================== FEATURE ARTICLE ====================
2)"Is It Fair?" - by Judy Schalk - Brevet Judge
(Repeat L-5 and Move to L-7)
===========================================================
Repeating Level 5 has been a hot issue with so many for so long that it warrants
special consideration. In my August issue I quoted the newly published statement
from USAG on their philosophy of fair play in the matter of "mobility," i.e.,
when to move up to the next level. It states that once a high level of proficiency
is achieved at a level, the gymnast should move to the next level when she can
do so safely.
USAG, not wanting to force gymnasts out of a program because, for whatever
reason, they can't make the commitment to go to the next level, no longer has
mandatory "move up" scores. Therefore, clubs have developed their own program
strategies for mobility. The following scenario submitted by a reader lends to an
explanation of the current mobility regulations.
Q.) I would like to know the rules for competing a level and then moving down
to compete another level, or skipping a level altogether. My colleagues and I,
as well as several other coaches from other gyms have noticed that a particular
gym in our area will compete their girls as Level 5's, skip level 6, and then compete
Level 7. Or, they will compete Level 5, then compete one meet as a Level 6 and
then compete Level 5 again for the remainder of the season, then move immediately
to Level 7 after the Level 5 season is complete again. We have had several
complaints about this from parents that not only go to our gym and compete against
these kids, but also the parents of the kids who attend the other gym that skips
and repeats levels. As a newer coach, I am not sure what to tell these parents. I
assume that moving down a level after competing a higher level (I.e. Level 6 back
to Level 5) is against the rules.
Also, this team was Level 5 Team State Champions last year. About 5 of the girls on
that Level 5 State Team were competing Level 7 no later than 2 months after. This,
without competing a Level 6 meet first, this information was confirmed by a parent
whose gymnast was part of that squad of girls who went directly from Level 5 to Level 7.
Please clarify with me if this is indeed against the rules, and if so, what disciplinary
actions can be taken? I assume that this is definitely against the spirit of the JO
program since it is holding girls back from progressing, or progressing incorrectly.
A.) Some clubs choose to only compete one meet at Level 6 just to get a mobility
score and move directly to Level 7. They may prefer to spend their time more productively
working L-7 skills while just competing L-5 meets to remain competition-sharp. According
to the rules, this strategy is allowable.
With the exception of skipping Level 6 entirely, never getting a mobility score, the rest
of what you described is legal. Here are the Mobility and Dropping Back rules that apply.
- Athletes may not skip any level. They must advance one level at a time by scoring the
minimum mobility score at any USA Gymnastics sanctioned competition.
(Rules & Policies, p. 19, II., A., 3.)
- Once a gymnast has competed in a Sectional meet, she may NOT drop back to a lower
level in the same competitive season.
--- If no Sectional meet is held, the State Administrative Committee must determine prior
to the beginning of the competitive year, a designated "declaration" date for each level
for such purpose. (Rules & Policies, p. 21, C., 1.)
This means that a L-5 may compete in a L-6 meet before Sectionals (or the designated
"drop back" date), then finish the season as a L-5. Having already received her L-6 mobility
score in that one L-6 meet, she may move to L-7 as soon as she leaves L-5.
Are you sure there was NO L-6 meet in the past where some of these athletes may have
acquired their mobility score to move to L-7. I would assume that a coach who uses this
strategy would understand this requirement. You must contact your USAG State Chairperson
with this concern if further action is to be taken.
Considering the ramifications you described, I assume that's what led USAG to come out
with a statement on their philosophy of mobility. The issue of "good sportsmanship and
fairness to all athletes" may be in jeopardy. I don't believe that simply professing a
philosophy is enough to deal with real issues when regulations clearly permit the strategy.
Judge Judy