All-Star Very Important!! New Tumbling Rules Questions. We Need Your Help.

[NJ Coach]

I did a very scientific () study at a competition this weekend. In watching the level 5 division, I wanted to see if I could spot any difference in standing and running doubles, bounding and straight skills. Obviously, this was a very small sample size, but they were all good teams and all have historically done well at worlds. I saw 1 standing to double that didn't quite get all the way around. It was more than 1 3/4, but not quite 2 full rotations. That was the only issue I saw within multiple level 5 routines as far as standing to doubles. In running, I didn't see any doubles coming out of bounding passes that looked incomplete, but there were plenty of straight doubles that were 1 1/2-1 3/4. My theory (and it is truly just my opinion) is that the kids that are doing the bounding passes or the standing passes have reached the skill level to be able to do these tricks and complete the rotations. The kids that are just throwing straight passes were not getting around most of the time. I don't know what any of that means, or if it means anything, but it was what I saw.

My personal feeling, if your going to limit the tumbling, take all the doubles (please no one shoot me!). They can't throw them in college or hs. We're the last man standing. That kills the restricted 5 division, and just made it so much harder to win. Without doubles, you'll need full team specialty to fulls to even come close to placing. Of course, there are, in my experience, so many more janky fulls being thrown than doubles. Some are just downright scary.

I don't want tumbling restricted. The emphasis needs to be on technique. Hit the teams performing janky skills where it hurts, the scoresheet. If you lose points (more than what you are currently losing), for skills that are not completely finishing rotation, or busting ect, the problem gets taken care of in house.

 

[INeverStopCheering]

There have been so many good points already made, I'll try not to be redundant.
1.) Where are these statistics? I know it seems logical that the harder the skill, the more likely you are to get injured, but I've never seen any report that indicates that. In fact, I haven't seen any injury report breakdown. Maybe I'm missing something, but that seems to be the consensus. Are these skills really more dangerous or tolling on the body than any other aerial trick? And what's going to happen when the statistics show that BHS are the most injury causing skill? Or tucks? My point being, you can't just toss a whole skill set because it's dangerous or has the potential to cause injury. The sport is inherently dangerous.
2.) Isn't the the point of Senior Restricted 5? To level the playing field for teams that can't throw harder tricks and for the safety of the athletes that aren't ready. I think if these rules go though, SR R5 should be eliminated, because there wouldn't really be enough of a difference to have there be a point.
3.) I agree 100% that the issue lies with coaches, and like previously said, no one thinks they're bad. So let's combat it from the start, to make sure people are competent. At Worlds, (please correct me if I'm wrong) to get into warm-up you have to be a certified level 5 coach. Why not apply this ideal to every competition, for every level. To get into warm-up with the team, you have to prove you're level certified. Or hey, take it a step further, to enter the competition, at least one coach of the team must prove they are certified in that level. Simply lockout the teams that don't have certification, and eventually, people will wise up and get certified. And I agree 100% that you should have to hands on demonstrate you are competent in spotting skills. To me it's silly to take away the skill, because it's not being taught correctly. That's like a high school with bad math teachers eliminating math instead of fixing the teachers.

 

[NJ Coach]

To add to my post, since I don't think I actually answered anything.

If you are going to limit tumbling by taking out some or all doubles, more teams are going to think they have a shot at being level 5. Currently, you need the doubles to compete and if you don't have them, you won't be successful, or you go restricted. By removing that, more teams are going to think they have a shot, and in turn, have kids throw that full that terrifies everyone. In actuality, the teams that are at the top, will stay at the top, but those passes will just become more creative with the amount of skills thrown before the full. I honestly think that removing the doubles opens up the risk of more injury.

The only way to include a deduction system, would be if we had a universal scoresheet.

 

[VTX]

Reasons to eliminate tumbling: to level the playing field for small gyms, even though I do not agree that this is a good reason. However I can not think of any other arguable reason other then injuries, I believe that this will increase the push for fulls though.
Reasons to keep tumbling: 1.Some where I believe (may be mixing things up) they said they were trying to get more people into the sport, I don't understand how eliminating the tumbling will achieve this. If you want to show someone how all-stars is athletic you show them a team that has the difficult tumbling and stunts, those are the ones that get people interested. 2.It gives the athletes somewhere to progress to.

I agree with all of the ideas about implementing a training/credentialing program that's more in-depth and changing scoring to hit bad technique. As far as price and work, changing the scoring shouldn't be very costly, changes are made to score sheets and there are many different ones. While you would not see every bad tumbling pass, if it was a big deduction for each 1, a coach would have that fear that 1 may be caught, it would also eliminate those teams who only put bad tumbling out there. For the credentialing system, it may be costly but I think that if it was implemented over a few years (like suggested earlier) and required the individual coaches or gym owners to pay for it, it could become achievable. An idea to keep it more affordable for smaller gyms and newer coaches, the lower levels could cost less and as the gym grew and increased to include higher level teams their income would also be increasing, making it easier for them to pay for the training or testing/credentialing.

Edit:All of this would be made easier with a universal score sheet

 

[nikimo]

I want to start by saying that I am really new to the board altogether, so please be easy if I don't get this perfect.

As to point one, I think that rules could stand to be stricter to eliminate injuries where they are most often seen on the mat, during synchronized passes. And that is not to say that the rules should eliminate the types of passes, but more the amount of girls in one pass, or the spacing between passes to avoid collisions. I think that IF it becomes a unanimous decision that the rules should be stricter for the tumbling, it should be reflected in the way a pass is judged as opposed to the tumbling in the pass. For instance, if you are a level 5 and you want to throw your best move you should be judged accordingly if you hit it. BUT, if you do not hit it, showing that you are attempting to throw a skill that you have not mastered, the points penalty should be steep. I feel this would make coaches think twice before adding a pass before the girl is ready, since it seems to be a competitive issue and the whole team would either benefit or pay depending on the outcome. It would really eliminate many issues.

It also scares me that people keep bringing up regulating stunting, as opposed to tumbling, to make it safer. As the mother of a flyer and never wanting harm to come to my child, I still think that is not going to solve anything. I think that the same should apply for the stunting as I proposed for the tumbling, if it truly is an issue that needs addressed in the future.

As to point two, I do not think the skills should be removed. I have heard a lot of talk about making it easier for girls to become allstar cheerleaders if the skills are brought to a lower level. I think this is counterproductive. Allstar cheeeleading is about being the best of the best. The point of the sport is to find the ELITE and groom them to be absolute cheer stars. Making it easier for anyone to compete is really going to be adding a lot of children to the sport, and they may not have the athletic ability to attempt the tumbling which will add more injuries instead of reducing them. Other than mat collisions, the worst injuries seem to occur in the lowest tumbling levels because the children have not learned form and proper techniques to save themselves from bad injuries. I am not saying the injuries don't ever happen, but as the girls get better and train their muscles to move properly, they are better equipped to handle mishaps. Also,to the point of adding more athletes, it really makes no sense because those girls that will be added will still start at a level 1, and have to work years to build their tumbling, stunting, and dancing skills to be a level 5. So, really what would happen is effectively endangering our newest athletes that would have been in Allstars despite the difficulty of the higher levels, and actually attending hoping to be one of the "big girls" they looked up to.

I know that this is not on your questionnaire, but I also wanted to take a moment to mention the uniform rule. I think it is absolutely silly to restrict the use of crop tops to these athletes. Racers run in sports bras and spankies, Swimmers are nearly nude with the most fitting suit that can be found, dancers all wear tiny costumes that are quite elaborate to match the music and style of dance, and tennis players wear extremely short skirts. Restricting uniforms to cheerleaders is a waste of time and discriminatory, in my opinion. The point to remember is that these girls and their parents all pay to be there, they are not paid by USASF. So USASF should not tell them how to dress, and I have never seen a wardrobe malfunction in cheer, as opposed to many other sports in which I have. Also, telling a male cheerleader to "bottle up" his true personality and not dance with passion for the sport is another discriminatory offense, and sets back the sport and human rights by quite a bit. These rules seem to be similar to riders done in legislature that really have nothing to do with safety, but complete a personal agenda that should have never been a topic of discussion, let alone passed as a rule.

I want to see cheerleading recognized as a true sport, as it rightly should be ... and I think that if these rules stick it will be setting back cheerleading years in the eyes of nay-sayers.

 

[yojaehs]

I have been asked by a few people who will be in the meetings in the next couple days to discuss the new tumbling rules to pose questions to the general public. This is very important though you follow the two guidelines I set.

The USASF posed the new tumbling rules because they are concerned about the rising number of injuries in tumbling. Besides decreasing injury (meaning do not mention that reason) are there other reasons the tumbling rules should be stricter?

On the reverse everyone keeps arguing that taking away these skills is a blow to the kids who have worked so hard. Out side of that (aka don't mention that) are there other reasons the tumbling skills should not be removed?

It is very important you do not rehash those two or reasons OR just say 'because'. You want your voice heard answer these questions well. I shall ban anyone for a day who says the two reasons to not be mentioned. Thanks for your help.

I can't think of any reason to remove tumbling skills because I feel correct progressions and taught properly the sky is the limit. The ONLY thing I think should be changed is that synced passes should not be worth as much bc I feel it is more dangerous to have 10+ people crammed attempting the same skill, talk about dangerous.

Answer to #2 bounding skills ENCOURAGE proper technique. It isn't possible to just out of no where throw a whip double or full punch double. In order to be able to throw these skills you HAVE to have proper technique. Example - how many full punch doubles are competed with incomplete rotations? None that I have seen, I have been to Indy, NCA, Cheersport and UCA and watched most of the level 5 divisions. In order to throw that skill you CAN'T just wing it (like 100's of straight fulls/doubles do). I'm not saying it's not POSSIBLE to just chunk one of these, but they aren't likely. I was a power tumbler and we were taught whips long before twisting, I personally was taught twisting out of a whip before a backhandspring (rod floor to pit). My gym has many kids that can throw these skills, we choose not to compete all of them, that to me is the issue. You have to know WHEN to say WHEN. I feel that if you are worried about ACL's then anything harder than a full should be eliminated, as well as toe touches. In my findings THOSE skills result in more ACL tears than anything else. Think about it though, how many "janky" coaches can even attempt to coach a whip double, full-double etc.? I'm not saying they don't exist but seriously!?

 

[Level5Mom]

1. The tumbling rules should not be more strict, the scoresheet should implement high deductions for poor technique.

2. If the industry is wanting to show insurance companies that they are implementing risk management programs, randomly choosing 3 tumbling skills to eliminate without scientific research to support it is not a way to show LONG TERM, BROAD SPECTRUM risk management. A more appropriate method of showing risk management is to put in place (A) a tumbling coach certification procedure, and (B) an athlete injury prevention conditioning procedure (through conditioning).

(A)
A tumbling coach certification process can be costly and time consuming, but by at least outlining a program and having it on paper may be enough to show "due diligence", even if it takes time to bring the industry up to speed with it. Randomly (non scientifically) choosing 3 skills will likely not help with injury rates, because the data they collected is "random" and has not been published or backed. Eliminating these skills could actually open up a can of worms where athletes get injured attempting newer skills that circumvent the new rules. Insurance companies may continue to see injuries rise as the real problem continues, and new skills are attempted in a hurry to be ready by next season in order to "hang" with the best. Result: more restrictions in the future.

(B)
A mandatory conditioning program that focuses on injury prevention would also show that the industry is showing "due diligence" in preventing risk. Right now there is nothing mandated by the USASF that I know of, that requires a certain level of injury prevention at the athlete/team level involving conditioning. Again, having this "on paper" will show due diligence, even if it takes a bit of time to implement as an industry.

There are many other ways the industry could go about minimizing risk in the eyes of insurance companies. The published studies that ARE available pinpoint pyramids and basket tosses as a major risk. When looking at the entire scoresheet, eliminating 3 skills from tumbling almost seems silly when looking at risk management from a BROAD safety perspective. Are spotters required by the USASF around any new stunting trick? Are mouthguards in place during the learning phase of pyramids/baskets? Is there a standard in trained medical personal on site at competitions? Do all star gyms have safety standards in how mats must be lined up, taped together, no support beams around? Climate control issues? Water break madates? If insurance is actually the underlying catalyst for the new rules, these are all issues (among many others) that could be addressed without eliminating skills or moving our industry backwards.

If it is about showing a "standard of care", lets get in place the broad spectrum standard that will affect 100% in place for the insurance companies, even if it must be altered over time, instead of focusing on 3 skills that only affect 1%.

 

[redshark]

I really can't find any reasons for the new tumbling restrictions, because I can only see them as temporary "band-aid" fixes, or permanent changes that will essentially end the motivation for competition in this sport. The reasons I have against them, however, are that the fact that so many athletes have these skills and would be devastated if they were taken out is proof that athletes love working hard and working hard for these elite skills in particular. For youths who do have a running double and jumps to tuck, what more is there for them to learn for the next, approximately potential 8 years of their all-star cheer career? Sure, their stunting could progress, but throwing the same tumbling year after year would most likely get boring and that amazing level 5 cheerleader would likely move to a sport where they have the ability to progress in. Likewise, many gymnasts enjoy this sport so much because of the tumbling they get to throw and how it is different from gymnastics tumbling, which keeps it challenging. If only the easier gymnastics skills that they already have are all they are allowed to do, the likeliness that they will stay with the sport for longer than a season or two is lower because they will never feel challenged when downgrading their skills.
Also, I just want to say that I really disagree with the idea that restricting tumbling will make the sport more competitive for smaller gyms because, as many of you have mentioned, there is already the restricted level for teams without those tougher tumbling skills. If a team isn't ready to be level 5, then they don't have to be, simple as that. They can choose competitive by going in the division they are best suited for, and without dumbing down another team's skills so that they can compete against them.
I just really hope the rules will go back to what they were!

 

[Hi! It's me!]

I am not in favor of restricting tumbling, I am joining the chorus in better certification for coaches. I do not allow someone to cut my hair, which will grow back eventually, who is not displaying a ceritficate showing that they have attended school and passed the tests necessary to do their job.But we will allow any fool off the street to teach our children tumbling. This is not meant to disrespect the wonderful well trained coaches and gyms out there but more as a shame on you to those gyms that do not put the safety of their students first. Have a certification process that teaches proper progression and certify for each level. Have gyms display these certificates. This way when you walk in to a new gym you know what to look for. It's late so I am sorry if I am not as clear as I should be.

 

[LMA4Life.]

Reasons why theses skills should not be removed:
Competitive allstar cheerleading has been trying to break away from the sterotype of a "dumb cheerleader" for years. We have done so with really focusing on the COMPETITIVE part of cheerleading. In the sense of treating this sport like any other sport you do not water down the elite to make the less elite (but potentially the majority) more competitive. For example, basketball. There is street basketball for fun. recreational teams for fun and being "part of a team". There are traveling leagues and competitive middle school and high school teams. Then there are elite college teams for scholarships and the passion of the sport, and of course the NBA, a professional sport. The rules and sport are set. If the athlete can not compete at the level expected then they do not compete at that level. I feel the same way about allstar cheerleading. There are pop warner and recreational cheer teams. middle school and high school cheer teams. As well as elite college cheer teams. Allstar cheer has levels for a reason. The athlete builds themselves up to the level they wish to compete. From observation i see that more athletes want to compete level 5 but not train the true way to do so. A running full and standing 2 backhandsprings to full does not make you a level 5 cheerleader. (yes you have level 5 skills) With that said cheerleading is a team sport if the team created, can compete and perform at level 5 then they should compete level 5. I think if coaches and gyms would be more disciplined in what level the team competes at and stays level appropriate then we would see better results and less injuries. One person doesn't make the team. Last pass in tumbling no matter how great does not determine who wins or loses.

 

[cheerinfo]

Well, I'm sure that some of my reasons may be redundant, be here goes anyway.

Reasons TO limit tumbling in a non-restricted, level 5 division (or any division really, but they chose level 5, so there you go): I honestly cannot think of any reasons to do so because I do not believe that the SKILLS are the issue, I think it's the execution of these skills which goes back to proper coaching. And I believe that poor execution exists at ALL levels, not just level 5, so it just seems non-productive to just seemingly randomly choose a level and start eliminating skills.

Reasons NOT TO limit tumbling: When taught properly, these skills don't really carry any more risk than a tuck does for a level 3 kid. A tuck for a level 3 kid IS hard. It is the highest skill that they can throw in their level. I see LOTS of janky tucks that land on their face. But they do not wish to eliminate those...because deep down, they KNOW eliminating doesn't solve anything. I think enforcing proper progression by having a more thorough coaches credentialing system as well as equal deductions for tumble busts as a stunt fall is a good start. I understand everyone wants to lower the amount of risk and injury, however, simply eliminating skills is not the answer.

And, to pipe in on another related rule, the 50%+1 rule allowing teams to max out is insane to me. Gives no one any incentive to work toward full squad skills anymore. And to ME, watching a team with full squad skills is enjoyable and provides kids and coaches more to strive towards. Stop dumbing down cheerleading. Stop catering to the lowest denominator. Give kids, coaches, teams, gyms something to work towards. Making it easier is not what cheerleading needs. It SHOULD be treated like a competitive sport, not some activity where EVERYONE deserves a chance to go to Worlds or win or whatever. Encouraging full squad as opposed to BARELY majority just makes sense to keep it more competitive.

 

[mybabywantstotumble]

i am against the new tumbling rules. there needs to be stricter certfications and trainings for tumbling coaches to ensure that they are being taught the correct way to tumble.

i don't know much about this sport as my cp is 8 and this is her first year, however i sort of think of the injuries like skiing. we ski all winter long and in fact that was what we did before cp started cheer. at the mountains, you don't often see ski patrol carrying somoene off of a blue, black or even double black diamond trail. it is pretty much ALWAYS the easiest green trail that ski patrol is carrying people off of. and i attribute that to people throwing on skis, hopping on the lift and trying to make it down. if people are trained correctly, take lessons, etc. then injuries will be minimized.

 

[Level5Mom]

In addition to insurance being a reason for the new rules, I have heard another reason is that kids are quitting cheer because it has become too hard. I don't know if I agree with this, but isn't that why we have levels? I have some suggestions that will affect the industry as a whole in exchange for cutting off 3 tumbling skills only affecting the top 1% of tumblers in the industry:

Stop requiring multiple jump sequences to a tuck to max the scoresheet. (one is enough, 4 jumps max or even 3)
Stop requiring variety of baskets
Limit the scoresheet to only 1 stunt sequence and 1 tumbling sequence allowed
Eliminate the need for squad synchro tumbling (ro hand fulls/doubles together).

 

[King]

One of the reasons I was so for the division size of 30 is that you cannot max out stunt groups to fit the number exactly. It has 2 alternates built in on a full team so coaches have flexibility. Why is that important? Because choreography is so expensive and time consuming to change for just one athlete by making routines live on this razors edge to have exactly the number of people needed in the right places to do all the skills means you increase the chance of injuries because you have no flexibility.

I think the simple majority rule is a bit OVER doing it. I think 2/3's will get the job accomplished and allow for some kids to not be doing the skills. As well by decreasing the skills required for maxing out in tumbling (not just in level 5 but ALL levels) you are again decreasing the need for tumbling classes. Tumbling classes are what ALLOW allstar gyms to exist. No tumbling classes, no allstar gyms.

 

[King]

In addition to insurance being a reason for the new rules, I have heard another reason is that kids are quitting cheer because it has become too hard. I don't know if I agree with this, but isn't that why we have levels? I have some suggestions that will affect the industry as a whole in exchange for cutting off 3 tumbling skills only affecting the top 1% of tumblers in the industry:

Stop requiring multiple jump sequences to a tuck to max the scoresheet. (one is enough, 4 jumps max or even 3)
Stop requiring variety of baskets
Limit the scoresheet to only 1 stunt sequence and 1 tumbling sequence allowed
Eliminate the need for squad synchro tumbling (ro hand fulls/doubles together).

I had this thought the other day building off what you said, and I think this might have some teeth AND bring back choreo. Each skill section that is scored is only based off one section in your routine. For instance, you will only get scored on one stunt sequence in your routine (presumably the hardest) and the rest do not get scored into stunts. Same with baskets. Same with jumps. This means no more two stunt sequences. You basket in the pyramid its part of the pyramid.

As well the squad synch tumbling either needs to replace running or go away. Squad synch tumbling pretty much requires every kid to throw an extra pass.