- Jan 25, 2013
- 3,664
- 9,028
Was it ever explained why the Worlds scoresheet is now out of 150 instead of 300?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I was wondering as well, because deductions weren't half of what they were last year..... which means each deduction you receive is a bigger blow to your final score.Was it ever explained why the Worlds scoresheet is now out of 150 instead of 300?
Oh please! Didn't say wished, said hoping. And not hoping for a fall, just not well so we were hoping for them all to have a little cough due to cold. Geez,what a way to misquote @getsum ;)exactly!
i remember someone on here saying: smoed wished brandon would fall, because thats the only way smoed knew they could win.
NOT!
kind of ironic considereing the only way brandon couldve won was if smoed fell, as **many** were wishing in the thread that is now locked.
![]()
I'm still waiting on those from 2013!Are the final Medium coed scores anywhere?
Wow didn't realize how many places some teams jumped or dropped to in this division.Small Senior
GOLD - Woodlands Elite - Generals
SILVER - California All Stars - Lady Bullets
BRONZE - Top Gun Angels
4. Green Bay Elite - Lime
5. Cheer Extreme SSX
6. Cheer Central Suns - Lady Suns
7. World Cup Suns
8. NJSE Fab 5
9. ICE Lady Lightning
10. Star Athletics - Senior Red
I feel like this is just how USASF does ties, which is odd. I remember the year there was a tie for first in IOC6, there was still a 2nd and 3rd place team. But then again, that could have just been so there was someone to give those trophies/medals to.So have the IOC5 scores/placements been explained? worlds.usasf.net: Home
Because Rays "tied" for 7th apparently, but then they give 8th place (the general protocol for a tie would be have joint 7th, then the next ranked team is 9th). So my guess is that they are attempting to mitigate the "4 US teams in finals" situation by not giving an official placing to the lowest placed team? But then there were also 4 Canadian teams in finals and all 4 of those got final rankings. My guess is that they only worried about top 10, but has anyone got any other ideas/offical info from USASF (I realise I'm deluding myself with this last bit...)?
Yeah, that would make sense, I wonder if there was a 4th place or if they skipped to 5th after bronze? Also was there any justification given for the 4th Canadian team, but no 4th team from any other country besides the US, or was that a case of "who screams loudest"?I feel like this is just how USASF does ties, which is odd. I remember the year there was a tie for first in IOC6, there was still a 2nd and 3rd place team. But then again, that could have just been so there was someone to give those trophies/medals to.
Great questions, I have no idea.Yeah, that would make sense, I wonder if there was a 4th place or if they skipped to 5th after bronze? Also was there any justification given for the 4th Canadian team, but no 4th team from any other country besides the US, or was that a case of "who screams loudest"?
I think it was just a case of one U.S. and one Canadian team contesting their scores after finalist were announced. Someone took a screenshot of a tweet from the Canadian team that placed 4th among Canadian teams and posted it in one of the Worlds threads (probably somewhere in day 2).Yeah, that would make sense, I wonder if there was a 4th place or if they skipped to 5th after bronze? Also was there any justification given for the 4th Canadian team, but no 4th team from any other country besides the US, or was that a case of "who screams loudest"?