few years ago). As a stunter it takes a lot of mettle to know it is solely your responsible to hit something.

I like it when King all-girl stunts. Especially when he bases Paul Beck.

 

[King]

I like it when King all-girl stunts. Especially when he bases Paul Beck.

Haha... he was not a small flyer. But held his weight well!

Manimal Dos | Facebook

 

[King]

And while were at it... KB_Legend getting knocked down by a basket!

Apr 28, 2011 8:54am | Facebook

 

[OVESQ]

It is an interesting thought. I completely agree that unassisted coed stunting is not truly rewarded. However, I think the idea of actually penalizing the spotter raises some safety issues.

In essence, whether they are choreographed to assist or not, the rules require the spotter to be there to make the stunt safer. But such a system would penalize the spotter for ensuring the safety of the stunt, which would be a bit backwards given that safety seems to be the major priority with modern competitive cheerleading.

So then, in an effort to maintain the safety of the base and flyer of a struggling/falling stunt, we create an exception that says in some manner of words, “There will be no penalty for a spotter attempting to assist a struggling/falling stunt.” But then, by creating the exception, we have raised more issues. 1) For the purposes of a consistent scoring standard, how do we possibly define something as subjective as the point at which a stunt requires saving? (You hear the debate all the time: “They could have saved that!” “No they couldn’t have!”). 2) We have now forced the spotter to decide at what point it would be safe for her/him to help the stunt without getting a penalty for the team. And then, even if the spotter has chosen to act at what, to them, seems to be an appropriate time, their actions would still be subject to the subjective impressions of the judges.

 

[King]

It is an interesting thought. I completely agree that unassisted coed stunting is not truly rewarded. However, I think the idea of actually penalizing the spotter raises some safety issues.

In essence, whether they are choreographed to assist or not, the rules require the spotter to be there to make the stunt safer. But such a system would penalize the spotter for ensuring the safety of the stunt, which would be a bit backwards given that safety seems to be the major priority with modern competitive cheerleading.

So then, in an effort to maintain the safety of the base and flyer of a struggling/falling stunt, we create an exception that says in some manner of words, “There will be no penalty for a spotter attempting to assist a struggling/falling stunt.” But then, by creating the exception, we have raised more issues. 1) For the purposes of a consistent scoring standard, how do we possibly define something as subjective as the point at which a stunt requires saving? (You hear the debate all the time: “They could have saved that!” “No they couldn’t have!”). 2) We have now forced the spotter to decide at what point it would be safe for her/him to help the stunt without getting a penalty for the team. And then, even if the spotter has chosen to act at what, to them, seems to be an appropriate time, their actions would still be subject to the subjective impressions of the judges.

I would argue the spotters there to catch in case it falls, not make it hit.

 

[King]

I would also say that anyone who helps hold someone in the air is not a spotter. I believe there are a base. A spotter is someone who is there to catch something in case it falls. Not someone who hells a stunt hit. We don't think of tumbling as compete-able if it requires a spot to physically hit, why stunting?

 

[Cheer Dad]

Having a male cp that is capable of coed stunting I kind of like this concept. Guessing might personally feel different if he couldn't though.

 

[OVESQ]

I agree that the nature of spotting, in general, is to catch something in case it falls. And the examples of spotted tumbling and spotters at competition are very supportive of that definition. However, I also think that someone who is helping to prevent someone from falling can be considered a spotter. Which is also supported by the example of spotted tumbling.

Regardless of what definition we assign to general spotting though, in the context of unassisted coed stunting, if the stunt is falling the spotter attempts to save the stunt in an effort to avoid a greater deduction. They do not simply let the stunt fall, and assist on the catching of the fallen stunt.

But in the example given in this thread, it seemed to me that such an act would be a deduction if it was clear that the spotter was not choreographed to give assistance. So that is why I framed my post the way I did.

We don't think of tumbling as compete-able if it requires a spot to hit, because there is no other safe alternative, both in terms of athlete safety and potential deductions. But assisted coed stunting is the safe alternative to unassisted coed stunting.

 

[Cheer Dad]

Regardless of what definition we assign to general spotting though, in the context of unassisted coed stunting, if the stunt is falling the spotter attempts to save the stunt in an effort to avoid a greater deduction. They do not simply let the stunt fall, and assist on the catching of the fallen stunt.

But in the example given in this thread, it seemed to me that such an act would be a deduction if it was clear that the spotter was not choreographed to give assistance. So that is why I framed my post the way I did.

Then at this point wouldn't it become an assisted stunt and therefore a lower point value? If they clearly had to catch the stunt to keep the flyer from touching down then that would be an obvious deduction, right?

 

[OVESQ]

As to your first question, I'm not sure, exactly. The idea and discussion are all academic at this point, so I don't have a great answer as to how the assignment of the point value might be treated. But based on the context of this thread, I have interpreted that intentionally unassisted stunts = high range; intentionally assisted stunts = low range; and assistance of intentionally unassisted stunts = deduction. It is possible that I have misinterpreted something though.

In response to your second question, I would say yes. In that situation that you just described, that seems like a blatant fall if we have reached the point of preventing the flyer from touching the ground. But the blatant falls aren't my concern.

My initial response in this thread was based off of the discussion that you and kingston had that focused on intent.

Idea being if 5 stunts went up and look like they were intended to be without a side and one does touch it, it is now a deduction.

So if intended to go up as assisted coed then no deduction just a lower point value is attainable?

Yeah.

So just to give you an idea of how I'm thinking about it: A team does 5 toss extended one leg stunts with body positions. They are intended to be unassisted based on the fact that all toss to the top by themselves, and are held without assistance through the first body position. As the flyers pull the second body position, one base's arms unlock and the stunt begins to come down. The spotter grabs the ankle and the foot of the flyer, pushes up to help the base re-extend the stunt, and then puts their arms back at their sides.

Based on the discussion of intent, it appears to me that the action of preventing the stunt from potentially falling would earn a deduction because the stunt sequence was intended to be unassisted. So that is where my concern lies.

 

[Cheer Dad]

Definitely see where you are going wit this and yes, it would be a deduction. If not done through a deduction how would you reward the unassisted stunt over an assisted stunt?

Would something like this push teams towards unassisted stunting before they are ready thereby creating a bigger safety issue for the flyer?