2017-18 Usasf Cheer Rules & Age Grid

[cheer25mom]

Our situation this year wasn't ideal. I'm in 100% support of bottom ages. I think we (as a sport) need bottom ages. We will adapt, and be fine. Will it be difficult? Possibly/probably. Hopefully the number of athletes increase for next season so it will be easier to field teams, but if not, we will adapt.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I thik bottom ages are all well and good, at large gyms. I think this is going to be very detrimental to a lot of smaller programs, making it harder for them to survivie. i think what we need is a better divisioning system, like school sports. Say, under 75 athletes is extra small, the only age restriction here is 10 and over for seniors. No worlds teams allowed. 75-150 small gym. Age restrictions kick in with worlds teams only. 150-250 medium gym. All age restrictions apply. Over 250- large gym. Must not field x small or small teams. Medium and large only.

 

[Nikki Moore]

We are a small gym and our youngest girl on one of our Jr teams is just 8 - so last year she wouldn't have been able to compete. We have girls ranging from 8-14 on our Jr team because we don't have enough to be able to do a Youth/Jr/Sr for them. We already have to have crossovers for Jr1 and Jr2 to make a full team..

 

[cheer25mom]

We are a small gym and our youngest girl on one of our Jr teams is just 8 - so last year she wouldn't have been able to compete. We have girls ranging from 8-14 on our Jr team because we don't have enough to be able to do a Youth/Jr/Sr for them. We already have to have crossovers for Jr1 and Jr2 to make a full team..

this is the first year in 5 years our gym has offered a mini team. In years past we have had many 6-7 year olds on J1 because it was the only viable option for fielding a level 1 team. I don't know what will happen to our minis next year. We have several who will not be 8 in time for junior 1 but don't have the skills for Y2, so the options will be either dump them on Y2 without the skills to be successful or have a very small y1 and a very small j1. Unless we start loading lower level teams with higher level crossovers.

 

[FloridaFlya]

X small coed teams are Worlds eligible, they'd just have to compete under the small coed division. It's just that "X small coed" division itself won't exist at Worlds, but I don't think X small coed teams are exclusive to their own division and aren't allowed to compete for a bid under the small coed division.

It depends on which type of Senior team. If you're referring to Worlds divisions, then at least 12. For non-Worlds, it should be at least 11.

Okay my apologies I had a misunderstanding!
And thank you

 

[Keep_Believing]

I am glad they released the changes/rules early. I remember one season , maybe about 4 years ago, they changed senior to age 10, but it was after some tryouts and teams had been formed. It was a big mess.

 

[luv2cheer92]

would they be forced to compete in the large coed division though. I can see that as being a huge disadvantage. Granted i dont think ive seen a team with those kinds of numbers, but i dont see how that would be fair.

If they have more than 30 athletes, they are large regardless of the number of boys. There have been teams competing in large coed in the last few years with like 4 or 5 boys or so.

 

[BlueCat]

would they be forced to compete in the large coed division though. I can see that as being a huge disadvantage. Granted i dont think ive seen a team with those kinds of numbers, but i dont see how that would be fair.

There has to be a line somewhere and you can't simply create a bunch of new divisions for every imaginable situation. It makes the most sense to put that line between "Coed" and "All Girl" as having at least 1 male on your team.

(Note, I am not making an attempt to define "male". Good luck USASF with negotiating that minefield.)

 

[Megreg]

So, will Xsmall AG compete As Xsmall but be eligible for worlds bid as a small AG?

 

[catlady]

Why are you glad about it? Don't you think it will be equally difficult to field those teams next year? It's going to make things interesting to say the least at our small gym. I think we are going to lose some higher level young athletes because we won't be able to offer level appropriate teams for them. I think its going to really effect the growth of small programs in areas where bigger ones are an option. For instance, a 10 year old with level 4 skills is much more likely to head to a gym that can offer her a J4, than to stay with a smaller gym on a J2 because that is all they can field. Under the old rules, she could have been placed on senior 4.

I do believe there is a safety benefit to closing the age gaps. There is now information out there that states children under 5 shouldn't be doing back walkovers. There is more information coming out on growth plate/tendon/bone/disc injuries, heavy lifting, concussions, etc. concerning children. By narrowing the age gaps, the USASF would be able to better limit certain skills and define better training for the appropriate age groups.

 

[cheer25mom]

I do believe there is a safety benefit to closing the age gaps. There is now information out there that states children under 5 shouldn't be doing back walkovers. There is more information coming out on growth plate/tendon/bone/disc injuries, heavy lifting, concussions, etc. concerning children. By narrowing the age gaps, the USASF would be able to better limit certain skills and define better training for the appropriate age groups.

and i agree with that. The tiny show division addresses this well while still allowing room for children of that age to participate. No 3-4 year old can now participate on a team that does those skills. These new age divisions do nothing however to prevent a child over 6 form being on a Y4 or Y5 team team, which is where the largest safety risk for the rest of it exists. Why? because the mega gyms that field those teams would have a fit. IF they REALLY want to address safety without killing small gyms in the process, there should be a level cap by age. NO GYM should be able to offer a Y5 to 6-8 year olds if they don't feel level 5 skills are safe for 6-8 year olds. If they feel kids are too young to safely perform the skills required for the level, they shouldn't be eligible to compete at that level. That would allow for both athlete safety and the ability for smaller gyms to retain higher level athletes.

 

[LittleMissA17]

Maybe USASF should make a thing to say when kids of certain ages should start on skills. Even though with parents wanting to get Susie on a worlds team ASAP I wouldn't be surprised if they don't follow it.

 

[catlady]

and i agree with that. The tiny show division addresses this well while still allowing room for children of that age to participate. No 3-4 year old can now participate on a team that does those skills. These new age divisions do nothing however to prevent a child over 6 form being on a Y4 or Y5 team team, which is where the largest safety risk for the rest of it exists. Why? because the mega gyms that field those teams would have a fit. IF they REALLY want to address safety without killing small gyms in the process, there should be a level cap by age. NO GYM should be able to offer a Y5 to 6-8 year olds if they don't feel level 5 skills are safe for 6-8 year olds. That would allow for both athlete safety and the ability for smaller gyms to reatain higher level athletes.

I guess we're looking at it differently. A Youth team that is 6-11 can have a 5R but, the USASF then could restrict the Youth 5R from doing certain lifts, jump sequences, etc. skills compared to a Jr or Sr 5R.

 

[cheer25mom]

I guess we're looking at it differently. A Youth team that is 6-11 can have a 5R but, the USASF then could restrict the Youth 5R from doing certain lifts, jump sequences, etc. skills compared to a Jr or Sr 5R.

They could, but will they? They haven't done a lot about it at this point. If a skill isn't safe for a 6 year old, it shouldn't matter what age division they are performing it in, it still isn't safe. Why even have a Y5 if they cannot perform level 5 skills? Why not cap youth at level 3 or 4. The twisting tumbling and higher level stunts are really where these injuries start being an issue. I don't think USASF will ever eliminate twisting from youth or junior level teams. Honestly, I don't think anyone under 10-11 has any business on a level 4 or 5 team. Its too much stress on a growing body. It would take a LOT of guts on the part of the USASF to enforce that. A lot of parents of little cheerlebrities would be spending a lot less money on private lessons to get their baby that full, and there would be a lot less pressure to advance skills quickly at all costs. I think it would allow for a stronger focus on technique and foundations in basics and lead to far less injury and fewer mental blocks.

 

[cheermomforever]

I guess we're looking at it differently. A Youth team that is 6-11 can have a 5R but, the USASF then could restrict the Youth 5R from doing certain lifts, jump sequences, etc. skills compared to a Jr or Sr 5R.

Personally Yth 5 is just a $ maker for comps. They rarely have a team against them. It is the same as a JR R5 skill wise.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[catlady]

@cheer25mom @cheermomforever when we began AS in 2010 (age grid below) there was no bottom age requirements with the exception of World's. Back in to 2010, I can only recall a small percentage of kids 10 and below with a layout or above. Now, however, I'm seeing a lot more kids with advance tumbling at a younger age. People tend to focus only on tumbling, however, the heavy and explosive lifting is a concern on growth plates on these higher levels. My point wasn't to defend or not defend certain levels or how it would effect small gyms. It was only to state that I can see how the USASF could have more control over appropriate skills and training not only by level but, also by age. A youth level 4 no longer has to mirror a senior level 4 in stunting, jumps or dance.