near collisions in gymnastics

12 comments ↓

#1 Geoffrey Taucer on 05.03.09 at 12:26 am

Can’t seem to view the .gif; I’m getting a 403 error when I click on the link.

#2 coach Rick on 05.03.09 at 5:10 am

It plays automatically on my machine. Anyone else not able to play the .GIF file?

#3 Valentin on 05.03.09 at 5:31 am

It plays now..and Ohh my..that was sooo close.. Another good reason not to have open access to gym floor haha

#4 Geoffrey Taucer on 05.03.09 at 8:00 am

WHOAH!

It’s showing now, and holy monkey!

#5 Sandra on 05.03.09 at 8:13 am

As a gymnastics coach now a cheerleading coach this is a situation I of seen frequently at competition. Near misses. Usually happens when there are 36 members on a 9 panel floor not because someone is not paying attention to there young child.

#6 AE on 05.03.09 at 10:56 am

did she flip over him?? or did it just look like that?

#7 Lacey on 05.03.09 at 1:20 pm

Cheerleader’s near miss? Doesn’t surprise me.

During a recent mock meet at AGC, cheerleaders ran riot, passing between the judge and the gymnast. Somebody could have been seriously hurt.

Are they not taught discipline just because they’re cheerleaders?

#8 diana on 05.03.09 at 7:18 pm

As a coach I see this more often than not and its most of the time the younger kids fault.and it not just big tumbling skills either I’ve seen handstand and cartwheels almost knock over preschoolers.

If possible I would have all pre-school and younger classes as far away from the rec team kids as possible.It can also be a problem with the parents of the kids we have all has those kid that for the life of us don’t want to listen and just run around witch creates danger for the other kids who are minding there own buisness and folowing directions.

I know if my child were injured because of some little kid running into there line of tumble I would proab take it out on the gym manager and the parents of the other kid. It would be neglegance on the gyms part.

#9 Troy on 05.04.09 at 6:04 pm

The term “near-miss” is always incorrectly used in these situations. As the great George Carlin would have said, this incident was a “near-hit”. Had the girl hit the little boy, that would have been a “near-miss”, because she would nearly have missed him. In this case, she nearly hit him, which makes it a “near-hit”. I know nobody cares about that, and I don’t really either, but I think it is interesting.

#10 Troy on 05.04.09 at 6:06 pm

Rick actually called it correctly with his “near-collision”.

#11 Just another opinion on 05.04.09 at 8:26 pm

I’m only posting this because Troy and I have had this argument before, so for comedy’s sake, I produce my position here, for all the world (or, the gymnastics community who cares about this posting) to see what kind of dork I am.

The phrase “near miss” is only incorrectly used if one is measuring from the direction where the hit is the starting point. If one measures “nearness” from the direction where missing entirely is the probable result of the action, then “near miss” is correctly used.

Suppose A throws a ball at B, and it lands 20 feet away. A missed by a lot. Suppose A then throws another ball at B, and this time it lands 5 feet away. A missed. On a third try, A throws a ball at B and it comes within a fraction of a millimeter from B’s head. A has now performed an action that is a “near” miss. “Near” is thus being used as an adjective describing the type and quality of the miss, NOT the intended result of the action.

If “near” is being used as an adverb, then it is similar to “almost” and “near miss” would mean a hit. However, “near” is a much more versatile and flexible word than “almost,” whose primary and original function was adverbial. (“Near” became used as an adjective in the 14th century, “almost” didn’t come into use as an adjective until 1709.)

Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage (1994), tracing the phrase to World War II, notes its ubiquity and concludes that “despite its apparent lack of logic, it is not an error.” Fowler’s Modern English Usage defines a near miss simply as “a miss that was nearly a hit.” (That’s from the 1968 edition; the 1996 Fowler’s omits the phrase, which suggests that it’s no longer deemed worthy of discussion.)

Indeed, the phrase “nearly missed” most definitely falls into the contradiction Troy discussed, as “nearly” is unquestionably an adverb.

In either case, Troy will likely throw a ball at my head when we next see each other, and won’t miss.

#12 Troy on 05.06.09 at 2:17 pm

I love the argument. I agree with your logic, but the common sense of it doesn’t work for me.

First of all, when this phrase is commonly used, the people using it are starting from the position of a “hit”. They are using the phrase to describe something that almost hit, therefore, in that respect, the term “near miss” is incorrect.

Secondly, in my humble, and very often wrong, opinion, miss is more of an absolute term. I know people use the phrase “barely missed” and other things like that, but to me, a miss is a miss.

Anyway, I would never throw anything at you, but you are correct about me not missing. If I did throw something at you, it would never be a “near miss”.

Leave a Comment