All-Star Usasf Rules Gurus - Please Read

[debbie]

Pretty simple actually, whoever is responsible for varifying that these athletes are released would have an appeal form they would review. If need be they could contact the gym in question, deny/accept. I don't see that this happens so often that you need to hire a seperate department to handle this kind of thing but I feel that this is important enough to be considered. As much as I agree, as I previously said with this rule bc I hate seeing a team being screwed, I feel equally as bad for a parent/child being put in a bad situation. I feel that this rule is completely one-sided. Yes, I know that you can't please everyone but my recommendation takes little extra time. The rule still deturs parents/athletes from leaving but in an EXTREME case, there is an option. My suggestion SHOULDN'T cost any more money, maybe an extra 5/10 minutes a week btw the months of Nov-April by the same person responsible for keeping track of the releases that DO get signed.

Wish you were part of the usasf

 

[Rudags]

I would volunteer time and effort to be on an appeal board, I know many have made the same offer in the past. I think the appeal board she be comprised of two USASF Board Members, two parents, two coaches, two owners, and two event producers to get a fair take...Add a line or two titles "Reason to not release" (Please submit proof) and let the board handle it. Put us in a Skype call and we can call it the day.

 

[ACEDAD]

Wish you were part of the usasf

He is.

And if coaches and owners want this, they can vote it in. I'm not opposed to an appeals process by any means.

But I think the estimate of 5-10 minutes per week is incredibly naive.

 

[Deleted member 15]

Pretty simple actually, whoever is responsible for varifying that these athletes are released would have an appeal form they would review. If need be they could contact the gym in question, deny/accept. I don't see that this happens so often that you need to hire a seperate department to handle this kind of thing but I feel that this is important enough to be considered. As much as I agree, as I previously said with this rule bc I hate seeing a team being screwed, I feel equally as bad for a parent/child being put in a bad situation. I feel that this rule is completely one-sided. Yes, I know that you can't please everyone but my recommendation takes little extra time. The rule still deturs parents/athletes from leaving but in an EXTREME case, there is an option. My suggestion SHOULDN'T cost any more money, maybe an extra 5/10 minutes a week btw the months of Nov-April by the same person responsible for keeping track of the releases that DO get signed.

I would volunteer time and effort to be on an appeal board, I know many have made the same offer in the past. I think the appeal board she be comprised of two USASF Board Members, two parents, two coaches, two owners, and two event producers to get a fair take...Add a line or two titles "Reason to not release" (Please submit proof) and let the board handle it. Put us in a Skype call and we can call it the day.

You 2 need to get together and get a proposal in for the next rules cycle.

 

[debbie]

He is.

And if coaches and owners want this, they can vote it in. I'm not opposed to an appeals process by any means.

But I think the estimate of 5-10 minutes per week is incredibly naive.

maybe that is naive however if owners know that not releasing a kid can and will be appealed they will probably think twice before saying no, and if they do say no even with an appeals process it is probably less from spite and more for a legit reason.

 

[ACEDAD]

maybe that is naive however if owners know that not releasing a kid can and will be appealed they will probably think twice before saying no, and if they do say no even with an appeals process it is probably less from spite and more for a legit reason.

You may be exactly right. But all those things need to be considered. I do my best to get people to think through the possibilities and consequences.

Sometimes they do and sometimes they don't.

 

[shadow]

My daughters boyfriend plays hockey. He wanted to switch teams and they would not release him. He was able to appeal and was eventually released. I would be for this rule if it was properly regulated like it is in other youth sports. As it stands now it is ripe for abuse.

 

[kristenthegreat]

My daughters boyfriend plays hockey. He wanted to switch teams and they would not release him. He was able to appeal and was eventually released. I would be for this rule if it was properly regulated like it is in other youth sports. As it stands now it is ripe for abuse.

...But wouldn't the appeals process be able to be abused as well, and then we'll be right back where we started? What's the point in even making the rule in the first place if you know they're just gonna make you release the athlete eventually anyway? The only reason why they would put a stop on the release is for payment, and after that wouldn't they just let them go? Would there be a deterrent for a person who is constantly doing this? Would the USASF keep track of the people asking for releases/those being granted or denied?

I can understand not wanting someone on your team who doesn't want to be there. I understand letting someone go if there is abuse going on. I can not understand people being able to gym shop halfway through a season...it's beyond being a consumer, it's this concept of commitment that's no longer a standard.

 

[shadow]

...But wouldn't the appeals process be able to be abused as well, and then we'll be right back where we started? What's the point in even making the rule in the first place if you know they're just gonna make you release the athlete eventually anyway? The only reason why they would put a stop on the release is for payment, and after that wouldn't they just let them go? Would there be a deterrent for a person who is constantly doing this? Would the USASF keep track of the people asking for releases/those being granted or denied?

I can understand not wanting someone on your team who doesn't want to be there. I understand letting someone go if there is abuse going on. I can not understand people being able to gym shop halfway through a season...it's beyond being a consumer, it's this concept of commitment that's no longer a standard.

They seem to manage in other sports. People at USASF are smart enough to figure something out that weeds out kids who should be released and who shouldn't. There are justifiable reasons not to release an athlete and one should not be "just because".

 

[debbie]

...But wouldn't the appeals process be able to be abused as well, and then we'll be right back where we started? What's the point in even making the rule in the first place if you know they're just gonna make you release the athlete eventually anyway? The only reason why they would put a stop on the release is for payment, and after that wouldn't they just let them go? Would there be a deterrent for a person who is constantly doing this? Would the USASF keep track of the people asking for releases/those being granted or denied?

I can understand not wanting someone on your team who doesn't want to be there. I understand letting someone go if there is abuse going on. I can not understand people being able to gym shop halfway through a season...it's beyond being a consumer, it's this concept of commitment that's no longer a standard.

An appeals process is the only way to make a rule like this not be abused.

 

[kristenthegreat]

They seem to manage in other sports. People at USASF are smart enough to figure something out that weeds out kids who should be released and who shouldn't. There are justifiable reasons not to release an athlete and one should not be "just because".

But isn't that the whole point of the appeal process? To do it 'just because' the athlete wants it and the gym won't give it to them? Otherwise, why else would you need an appeal? You wouldn't need one for cases of abuse, because the USASF have already shown precedent in that instance. But WHAT makes one granted and one not, besides that? What is your magical basis of not being released, besides money? And then after that's paid, what's to stop it from being revisited and the appeal granted?

This is also the part where 5-10 minutes a week to handle this sort of thing becomes MUCH more lengthy and time consuming. Right now, this is only for Level 5s. Imagine how many appeals there will be when this spreads to all the other levels?

 

[shadow]

But isn't that the whole point of the appeal process? To do it 'just because' the athlete wants it and the gym won't give it to them? Otherwise, why else would you need an appeal? You wouldn't need one for cases of abuse, because the USASF have already shown precedent in that instance. But WHAT makes one granted and one not, besides that? What is your magical basis of not being released, besides money? And then after that's paid, what's to stop it from being revisited and the appeal granted?

This is also the part where 5-10 minutes a week to handle this sort of thing becomes MUCH more lengthy and time consuming. Right now, this is only for Level 5s. Imagine how many appeals there will be when this spreads to all the other levels?

very excellent argue for not putting the rule in place to begin with. If you can not regulate/govern it, it should not be in place.

 

[gi_cheer]

Keep in mind....an appeal doesn't automatically mean that the athlete will get released....it simply means that their argument will be reviewed by a board.

 

[REA Dad]

He is.

And if coaches and owners want this, they can vote it in. I'm not opposed to an appeals process by any means.

But I think the estimate of 5-10 minutes per week is incredibly naive.

Simply appeals cost solution: The loser of the appeal has to reimburse the USASF the cost of the appeal process and the all appeals should become public.

 

[SparkleSpankies]

True.

It's not "fair" to the 19-35 people on the team an athlete leaves after competing with them.

The rule is not perfect, but it's better than the shenanigans that were going on before and if I had to chose between it being unfair to the one choosing to leave a team or the 19-35 other that didn't make that choice I'd side with the majority.

I just have to add.. while I see your point, if that CP is not working well w/ the team, is not being used to best of ability, feel they are in an unsafe situation, if there are issues and they are being shunned by the coaches/team, you are better off and reworks are probablty welcome... and if I read right, the original post didn't describe the situation so while most fo the time it is true b/c people are just gym jumping, in some of these cases I am sure it's not afftcting the rest of the team at the end of the day....

Sorry, but seen situations like that were the athlete just isn't meshing well and sometimes it takes MONTHS to figure it out and also, if that is the case, then to be honest, I would fore-go worlds one year to get out and get happy! AND I also think that is what this parent is saying.. she wants the waiver, she isn't sure where they are going, the sitaution whatever it may be is not good for her CP and family and she was willing to step down to a Junior 5 if she had to, but wants the waiver just in case... I don't see a problem w/ that...

But notorious Gym Jumpers, this is trying to protect and we all know they are out there!!!