All-Star Are Rules For Level Play Or Safety?

[King]

Figured this would be an interesting topic to talk about.

If rules are about Level Play than I don't think anyone should ever get a warning. The level play rules are there to ensure no one gets an unfair advantage in the division. Why should another team ever get to do a skill that you are not allowed to do? It is to make sure the playing field is level and I think other teams should be able to turn in teams in their division (no coach can turn in a team not in their division) because any team should not get an advantage you yourself have.

If the rules are about safety... I think it gets murkier. First the only rules that regulate safety are Level 5 and 6 rules. Anything, based on an athletes age, above level 5/6 is illegal and enforced to make sure no one does anything NOT safe. Anything below level 5/6 is self enforced. Nothing is stopping a coach from taking a Senior Level 1 team and attempting to perform Level 5/6 skills. I think we can agree a true level 1 team should not safely be able to compete in the division. The only punishment for a coach making an extremely unsafe decision like this is losing. I could take a senior level 1 team of people off the street and enter them into NCA this past weekend and have gotten top 10 in Large Senior or even Large Senior coed. As well if it is about safety and a level 4 team accidentally does something not in their level but they perform it EXTREMELY well and well practiced isn't that safe? Especially compared to my Level 1 in Level 5 example. I think if the rules are about safety we need to start handing out worse rule violations (if someone does a back tuck basket in level 1 for example) as opposed to the same per level. Also if a coach is having an athlete perform a skill/stunt/pyramid/basket they shouldnt there should also be safety violations handed out. IF the rules and rules judges are about safety.

That does not mean if the rules are about level play they don't create a safe environment. They can create progressions which coaches can safely use to move their athletes, teams, and program up a ladder.

So which is it? What is the mission statement of the rules?

 

[Ashley]

I don't agree with you that only level 5/6 rules are for safety. Are there athletes that could safely compete skills that are illegal in level 6? Sure there are, but there's not enough to make a new level. If there were, maybe they would (probably not, considering level 6 is already the redheaded step child of cheer).

A level 1 team doing a back tuck toss is probably as unsafe as a level 6 team doing a double-back toss. It is about safety because the lower level athletes, as a whole, haven't mastered the basics enough to move on. They're in level 1 for a reason, they shouldn't be attempting double downs or tuck tosses. It's about safety for the average skill set in each level (in general - there's no reason why a level 5 athlete performing a back tuck toss should be unsafe. Tuck tosses are easy)

 

[King]

I don't agree with you that only level 5/6 rules are for safety. Are there athletes that could safely compete skills that are illegal in level 6? Sure there are, but there's not enough to make a new level. If there were, maybe they would (probably not, considering level 6 is already the redheaded step child of cheer).

A level 1 team doing a back tuck toss is probably as unsafe as a level 6 team doing a double-back toss. It is about safety because the lower level athletes, as a whole, haven't mastered the basics enough to move on. They're in level 1 for a reason, they shouldn't be attempting double downs or tuck tosses. It's about safety for the average skill set in each level (in general - there's no reason why a level 5 athlete performing a back tuck toss should be unsafe. Tuck tosses are easy)

Past level 6 is what we don't have insurance for, therefor skills competed outside of that level are illegal because we can't safely insure them. What level each team competes at is decided by the coach. What is the punishment if the coach chooses wrong? They lose? Everyone but 1st loses.

 

[catlady]

If I am understanding your question correctly, from my perspective the rules are more for "level of play". Rec and HS teams have multi-level skills being used in their routines, with certain "safety" rule guidelines. If there were no level guidelines what would be the benefit to an AS gym owner to have lower level AS teams? If that were the case, all AS gyms would become stunt and tumbling gyms until their athletes could achieve a level to which they could become competitive.

 

[King]

If I am understanding your question correctly, from my perspective the rules are more for "level of play". Rec and HS teams have multi-level skills being used in their routines, with certain "safety" rule guidelines. If there were no level guidelines what would be the benefit to an AS gym owner to have lower level AS teams? If that were the case, all AS gyms would become stunt and tumbling gyms until their athletes could achieve a level to which they could become competitive.

I believe the rules should be more about level of play and a side effect is the coaches have a path now to safely take a team instead of they are there to make us safe. Why am I interested in that?

There is always complaining about warnings and enforcement of rules of a routine. By saying the rules are protecting someone's safety I think coaches, when they get called on a rule, complain/are hurt/raise hell in defense of being called on a safety rule. It didn't hurt anyone. Everyone is ok. In fact you can probably argue at one of your competitors in your division.

But if you say the rules are to prevent someone from having an unfair advantage in a division you can now also have the other coaches of teams in the division on the lookout for people who break the rules. Crowd source illegalities. Force everyone to follow the rules better. Because when one team breaks a level play rule they are getting an unfair advantage in competing. Why would you allow your competitor to do something you cannot do?

 

[catlady]

I believe the rules should be more about level of play and a side effect is the coaches have a path now to safely take a team instead of they are there to make us safe. Why am I interested in that?

There is always complaining about warnings and enforcement of rules of a routine. By saying the rules are protecting someone's safety I think coaches, when they get called on a rule, complain/are hurt/raise hell in defense of being called on a safety rule. It didn't hurt anyone. Everyone is ok. In fact you can probably argue at one of your competitors in your division.

But if you say the rules are to prevent someone from having an unfair advantage in a division you can now also have the other coaches of teams in the division on the lookout for people who break the rules. Crowd source illegalities. Force everyone to follow the rules better. Because when one team breaks a level play rule they are getting an unfair advantage in competing. Why would you allow your competitor to do something you cannot do?

I agree, level of play was my attraction to the All Star world. The playing field is even and it becomes a battle of technique and creativity.

With that said, I do believe safety rules by level should be looked at and reconsidered when a majority feels they are not providing the safety they were intended to provide. Level 2 switch ups come to mind only because that is a common safety violation for many teams and I often heard flyers say it is actually harder to stabilize and control doing it the way safety guidelines state it needs to be done (granted I am no expert, this is only an example if the majority felt it was hindering safety).

 

[Ashley]

Past level 6 is what we don't have insurance for, therefor skills competed outside of that level are illegal because we can't safely insure them. What level each team competes at is decided by the coach. What is the punishment if the coach chooses wrong? They lose? Everyone but 1st loses.

Let's not forget that there's no coach credentialing for level 6.

In any case, I don't think a level 5 team doing a level 6 skill is any more severe or dangerous than a level 1 team doing a level 3 skill. Unless you want to penalize skills that are illegal in any form of cheer more than skills that are illegal in that respective level, I just don't see the difference. And why should it only go up to level 5? Why is a level 5 team doing a level 6 tumbling skill punished more severely than a level 3 team doing something out of level. Even then, most legalities in level 6 aren't blatant things like 3 high pyramids or triple full baskets or double back baskets. They're things like "oh you're missing a spotter" or a technicality like a basket can only have 3 skills so that X-double basket or arabian double is illegal (is an x-double an exception? I can't remember).

Why would a level 1 team attempt to throw a kick double basket anyway? That would be dumb, no one does that. It's not like have a serious issue of teams that should be level 2 entering as level 5 and throwing obviously unsafe skills. Are you advocating for punishing teams who are clearly in a division that it's not safe for them to be in?

 

[kristenthegreat]

Why would a level 1 team attempt to throw a kick double basket anyway? That would be dumb, no one does that. It's not like have a serious issue of teams that should be level 2 entering as level 5 and throwing obviously unsafe skills. Are you advocating for punishing teams who are clearly in a division that it's not safe for them to be in?

I was curious as to the nature of this thread (as it was clearly a conversation starter- couldn't figure out the direction).

But then I thought about NCA this weekend- and how thread after thread we were talking about the score sheet and teams not hitting and saying that if they're not competing stuff safely, it shouldn't be in the routine/they shouldn't be in that level.

But if level rules are just for playing field and not for safety, it doesn't matter one lick WHAT teams are competing, as long as they are open to the playing field that's offered. So even if a team is unsafely competing level 5, BUT that's not the purpose of our rules (and the purpose IS ONLY to provide equal play), then there's no point.

Level playing field also encourages teams to check on each other.

 

[King]

I was curious as to the nature of this thread (as it was clearly a conversation starter- couldn't figure out the direction).

But then I thought about NCA this weekend- and how thread after thread we were talking about the score sheet and teams not hitting and saying that if they're not competing stuff safely, it shouldn't be in the routine/they shouldn't be in that level.

But if level rules are just for playing field and not for safety, it doesn't matter one lick WHAT teams are competing, as long as they are open to the playing field that's offered. So even if a team is unsafely competing level 5, BUT that's not the purpose of our rules (and the purpose IS ONLY to provide equal play), then there's no point.

Level playing field also encourages teams to check on each other.

Yay! You get it!

We punish people for performing rules not in their level but why can't we punish people for not choosing the right level to begin with? Isn't that the root of the problem? I don't think we can punish either. I think we focus more on level play.

 

[King]

A coach being called on a safety rule is going to get a lot more empathy from everyone from the mean old safety rules people.

A coach getting an unfair advantage by competing something not legal (that everyone agreed to by entering the division) will get a lot less sympathy from the crowd. And the social pressure is more important to people going and following rules than anything else. A great side effect from all of this? It will make things safer!

 

[Ashley]

A coach being called on a safety rule is going to get a lot more empathy from everyone from the mean old safety rules people.

A coach getting an unfair advantage by competing something not legal (that everyone agreed to by entering the division) will get a lot less sympathy from the crowd. And the social pressure is more important to people going and following rules than anything else. A great side effect from all of this? It will make things safer!

Why do you think that coach is getting an unfair advantage by competing something not legal? Wouldn't the deduction hurt more than any small boost in skill from performing a more difficult skill?

 

[kristenthegreat]

Why do you think that coach is getting an unfair advantage by competing something not legal? Wouldn't the deduction hurt more than any small boost in skill from performing a more difficult skill?

I think the difference is in 'not legal' versus 'illegal.' I remember people having a discussion about 'grey areas' in cheer, citing that because certain 'big gyms' do those things, they're less likely to get called on it versus a small gym.

Or we could reference the whole 'double-double' debacle. The reason cited was 'danger' but I think it was more 'keep the playing field level rather than risk injury.'

 

[King]

Why do you think that coach is getting an unfair advantage by competing something not legal? Wouldn't the deduction hurt more than any small boost in skill from performing a more difficult skill?

A show n go to the top in level 1 looks better than a show n go to the chin. Remember scoring judges aren't concerned with the legality of things. Just their perceived difficulty, execution, and performance. So, as an extreme example, if someone did a standing full in level 4 instead of a tuck the judges could give them more difficulty points. It is, hence, more difficult and in general fun to watch. Scoring judges are not supposed to reflect legality in their scores.

 

[mollymags]

Interesting topic. I would say that in my mind, the safety rules are there to ensure a level playing field, but also provide a good example of the order in which skills should be taught to progress safely.

I'm kind of struggling with how to articulate this best, but I think that if the sole motivation behind "safety rules" was safety, that safety violations should be automatic deductions, no matter the point in the season. I think this was a topic that King started before. I think its common to see warnings issued for safety violations early in the season, and then later they are given deductions. I think that standard sets the mindset of the safety rules being for level play... You do an illegal skill in November and get a slap on the wrist at most to remind you that's not allowed. If it was all about safety, however, I would think that an illegal skill should be deducted right away with the motivation behind that being "these rules are in place to keep the athletes safe, you have been teaching them something unsafe for their level and here's a deduction for putting them in danger." I'm not suggesting that's how it should be, just something to consider.


The Fierce Board App! || iPhone || Android