All-Star Unethical Or Helping The Team?

[SL&AM]

I can't honestly say that I'd tell my child no, so...whatever camp that goes into, I'm apart of.

 

[MomMomMamaMom]

(Without diving into the semantics of ethical/moral/etc.)

Having your team stand to the side of the floor, pull out the speaker cables, and loudly and purposely count the wrong counts during a competitor's routine wouldn't be against any USASF rules.

I hope you didn't give anyone any ideas!

I find it highly amusing that it isn't illegal to pull speaker cables though. I am guessing that this would all fall under unsportsmanlike conduct, which is addressed in the rules isn't it? I know I've seen it listed, but can't remember if it's just listed for events, and not covered in the actual rules.

You bring up a great point, per usual. Can the rules possibly cover every potentially unethical scenario? Probably not. However, I do see that rules do sometimes seem to have a reactive component to them... Meaning that they seem to have been added in response to things that some advocates in the community have raised as an issue. I'm thinking that this issue has been raised, and that the "non-rulings" on it are very telling.

 

[BlueCat]

I hope you didn't give anyone any ideas!

I find it highly amusing that it isn't illegal to pull speaker cables though. I am guessing that this would all fall under unsportsmanlike conduct, which is addressed in the rules isn't it? I know I've seen it listed, but can't remember if it's just listed for events, and not covered in the actual rules.

You bring up a great point, per usual. Can the rules possibly cover every potentially unethical scenario? Probably not. However, I do see that rules do sometimes seem to have a reactive component to them... Meaning that they seem to have been added in response to things that some advocates in the community have raised as an issue. I'm thinking that this issue has been raised, and that the "non-rulings" on it are very telling.

My point is the "if there isn't a specific rule against it, it is automatically acceptable to do it" argument doesn't work for me.

In the speaker cables example, I think one of the reasons no one does this is that they would face near-universal condemnation (with good reason.) No amount of pointing to the USASF rule book and telling everyone how clever they were would get that program out of the social media firestorm. Despite the fact that it would be "legal" and technically help their gym win, hardly anyone would take their side.

 

[MomMomMamaMom]

My point is the "if it isn't illegal, it is automatically acceptable to do it" argument doesn't work for me.

In the speaker cables example, I think one of the reasons that they would face universal condemnation (with good reason.) No amount of pointing to the USASF rule book and bragging that they had found a loophole would get that program out of the social media firestorm. Despite the fact that it would be "legal" and technically help their gym win, hardly anyone would take their side.

I totally get your point. And agree, we have things in this industry that we do seem to mutually agree on as to being unacceptable... Which is somewhat miraculous, TBH.

Do you have an opinion as to why the USASF has not established a set of comprehensive rulings regarding crossovers? It seems to be happening gradually, in a piecemeal sort of way, but not extensively.

 

[BlueCat]

I totally get your point. And agree, we have things in this industry that we do seem to mutually agree on as to being unacceptable... Which is somewhat miraculous, TBH.

Do you have an opinion as to why the USASF has not established a set of comprehensive rulings regarding crossovers? It seems to be happening gradually, in a piecemeal sort of way, but not extensively.

Yes. The perception is that it would negatively impact the smallest programs. The large programs (with 1 notable exception) tend to want stricter crossover rules and the smaller programs tend to think of crossovers as a survival mechanism.

The same is roughly true with the spread of age ranges for similar reasons. Large programs tend to want narrower age ranges.

 

[purplecheer]

Yes. The perception is that it would negatively impact the smallest programs. The large programs (with 1 notable exception) tend to want stricter crossover rules and the smaller programs tend to think of crossovers as a survival mechanism.

The same is roughly true with the spread of age ranges for similar reasons. Large programs tend to want narrower age ranges.

We are a tiny program (2 teams) that pretty much has to use crossovers if we want 2 stunt groups on each team. Our junior team is 6-12 and our senior 11-17. Our coach wanted to get rid of crossovers but then realised that it would be hard to do well with a 6 person team. I don't like crossovers and our coach doesn't either but we need to survive. If we had narrow age ranges, we would have a 5(min) person teams pretty much and pyramids would be challenging. When big gyms make rules, they have to consider the smaller gyms. This is why I'm in favour of your national division/world division thing where the world division would have stricter crossover and age rules.

 

[Cheermom1969]

Maybe I should specify that it's not just one athlete. I guess it just throws a red flag for me if a team is going to reach out to an athlete that's not with their gym anymore & ask them to drop 3 levels, when there's a gym full of available athletes. I'd be upset if my child with true level 2 skills lost to a team that was using level 5 athletes. But, I honestly don't know what I'd do if my child was the level 5 athlete & my friends were the coaches asking.

Well how many athletes are we talking about? One? Eh. Five? Now I have an issue.

 

[amy1k]

Sad but it happens. Yesterday someone posted a picture of a team that competed and won at a very small local comp. They admitted child was helping out that team and gym. Fact is that child has competed on at least 3 teams with 3 different gyms this season including UCA. Child is not Worlds eligible due to age but clearly a level 5 athlete. Yesterday competed level 3. While it may be that one athlete doesn't make a team, being able to throw the most difficult tumbling combinations multiple times, excellent jumps etc does offer an advantage. Not against any rules....

For some sports, this is an accepted practice. There are ALWAYS talented baseball kids who save money by not signing up with a team and then spending the season as a "guest player" on many teams. The parents will advertise to programs that their kid is available. I have no idea how common it is in cheer...I've seen a Worlds athlete compete with a two gyms at some point this season, though. No idea if this person is committed to one team.

 

[Cheermom1969]

My point is the "if it a specific rule against it, it is automatically acceptable to do it" argument doesn't work for me.

In the speaker cables example, I think one of the reasons that they would face near-universal condemnation (with good reason.) No amount of pointing to the USASF rule book and telling everyone how clever they were would get that program out of the social media firestorm. Despite the fact that it would be "legal" and technically help their gym win, hardly anyone would take their side.

But yet there would be some people on here that would defend it. :confused:

 

[MomMomMamaMom]

Yes. The perception is that it would negatively impact the smallest programs. The large programs (with 1 notable exception) tend to want stricter crossover rules and the smaller programs tend to think of crossovers as a survival mechanism.

The same is roughly true with the spread of age ranges for similar reasons. Large programs tend to want narrower age ranges.

I see. That makes sense. I am looking at crossovers rules as including level designations (for lack of a better word), but am assuming that this still holds true.

Not directly responding to you, but using this as a "jumping off" point. We have very strong opinions in this ( and other) threads. How many of you who feel strongly about crossovers ( including restricting the levels athletes can cross to) at from small gyms? How many are from large gyms?

*Disclaimer: My kids have competed with small gyms, who utilized crossovers extensively based solely on age requirements. Both have loved crossing over. One has much higher skills then one of the teams she crossed over to. The other has only gone down one level, but does technically have higher tumbling abilities then any available team( though she has never stunted or competed higher). My opinion on crossovers has evolved over time. I firmly believed it when our gym told us they were necessary, but have seen an evolution in scoring where smaller teams are now more competitive with larger teams.I don't believe our teams ever really had much of an advantage by utilizing crossovers, however, this is also the only season we ever had team tumbling on any team, so there were other reasons that may account for that. After years of seeing what can be successful, I don't believe kids should be competing "above" their level. I therefore don't think that someone having higher level skills should actually be an issue, as I believe that everyone should have solid skills in the level they are competing at. However, I am no longer opposed to limiting crossovers either.

 

[MissCongeniality]

Yes. The perception is that it would negatively impact the smallest programs. The large programs (with 1 notable exception) tend to want stricter crossover rules and the smaller programs tend to think of crossovers as a survival mechanism.

The same is roughly true with the spread of age ranges for similar reasons. Large programs tend to want narrower age ranges.

I agree and think that $ (as in that going into the pocketbooks of the EPs) also plays a role. If a team can't bring as many teams, that is less paid in team entry fees because the gyms "can't" field those extra teams without the crossovers . Also interesting to note, when my daughter started out most comps charged nothing or a minimal amount as a crossover fee. Now most charge full amount or close to it for the "second team".

 

[MomMomMamaMom]

I agree and think that $ (as in that going into the pocketbooks of the EPs) also plays a role. If a team can't bring as many teams, that is less paid in team entry fees because the gyms "can't" field those extra teams without the crossovers . Also interesting to note, when my daughter started out most comps charged nothing or a minimal amount as a crossover fee. Now most charge full amount or close to it for the "second team".

Yes!! Though NCA sure did well with their limits on crossovers, despite losing the entry fees from some notable teams, though there are other reasons for that as well.

 

[CheerItFullOut]

Simply put... If you had to ask others for their opinion on it, you're questioning if you should do it yourself. If you're questioning if you should do it, don't... Too often we don't listen to that little voice in our head called REASON (you know the one that used to make this world turn round the right way and made people feel good about themselves)...we tell it to shush up all the time instead... And go seeking everyone else's opinion except for the opinion that really matters -our conscious and good sense.

- to me it isn't about the crossovers, the skill level... The whatever... If you are having a bit of a gut check, there's a reason for it.

 

[MissCongeniality]

Yes!! Though NCA sure did well with their limits on crossovers, despite losing the entry fees from some notable teams, though there are other reasons for that as well.

Yes, but NCA is a popular comp. They are "full" (no room at the inn) Lol! I don't think we can compare NCA with most/many other comps... you know the ones where if it weren't for the high school/middle school and prep teams, the whole thing would be over by lunchtime ;) (and yes, those bigger than that too!)

 

[CheerBank]

My cp is filling in for an injured athlete on her gym's level 3 today. That's helping. If she stayed on that team for 2-3 comps, it would be unethical imho.