- Jul 19, 2011
- 11,551
- 17,224
I just shared this with our head coach. She said Linda Barclay ran a virtual competition platform. I'm not sure what that is. Could they be preparing for a virtual season?
She runs Got Scored.
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 just shared this with our head coach. She said Linda Barclay ran a virtual competition platform. I'm not sure what that is. Could they be preparing for a virtual season?
I feel like the fact that the bulk of the info is focused around meets sort of misses the point of creating a new organization. USAG has a whole lot of problems, but how they structure their meets and the JO code of points are really nowhere near the top of the list. If you aren't going to be head on addressing the major issues really well, what's the point?
Very helpful! Thanks! So theoretically for a layperson here, could a child who is solidly ready to compete level 8 under usag, compete 9 under this new organization since the requirements are a bit more flexible? I’m just trying to understand. I saw a lengthy list of skills on their page, but it made me dizzy so I closed it. I think some of the gyms here are going to go with this organization, and I’m a little nervous.I see positives and negatives of NGA.
Positives:
1 - all optional routines.
2 - gymnast minimum age to compete is 5 (instead of 4)
3 - Vault OPTIONS begin with Level 4 (instead of Level 6)
4 - Level 6 and Level 7 Floor routines are the same time limit (1:15)
5 - Level 6 and Level 7 Vault they can land on their feet OR back for Tsuk and Yurchenko timers (missing the feet which is more progressive to actually flipping is allowed)
6. A few Level 8 vaults (flipping ones) are potentially eligible for a 0.1 Bonus.
7. Levels 8-10 are eligible for a "Nationals" Meet.
8. Membership is less expensive that USAG.
Negatives:
1. We don't know enough yet.
2. Even though minimum age to compete Level 1 is 5, they have minimum ages trending lower.
Meaning that: Level 1 & 2 = 5 years old, Levels 3 - 6 = 6 years old, Levels 7 & 8 = 7 years old, and Levels 9 & 10 = 8 years old.
3. We don't know enough about ALL the principal players.
4. There isn't enough information out there about the deductions ... they say that the deductions are "consistent" across all levels, BUT there is a listed deduction for a short routine less than 30 seconds but Level 1 and Level 2 are only allowed a maximum of 30 seconds on floor. There is another deduction for fewer than 5 Value Parts on bars, but Level 1 is only required to do 4 skills.
5. The whole "roll out" of the NGA seems sketchy.
A gym owner I know told me that the insurance underwriters are the ones who decide the age limits....which makes zero sense to me?? I have no idea why you would want to push them lower.Very helpful! Thanks! So theoretically for a layperson here, could a child who is solidly ready to compete level 8 under usag, compete 9 under this new organization since the requirements are a bit more flexible? I’m just trying to understand. I saw a lengthy list of skills on their page, but it made me dizzy so I closed it. I think some of the gyms here are going to go with this organization, and I’m a little nervous.
well, never mind. It looks like requirements on bars are the same. A release move is required for 9. Then why the push to trend the age groups lower?
Especially considering the NTS is adding a year to the HOPES age groups. They dont want 11 and 12 year old junior elites anymore.A gym owner I know told me that the insurance underwriters are the ones who decide the age limits....which makes zero sense to me?? I have no idea why you would want to push them lower.
Not getting any good vibes from this. I know USAG has its issues but at least we know who is on their payroll.This is the response that I got from them when I voiced my concern and opinion about the lack of transparency and this is the response I got. I only blacked out my name for privacy. Still a lack of professionalism in my opinion.
Who are the two people we know of? Is one of them the Barclay woman?Agreed. And I would also point out the two people we DO know, also worked for USAG during the years the abuse occurred. Now, I’m, of course, not saying they knew anything about it, BUT, if USAG as an organization is still “bad,” even though the people who were responsible are gone, doesn’t that apply to them as well? It just seems like a double standard to me.
Who are the two people we know of? Is one of them the Barclay woman?