WAG Mobility scores raised for 2017

[Bess]

Does anyone know if you can petition to move onto the next level (specifically) of optionals if there is a physical impairment? Specifically an impairment that would most likely prevent them being able to compete on one event (in L7-10) but could still make the other events work.

 

[raenndrops]

She would have been the perfect example of what wallflower posted which was the scenario of not reaching 34 in a season but the next season doing one meet at level 4 to hopefully get that score and then move to 5.

But if they didn't raise the minimum to 34, then it wouldn't be necessary. Plus, with our District requirements, it would have to be 2 meets.
And, obviously, she did have the basic skills from L4 to do that well in L5.

We submit rosters in September for all of our meets, that start in November and go through March. And believe me when I say it can be a nightmare to change levels during the season. Had a meet where they had a girl in the wrong level even though we submitted the updated roster, well in advance, to the team hosting. I caught it in the program before the first session of the meet (she was in a later session). HC got it corrected… but then at awards, she was not awarded at all, so HC had to go back to them so they could put her into her age group and figure out her placements. This was done AFTER awards were finished. The official results the coaches got did not go with the ribbons the girls on their teams actually received in many cases in that age group.

 

[raenndrops]

Does anyone know if you can petition to move onto the next level (specifically) of optionals if there is a physical impairment? Specifically an impairment that would most likely prevent them being able to compete on one event (in L7-10) but could still make the other events work.

There is a rule about Individual Event Specialists (8.5 per event) unless they raise that too.

 

[Gymmommy71]

There is a rule about Individual Event Specialists (8.5 per event) unless they raise that too.

I think you can go to states w/ IES qualifications, and in some levels regionals, but I do not believe there is any way you can advance through the levels w/o getting that AA mobility score. There would be a flood of people that did that so they can get past a weak event or two if you could. I think the mobility scores are set low to intentially help these kids already.

 

[Bess]

I think you can go to states w/ IES qualifications, and in some levels regionals, but I do not believe there is any way you can advance through the levels w/o getting that AA mobility score. There would be a flood of people that did that so they can get past a weak event or two if you could. I think the mobility scores are set low to intentially help these kids already.

But surely there is a way around for a true physical impairment. I'm not talking a weak event, literally something physical that would prevent work on an event at a higher level

 

[raenndrops]

I think you can go to states w/ IES qualifications, and in some levels regionals, but I do not believe there is any way you can advance through the levels w/o getting that AA mobility score. There would be a flood of people that did that so they can get past a weak event or two if you could. I think the mobility scores are set low to intentially help these kids already.

 

[Gymmommy71]

View attachment 6751

Really? Is this new or has it always been that? So a kid who got an 8.5 on a L9 floor routine can move to Level 10 floor even if they scratched every other event at 9?

 

[raenndrops]

Really? Is this new or has it always been that? So a kid who got an 8.5 on a L9 floor routine can move to Level 10 floor even if they scratched every other event at 9?

It has been this way for a while (since the last time they updated the chart at least… so when they adjusted the levels??).
And, technically, yes IF THE COACH ALLOWED, a gymnast could move to L10 Floor (if she had the skills). However, if she was only getting an 8.5 on L9 floor, I don't know if she would be ready for L10 Floor - it would depend on what her deductions were for.

 

[Bess]

This is actually great news for th situation I am referring to

 

[fuzi]

This is actually great news for th situation I am referring to

I swear there used to be some wording somewhere about how if a gymnast had a verifiable disability that prevented her from competing one or more event, she could advance based on meeting the 3/4 of the mobility score on the other 3 events (or reaching 1/2 the mobility score on the other 2 events). I want to see if I could find it.

I remember judging a girl who had a underdeveloped fingers/hands as a result of a birth defect. She could compete everything else without issue, but had to drop bars after level 4. These was no way she was going to do clear-hips and flyaways without being able to reach around and grip the bars.

 

[fuzi]

Found it! (R&P pg. 89)
"Athletes who are limited in the number of events in which they can perform due to a permanent physical handicap (verified by a physician) may petition to qualify to a higher level by achieving an average score equal to the average of the All-Around qualifying score for that level. Submit petitions in a formal written request for Levels 7 and below to the State Administrative Committee Chairman and the final decision is determined by the State Administrative Committee. For Levels 8 and above, petitions are sent to the Regional Administrative Committee Chairman and the final decision is determined by the Regional Administrative Committee."

 

[wallflower]

Actually, my math was off. There were 190, not 170. The minimum standard at that meet was still a 31. 34 doesn't go into effect until August. Y Nationals requires a 32 for Level 4. I think that would be a better minimum than 34 (based on my area).

61/190 scored 34+
144/190 scored 32+
171/190 scored 31+
3 girls only competed 3 events.

Years ago, our region actually had Maximum Mandate Scores for each level, meaning that if you met the Maximum Mandate scores 2x in one season, the next season, you had to move up to the next level.
For L4 (and Old L5), it was a 34.0 … with at least 8.0 on each event in the same meets that you earned the 34s. The event scores were put into place so someone weak in one event would not be forced up.

And… we had a girl in L4 last year. Her highest score in L4 was a 32.700. According to you, she would not meet the minimum standard since she couldn't score over a 34. This year, she competed L5 and actually scored BETTER. Her highest score so far (with one meet to go) is a 33.700. And next year, as a L6, we expect that she will be in the 35-36 range.

Not according to me. According to USAG she will no longer meet the minimum standard required.

Had these rules been in place perhaps she could have gotten her 34 at the start of the season and then done the rest as a 5. Or perhaps not and then according to usag rules she would have had to repeat 4 and continue to work on her basics. Then she could enter the next season as a 5 and score much higher than a 33.700 because her basics had an entire year to improve while also working on the 5 skills. Then she could go into level 6 even more prepared and then go into 7 more prepared, etc. So it seems like USAG may have good reasons for making Level 4 the highest required score......

 

[gymgal]

Really? Is this new or has it always been that? So a kid who got an 8.5 on a L9 floor routine can move to Level 10 floor even if they scratched every other event at 9?

The gymnast can only be a specialist on that event, moving forward - unless she goes back and gets the AA mobility score for the next level. And to my knowledge, she is not allowed to compete a lower level for the other events. She elects to be a specialist only.

 

[wallflower]

But if they didn't raise the minimum to 34, then it wouldn't be necessary. Plus, with our District requirements, it would have to be 2 meets.
And, obviously, she did have the basic skills from L4 to do that well in L5.

We submit rosters in September for all of our meets, that start in November and go through March. And believe me when I say it can be a nightmare to change levels during the season. Had a meet where they had a girl in the wrong level even though we submitted the updated roster, well in advance, to the team hosting. I caught it in the program before the first session of the meet (she was in a later session). HC got it corrected… but then at awards, she was not awarded at all, so HC had to go back to them so they could put her into her age group and figure out her placements. This was done AFTER awards were finished. The official results the coaches got did not go with the ribbons the girls on their teams actually received in many cases in that age group.

I don't consider a high of 33.700 to be doing "that well" in level 5. This is why we disagree about the new minimums being just fine. I would think that kid was potentially in the wrong level and/or had a lot of work to do.

It seems like everyone's standards are different and it seems like USAG wants to raise those standards.

 

[raenndrops]

I don't consider a high of 33.700 to be doing "that well" in level 5. This is why we disagree about the new minimums being just fine. I would think that kid was potentially in the wrong level and/or had a lot of work to do.

It seems like everyone's standards are different and it seems like USAG wants to raise those standards.

But the 33.7 in L5 - #1. is higher than even the new L5 mobility score to L6. #2. was 1st place at the meet. #3. was a full point higher than her high at L4. #4. In our gym, L5 is a level just to be gotten through, whereas, we often have girls repeat L4 to work on the basics.
Remember, there are differences in judging from place to place.
She is going to L6 and we all expect that she will do really well, which in our region means 35-36ish. Exceptional means low 37s.

 

[Deleted member 18037]

The new mobility score is 32 except for L4 which is 34.

A 33.7 in L5 would meet the move up

 

[raenndrops]

The new mobility score is 32 except for L4 which is 34.

A 33.7 in L5 would meet the move up

Yep. I know. That is part of what I was saying. That was my #1 point
I was just also saying that in our area, that is a pretty good score.

 

[wallflower]

Yep. I know. That is part of what I was saying. That was my #1 point
I was just also saying that in our area, that is a pretty good score.

As I said, we have vastly different ideas of what a good score is. I've never been part of a program that is happy to get a score that meets the minimum. I actually have never even looked at the previous minimums because it would not have ever been an issue. I've seen a few gyms in our area that are competing kids in that score range and after the parents sit through a season and see other gyms they typically leave those gyms.

So USAG is raising the standard. Someone must feel their is a benefit to doing compulsories and striving for more than a 31 AA. Programs that in the past are happy to have kids score a 32 in level 4 and move on will have to adjust their expectations. I'm failing to see how it's a bad thing. It seems to me they are saying loud and clear that level 4 is a fundamental level that they want gyms to spend more time on.

 

[cadybearsmommy]

As I said, we have vastly different ideas of what a good score is. I've never been part of a program that is happy to get a score that meets the minimum. I actually have never even looked at the previous minimums because it would not have ever been an issue. I've seen a few gyms in our area that are competing kids in that score range and after the parents sit through a season and see other gyms they typically leave those gyms.

So USAG is raising the standard. Someone must feel their is a benefit to doing compulsories and striving for more than a 31 AA. Programs that in the past are happy to have kids score a 32 in level 4 and move on will have to adjust their expectations. I'm failing to see how it's a bad thing. It seems to me they are saying loud and clear that level 4 is a fundamental level that they want gyms to spend more time on.

Sorry to jump in but please keep in mind that @raenndrops is at a YMCA program and I'm pretty sure (Raenn correct me if I'm wrong)) that she previously stated they work out much lower hours than a lot of gyms in super competitive areas (was it 7.5 hours?). We can agree to disagree but I think a 33.7 with that amount of hours is pretty respectable And especially in L5 which has a reputation of being judged more harshly than the other compulsory levels. I agree that L4 is a very fundamental level and important but I'm not sure I agree with it having a mobility score that is two entire points higher than the other levels. It doesn't affect us personally so it's not personal it just isn't my favorite change that they've made.
I'm probably being a little overly sensitive here (this is a rough weekend for me) but it seems like some of the comments about how no competent gymnast should score that low, etc are a bit on the judgmental side. And truthfully if your gymnast has never scored that low you may not even realize how it sounds to those of us whose gymnast has scored in that 32-33 range.
No one wants kids competing skills that are unsafe. And I have no problem with repeating levels, my dd has done it before and will again this year. But I've seen girls who have their skills but just have bad form and getting angle deductions etc compete and score in that range. Yes they had things to improve on but they weren't unsafe.

 

[Gymmommy71]

What is the end goal for these programs where kids go less than 10 hours a week - why not just stay in XCel if the mobility scores are an issue? If the rumor I heard, that they are adding an XCel level above Diamond where top level skills can be performed, why not shoot for that instead of scoring low in JO optionals?

I kind of wish the JO would come out w/ some weekly hours recommendations for the various levels and streams so people know where their gym stands.