College Standing Full On Hard Floor

[weheartcheer]

So i guess men's gymnastics violates this?

No I misquoted. I think that rule is specifically for Acrobatics and I'm not sure if they specify "sprung" for the other disciplines. && as ScottyB clarified I was def thinking hardwood floor, rather than matted non-sprung.

What do you think the height of a standing full is because I'm pretty sure the "critical height" is higher than that of a 4'10" girl not even getting that far off the ground.

If a layout is not done at a minimum of chest to shoulder height, then it needs to worked and improved on. Preferably, a layout should be done above head height and ideally done above the height of the hands lifted straight above the head.

In the critical height study, critical height is measured from the bottom of the headform to the ground (from the bottom of a persons chin to the floor). Anyone taller than like 4.5ft has their head above critical height without having to jump at all.

 

[weheartcheer]

First of all cheerleanding is not gymnastics, it is not governed by USAG.

However, the National Collegiate Acrobatics and Tumbling Association is governed by USAG. They are one of two current emerging sports based of cheerleading. They perform all their stunts and tumbling on an unsprung matted floor also know as "hard floor" They perform many saltos, including full twisting ones. Additionally they perform acrobatic stunts, on hard floor.[/quote]

First of all, the NCATA is governed by USAG because the skills that have been infused into cheerleading since the early 70s are the same skill sets that gymnastics is made up of. And the fact that the NCATA doesn't use a sprung floor is whole other argument, doesn't make it right.

From my understanding, critical height is the maximum height a person can fall from, in which a life threatening head injury would not occur.

According to a study found HERE the critical height for a standard dead mat is 4ft. I have not seen any standing tucks, or standing fulls, where the cheerleader jumps higher than 4 feet in the air. Therefore, they are not in fact flipping above the critical height of the mat.

Your understanding of critical height is correct. However, the athlete doesn't not need to jump 4ft for their head to be at a height of 4ft. Every athlete that is taller than 4.5ft has their head above critical height without needing to jump. They don't need to flip above critical height, but at a point in the jump their head reaches that height.

FURTHERMORE, every single stunt these cheerleaders are performing are about this "critical height" so obviously this height is not used in determining how high a person can be above the ground during a cheerleading routine.

You are correct, the cheer industry rarely uses science when coming up with rules.

 

[AcaseA]

First of all, the NCATA is governed by USAG because the skills that have been infused into cheerleading since the early 70s are the same skill sets that gymnastics is made up of. And the fact that the NCATA doesn't use a sprung floor is whole other argument, doesn't make it right.

I stated this because A&T is closer to cheerleading than Acrobatics so using the USAG rules for A&T makes more sense than what you stated for the Acro ones.

In my personal opinion all competitive cheer should be performed on spring floor. Telling a girl that she should follow FIG standards for her cheerleading does not achieve this and for someone who isn't familiar with gymnastics governing bodies probably makes no sense.

You could argue that performing this skill before she is ready could result in a serious head injury. Figures and studies are a great way to back that up.

Your understanding of critical height is correct. However, the athlete doesn't not need to jump 4ft for their head to be at a height of 4ft. Every athlete that is taller than 4.5ft has their head above critical height without needing to jump. They don't need to flip above critical height, but at a point in the jump their head reaches that height.

So does this mean that basketball is a sport that is too dangerous to perform? 6 foot men on a hardwood floor certainly are in a grave danger of a serious head injury? or soccer? (grass only has a critical height of ~4.5') or figure skating? or any unpadded sport you can name?

I think this measurement could be very useful in determining safer rules. However, I don't think it accounts for many other factors and I think a better measurement could be found.

You are correct, the cheer industry rarely uses science when coming up with rules.

I don't think it is often the basis of the rules. However, I have noticed a great trend in using studies when forming new rules which is a step in the positive direction. (Ex. elimination of double downs in high school)


Sorry to anyone reading for hijaking this thread! I would love to start a thread on science, safety, and cheerleading rules to discuss this further... because it is a great topic that needs to be talked about. So I won't reply here anymore

I truly respect what you are doing at the National Cheer Safety Foundation, I just disagree with some of the things you promote/say.

 

[weheartcheer]

Telling a girl that she should follow FIG standards for her cheerleading does not achieve this and for someone who isn't familiar with gymnastics governing bodies probably makes no sense.

I referenced the FIG rule because Rvnblue commented about the safety standard for a standing full by the USAG in the conversation, not in reference to the original question. It was my mistake that it was specific for acro and not floor routines.

So does this mean that basketball is a sport that is too dangerous to perform? 6 foot men on a hardwood floor certainly are in a grave danger of a serious head injury? or soccer? (grass only has a critical height of ~4.5') or figure skating? or any unpadded sport you can name?

I think this measurement could be very useful in determining safer rules. However, I don't think it accounts for many other factors and I think a better measurement could be found.

Factors that determine the probability of a serious injury during a fall are the distance of the fall, the surface, orientation (body position) while falling and whether the fall was broken. When just walking on hardwood or grass, if something went wrong and an athlete fell, their body position and being able to break the fall allows the risk of the surface and distance to be not as great as if something went wrong during a back flip when all four factors put you at risk.

 

[WhoKnows]

Not many people have actually responded to your question

Progression is always important and I wouldn't attempt standing fulls on hard mat until you are consistently and easily landing them on the spring floor.

Once you are ready for hard floor, in my opinion, it really just depends on your full. If you have a true standing full (no steps) the transition should be quite easy. However, if you rely on fast steps it will be harder the make that transition. People who step often use more of the floor's spring, so the dead mat will have less to give you, making it harder.

Thank you! Yes, the discussion transformed a little but I'm learning about critical height ha and I will definitely start working on my standing full without a step, thank you again.