All-Star True Coed Stunting Deduction

[12stepCheermom]

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.

Ditto. But we can be self serving together ;)

 

[OVESQ]

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?

Both are great questions!

I do not know exactly how I would apply it within a scoring system, but I would like to reward unassisted stunting by giving it a much higher point value than assisted stunting. I realize this is the same basic concept that kingston proposed with his numbers at the beginning of the thread, but I would like to see the range made wider than two points from the minimum assisted stunt score to the highest possible unassisted stunt score. Then perhaps add a criteria for qualification for the unassisted stunt range, as well as strict enforcement of a guideline that any assistance at any point through the stunt will automatically disqualify you from the high range (but no deductions for assisting a stunt). This is just a basic concept, and I acknowledge that there are MANY potential holes in it (for example, I haven't addressed things like required percentages/ratios). It is just to give you an idea of where my thinking is. I'd just like to reward more, rather than deduct more.

As you pointed out, a higher reward for more difficult unassisted coed stunting does in fact create the risk that teams will push the skills and attempt to compete them before they are actually ready to do so (especially teams who feel like they lack skills, and could make up the points in a higher unassisted stunt range). And I don't have a great response, or a preventative suggestion. I guess my hope is that strict enforcement of a "completely unassisted" requirement will work towards curbing that to a degree. It is my thought (and perhaps it is a naive one) that a legitimately certified coach would not risk unassisted stunts that consistently fall at practice, because accumulated deductions would defeat the purpose of getting into the range anyway.

On the other hand, I have concerns that too small of a point difference between assisted and unassisted stunting has the potential to be a disincentive to helping athletes learn to stunt unassisted. For the sake of example, let's just say that a full up to one leg, a high to high tick tock, body positions, and a double down is a high scoring stunt sequence. So in a two point assisted/unassisted range, a team doing them entirely unassisted (which kingston has told us is significantly harder, and he's right) can only score one point higher in their stunt than a team doing them entirely assisted. To me, the reward of doing the stunt unassisted is entirely outweighed by the risks. And I think that example is somewhat representative of the current state of coed stunting in all star cheerleading.

And to me, that state doesn't necessarily represent a "problem" for cheerleading in general, but I do know there are many within in the industry who would like to see expanded incorporation of unassisted stunting.

 

[Cheer Dad]

Purposely didn't bring up percentages/ratio because not sure how would fit in. I mean if 4 of 5 go up unassisted and 1 with an assist it is still majority so should therefore be rewarded but at the same time is clearly not the same as other stunts at same time. I need some more thought on this.

 

[King]

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.

Right now if a spotter has to come in and assist the stunt outside of pre-choreographed assistance, it will already be a bobble deduction, so I don't think that changes anything except now we are having a stronger encouraging of people holding their own stunts. It would actually, in a few competitions, make people dial back the difficulty to ensure it hits, therefor making it safer.

 

[King]

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.






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.

Just by your example that would get a bobble deduction.

 

[King]

Both are great questions!

I do not know exactly how I would apply it within a scoring system, but I would like to reward unassisted stunting by giving it a much higher point value than assisted stunting. I realize this is the same basic concept that kingston proposed with his numbers at the beginning of the thread, but I would like to see the range made wider than two points from the minimum assisted stunt score to the highest possible unassisted stunt score. Then perhaps add a criteria for qualification for the unassisted stunt range, as well as strict enforcement of a guideline that any assistance at any point through the stunt will automatically disqualify you from the high range (but no deductions for assisting a stunt). This is just a basic concept, and I acknowledge that there are MANY potential holes in it (for example, I haven't addressed things like required percentages/ratios). It is just to give you an idea of where my thinking is. I'd just like to reward more, rather than deduct more.

As you pointed out, a higher reward for more difficult unassisted coed stunting does in fact create the risk that teams will push the skills and attempt to compete them before they are actually ready to do so (especially teams who feel like they lack skills, and could make up the points in a higher unassisted stunt range). And I don't have a great response, or a preventative suggestion. I guess my hope is that strict enforcement of a "completely unassisted" requirement will work towards curbing that to a degree. It is my thought (and perhaps it is a naive one) that a legitimately certified coach would not risk unassisted stunts that consistently fall at practice, because accumulated deductions would defeat the purpose of getting into the range anyway.

On the other hand, I have concerns that too small of a point difference between assisted and unassisted stunting has the potential to be a disincentive to helping athletes learn to stunt unassisted. For the sake of example, let's just say that a full up to one leg, a high to high tick tock, body positions, and a double down is a high scoring stunt sequence. So in a two point assisted/unassisted range, a team doing them entirely unassisted (which kingston has told us is significantly harder, and he's right) can only score one point higher in their stunt than a team doing them entirely assisted. To me, the reward of doing the stunt unassisted is entirely outweighed by the risks. And I think that example is somewhat representative of the current state of coed stunting in all star cheerleading.

And to me, that state doesn't necessarily represent a "problem" for cheerleading in general, but I do know there are many within in the industry who would like to see expanded incorporation of unassisted stunting.

Yes currently the reward to actually have a male athlete hold a stunt on their own is very small. Even in college very few people hit their stunt sequence without their spotters touching for a second, a good example is Kentucky:

I am NOT claiming they are not good, but in the moment when it matters spotters (and the other hand) tend to touch the stunt (not at the bottom but in the air when it matters). And UCA represents the purest and truest form of coed stunting at the moment. So... why not actually reward it?

 

[StarshipTrooper]

I am NOT claiming they are not good, but in the moment when it matters spotters (and the other hand) tend to touch the stunt (not at the bottom but in the air when it matters). And UCA represents the purest and truest form of coed stunting at the moment. So... why not actually reward it?

I'm all in if you also pass a deduction for running in place.

 

[OVESQ]

Right now if a spotter has to come in and assist the stunt outside of pre-choreographed assistance, it will already be a bobble deduction, so I don't think that changes anything except now we are having a stronger encouraging of people holding their own stunts. It would actually, in a few competitions, make people dial back the difficulty to ensure it hits, therefor making it safer.

That is a separate piece of my point. The bobbled stunt is already getting the deduction for the bobble, so what function would a separate deduction for un-choreographed assistance serve?

Is the deduction for un-choreographed assistance in addition to the deduction for the bobbled stunt? Because if that is what is being suggested, then I think it actually serves as a deterrent for letting people hold their own stunts, rather than encouragement.

 

[King]

That is a separate piece of my point. The bobbled stunt is already getting the deduction for the bobble, so what function would a separate deduction for un-choreographed assistance serve?

Is the deduction for un-choreographed assistance in addition to the deduction for the bobbled stunt? Because if that is what is being suggested, then I think it actually serves as a deterrent for letting people hold their own stunts, rather than encouragement.

The difference is I am talking about a separate example. At the moment there is no deduction for touching the stunt even if it isn't a bobble.

 

[David]

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

An unassisted toss stretch is SO much more difficult than a group doing a straight up stretch or an assisted toss stretch. The unassisted coed requirement is the best thing to happen to all star cheer. It helps the boys get ready for college stunting.

 

[OVESQ]

I completely support the idea of rewarding truly unassisted coed stunting. I guess I'm just struggling to see the benefit of an additional deduction.

 

[King]

I completely support the idea of rewarding truly unassisted coed stunting. I guess I'm just struggling to see the benefit of an additional deduction.

My issue is rewording it I don't think would change how the judges judge it. The system itself would have to be fixed (and that is a whole other thread on how to make judging more accurate).

 

[FamousMatty]

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 feel like the reason we aren't able to see boys in All-Star doing unassisted toss full ups and tic-tocs is because of the fact that coed stunting hasn't been a requirement for so long. So I for one am all for the required coed stunting. I think it helps with getting boys ready for college stunting as well. I know I might be in the minority here, but if you're a coed a team I want you to show me a reason why you're coed and not just because your boys are fantastic tumblers. Just my opinion. I actually think what is required needs to start getting progressively harder. And I like Kingston's idea.

 

[CGAcheer]

An unassisted toss stretch is SO much more difficult than a group doing a straight up stretch or an assisted toss stretch. The unassisted coed requirement is the best thing to happen to all star cheer. It helps the boys get ready for college stunting.

I never said it wasn't more difficult I just prefer watching the visuals of a more complex stunt sequence that you can get with a base and an active "spotter" vs a straight up unassisted toss stretch

 

[OVESQ]

My issue is rewording it I don't think would change how the judges judge it. The system itself would have to be fixed (and that is a whole other thread on how to make judging more accurate).

That's a very good point.