Pools only tournament

[Roach]

Does anyone know where I can find actual rules for a pools based event? I want something written to base a tourney on so I can defer to it when people start complaining about it not being done right. Not that it ever happens. I know the ops manual says the format is okay, but I canot find a description of how to run it.

[Mr Epee]

Instructions used to be in the rule book... I assume they are still there.

[edew]

The initial seeding of the pools will use the snake method. Seeding into subsequent pools will also use the snake method.

Usually, you can either take the top X% up out of the general round or top X number of fencers from each pool. That's the choice of the tournament organizer. You also try to take a number that's divisible by 6 or 7 so that you have equal-sized pools of 6s or 7s in subsequent rounds (6 being the preferable number).

wash rinse repeat.

[Philistine]

Also, IIRC, in the final pool only--the winner cannot be determined by indicators. Thus, if you have 2 (or more) people with the same # of losses, you must have a fence off.

--Philistine

[Roach]

I have been admonished by Carla-Mae, in the past, for taking a top % from each pool. I was informed that following a round of pools I should re-seed the fencers in a list and then make my cut. As for instructions being in the book, well, they're not. Here's my complete unadultered problem.

It has been decided that my division will run its Div Quals for nationals via pools as per bullet point 9 on page 27 of the Opsmanual. Ironically the Rules have the following tidbit:
o . 1 1 Individual competitions may be organized:
A. By direct elimination with a mixed system consisting of one round of eliminating pools and a preliminary direct elimination
table, followed by a main direct elimination table of 64 fencers to qualify 8 or 4 fencers for a direct elimination final.
B. By direct elimination with a mixed system consisting of one round of eliminating pools, followed by a direct elimination
table to qualify 8 or 4 fencers for a direct elimination final.
C. By direct elimination throughout. (This formula, applicable at the Olympic Games, is contained in an appendix.)

o . 1 2 In all competitions for which the formula includes a round of pools, these pools will consist of 7 fencers if the number of
participants is divisible by 7. If not, they will consist of 6 fencers if the number of participants is divisible by 6. Otherwise the
pools will be of 7 and 6.
At World Cup competitions the organizing country may add the necessary number of fencers of their own nationality for all the
pools to consist of 7 fencers.

Since when has using pools throughout been a illegal format or does that only apply to offcial FIE sanctioned stuff? It almost sounds like a conflict. Regardless, since most Div qual events held last year only had 5-6 people I would only need one pool. Some events had 9-10 people though. Would I do 2 pools, cut to one pool of 7?

Also this bit comes from Ops manual:

(8) Divisions must hold the Division II qualifying competitions as separate competitions
open only to those eligible to compete in the Division II Nationals.

Does this mean that Div2 and Div3 qualifiers MUST be seperate?

[Roach]

Originally Posted by Philistine

Also, IIRC, in the final pool only--the winner cannot be determined by indicators. Thus, if you have 2 (or more) people with the same # of losses, you must have a fence off.

--Philistine

Really!? Where the *&%$ is this written? All this because somebody thinks fencing DE's is too strenous for those fencing multiple events. Arg.

[Victor]

re two pools cut to a percentage for one last pool: The underlying logic is that you can't fairly judge two separate pools' results against each other for a final determination because strengths of each don't necessarily bear out. So after combining the two via one seeding list, and lopping off the bottom X percent, you come up with a single final pool round to fairly reassess the strongest fencers directly against each other.

... Or something like that.

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by Victor

re two pools cut to a percentage for one last pool: The underlying logic is that you can't fairly judge two separate pools' results against each other for a final determination because strengths of each don't necessarily bear out. So after combining the two via one seeding list, and lopping off the bottom X percent, you come up with a single final pool round to fairly reassess the strongest fencers directly against each other.

... Or something like that.

Actually it's almost completely opposite that reasoning....

There are two common methods of promotion from pools. Promotion of N fencers (or X%, these two are interchangeable once the tournament starts) from the entire field, or promotion of M fencers from each pool. The second method means that to promote you don't care what the other pools are doing, how strong they are, etc., but rather only what's happening in your pool. The first method is what is currently used by the USFA in all national competitions (whether the next round is DE's or pools doesn't affect how the promotion works) and is significantly more common everywhere that I've fenced. Of course it also is a slightly more vulnerable format for collusion-minded fencers (everyone goes 3-3 in a tournament with a 60% promotion and everyone is likely to move up, etc.). The advantage of promotion from the overall field is that pools don't have to be equal sized for the promotion to remain (relatively) fair. Promotion of the top 3 from each pool when some pools have 5 and some have 6 is inherently unfair. It would also be fairly common at the local level if promotion from individual pools were used.

-B :)

[O_O #2]

i think the real question is not "how" but rather "why"...

whats the point of a tournament without DEs? half the fun of fencing is sending people home crying.

[edew]

Originally Posted by Roach

[...]

Also this bit comes from Ops manual:

(8) Divisions must hold the Division II qualifying competitions as separate competitions
open only to those eligible to compete in the Division II Nationals.

Does this mean that Div2 and Div3 qualifiers MUST be seperate?

No, it means that the Div2 cannot be also the Division Championship or sectional championship qualifier, which is opened to all fencers. The Div3 qualifiers are specifically from among those who have Ds or lower at the time of event entry to the Div2 qualifier.

A Div3 fencer is eligible to compete in the Div II Nationals, so that immediately would suggest your conclusion of Div2 and Div3 separated must be incorrect.

Basically, in some divisions, lazy schedulers might decide to run a big division championship (open to all classifications) and also call it the Div2/3 qualifier, hoping to make some argument that the top 25% of those eligible for Div2 qualify to Div II Nationals, and the top25% of those eligible for Div3 qualify for Div3 Nationals.

Nope. Can't do it that way. The reason is because there are fencers there who have nothing to gain from fencing the event, and might choose to lose to teammates or friends. Thus, the Div2 qualifier is limited solely to those who are Cs and lower.

[downunder]

Originally Posted by Roach

Since when has using pools throughout been a illegal format or does that only apply to offcial FIE sanctioned stuff? It almost sounds like a conflict. Regardless, since most Div qual events held last year only had 5-6 people I would only need one pool. Some events had 9-10 people though. Would I do 2 pools, cut to one pool of 7?

The FIE rulebook is for FIE competitions. There are no FIE competitions that consist of entirely poules, thus there is nothing about it in the rulebook. The same applies to non electric fencing, or not fencing on metallic pistes.

[dekko]

There used to be something in the ops manual, don't know if it's still there, that gave the legal aspects of a tournement. The biggie being at least 50% of the fencers must promote from round to round. The barrage situation in the final pool was more logical than by rule, although it is/was in there. How to seed it, score it, etc but, at least I don;t knwo of any, format an organizer has to use, qualifiers being a seperate situation.

Basically, you can run any format you want as long as it adhears to those criteria. The biggest hurdle for you will be selling it to the fencers. A vast majority of fencers expect a one round everyone up format, or something very close, so getting them to buy in will be tougher than knowing the rules for such an event.

[DHCJr]

I don't think they are used to the everyone up from the first round considering the NAC's haven't done it in a long time. As far as if to say a certain number from each pool or a percentage for all. The Athletes manual states the cut off is for ALL fencers.

[Roach]

Originally Posted by dekko

There used to be something in the ops manual, don't know if it's still there, that gave the legal aspects of a tournement. The biggie being at least 50% of the fencers must promote from round to round. The barrage situation in the final pool was more logical than by rule, although it is/was in there. How to seed it, score it, etc but, at least I don;t knwo of any, format an organizer has to use, qualifiers being a seperate situation.

Basically, you can run any format you want as long as it adhears to those criteria. The biggest hurdle for you will be selling it to the fencers. A vast majority of fencers expect a one round everyone up format, or something very close, so getting them to buy in will be tougher than knowing the rules for such an event.

Well there is nothing in Ops manual anymore about how to run things. For that manner the current Ops manaul has the wrong fee schedule for USFA memberships. Oops. As for my plight, I guess I'll have to contact the USFA. Lastly, not that it matters here, but I strongly voted against the idea of straying from the 1 round of pools to DE format. Coaches and fencer moms overrode my opinion. Do not get me wrong. I'd like to run a tournament just by pools to break the monotony and to get a better feel for the "good old days" when my coaches fenced. I think it would be interesting.

[HDG]

Originally Posted by Roach

get a better feel for the "good old days" when my coaches fenced. I think it would be interesting.

Maybe I'm getting old, but we used all pools in the late eighties and early nineties when I was fencing U20; I hope they're not the "good old days" yet.

[Roach]

For my coach, DEs were unheard of when he was competing

[nahouw]

Originally Posted by downunder

The FIE rulebook is for FIE competitions. There are no FIE competitions that consist of entirely poules, thus there is nothing about it in the rulebook. The same applies to non electric fencing, or not fencing on metallic pistes.

Correct. But for those of us who remember the old days, the way to do it by pools throughout is by promoting minimum 50% each round.

We still from time to time use this format in the Garden State Games (depending upon entries, if it lends itself to it) -- gives more fencing to entrants and is easier from an organizer's standpoint for strip/referee utilization.

As to the original question vis a vis people questioning, as long as you take at a minimum 50% up from round to round, re-seed the next round based upon the previous round's results in the snake fashion depicted in the rule book, and when you are in the final pool of 6, make sure that there is a clear winner based on victories (i.e. you must barrage in the event of a tie on victories), then you are following the rules.

If you feel that you need to have this spelled out in writing, then try to find someone with a rule book circa 1999 or earlier -- I think that the 1999 version was the last one that had the all pools format in there.

Oh, and also as Eric pointed out, your minimum 50% can be either by indicators of the whole or by individual pool -- as long as it is what the competition organizer specifies.

[DHCJr]

Originally Posted by nahouw

Oh, and also as Eric pointed out, your minimum 50% can be either by indicators of the whole or by individual pool -- as long as it is what the competition organizer specifies.

Usually Eric is correct, but as I stated earlier, not this time. Check the current Athlete Manual. You must take it from the whole.