USFA rule t.35 (Chapter 6)...uh-oh.

[radios]

I suppose I should make my point more clear: If people are planning arbitrarily "not to enforce" any rule they don't like, it's over.

[d8m]

Originally posted by radios:
<STRONG>I suppose I should make my point more clear: If people are planning arbitrarily "not to enforce" any rule they don't like, it's over.</STRONG>

It already happens. Refs don't always enforce the one foot off rule, corps a corps, turning, coaching, and countless others...

I always thought the USFA had a comment about easily enforcable rules applied at local tournaments.
Is that right?
If so, this rule clearly falls into not easily enforced.

[radios]

It already happens. Refs don't always enforce the one foot off rule, corps a corps, turning, coaching, and countless others...
---------------------------------------------

hmm, coaching is allowed, by the way. Regarding those other rules, what are you talking about. Those are easily enforceable rules, are they not? Unless someone doesn't know about a given rule, which, of course, begs for a standard. Were I fencing and my opponent "turned" and the ref just sort of shrugged his shoulders and moved on, as it appears you are suggesting, I would request a new ref. Are people so unmotivated that they have the requisite knowledge but don't bother to go through the formality of taking the written test, which is all that's required. If they don't have the requeset knowledge to direct, they should not direct, can we at least agree on this?

[d8m]

Originally posted by radios:
<STRONG>

hmm, coaching is allowed, by the way. Regarding those other rules, what are you talking about. Those are easily enforceable rules, are they not? Unless someone doesn't know about a given rule, which, of course, begs for a standard. Were I fencing and my opponent "turned" and the ref just sort of shrugged his shoulders and moved on, as it appears you are suggesting, I would request a new ref. Are people so unmotivated that they have the requisite knowledge but don't bother to go through the formality of taking the written test, which is all that's required. If they don't have the requeset knowledge to direct, they should not direct, can we at least agree on this?</STRONG>

Let me clarify...
The easily enforcable rule, as it was explained to me, applies to why they don't check masks at local tournaments, why they don't do flex tests, and such rules.

As for people ignoring rules, the FIE rules state that coaching is illegal, yet no ref penalizes for it. The USFA asked the FOC to not enforce that rule.

Some refs don't enforce turning, card for people falling, or corps a corps. There is a big difference between what the rules say, and how they are interpreted.
This comment is in reference to people ignoring rules, not the issue of enforcibility.

EDEW made a very good point that he would rather have an unrated ref who could tell what was going on than than a guy who knows the book, but not fencing.

Unfortunately, it's not about knowing the book, but knowing how to apply the book. And that is harder to teach.

[ 09-12-2001: Message edited by: d8m ]

[fence1848]

I think the main problem here, as was mentioned earlier, is the availability of the clinics. Our division had to cosponsor a referees clinic with a neighboring division just to be able to afford the cost of bringing the clinic instructors into town. The clinics at Summer Nationals (which is a chore to get to by itself) were poorly communicated. Several people from my club tried to go them but didn't find out until the clinic that it was required that they stay for two days. As a result, they were not able to get their certification at nationals. Fortunately for them, there will be a clinic in the area that our division and our neighbor division are cosponsoring.
Also, the overall cost to the division of hiring rated referees and the effort that would be asking of the referees is unacceptable. At our first tournament this past weekend, we had 50 foil entries, 47 epee entries, and 27 sabre entries. We hired a few rated referees, but we couldn't possibly get done before 10 p.m. if we had asked them to direct every single bout. And if a person does earn a rating at a tournament that big, do you really have any doubt as to whether they deserve it?

[its_me_mango]

i still think it's better to go through the test thing, if i go to a doctor, i want one who went through med school and passed their boards, even then we know that some are better than others, but that no one is perfect in this imperfect world.

[oiuyt]

How many divisions have self-refereed opens? In all three of the divisions local to me currently, (New England (the largest division in the country), Connecticut, and Hudson-Berkshire) nearly every open is self-refereed. That was also true for my original division (Maryland). I know some divisions hire people for their tournaments. Is yours one of them? Where do you manage to find enough people who know what they're doing, who are willing to give up their weekends, and aren't interested in competing that weekend?

I'm a certified referee. I'm also busy every weekend that there would be a local open (fencing in it if nothing else). While I plan to be at pretty much every non-open in my divison as a referee or meet manager this year, that's relatively new now that my ratings preclude me from competing in them (unless I wanted to play in foil which I don't ). Pretty much the only other people at these events who aren't competing are either parents, many of whom aren't close to being qualified to referee, much less certified, and wouldn't be interested in refereeing rather than cheering on their progeny even if they were, or coaches. While the various coaches are frequently pressed into service (fortunately we have enough clubs that we can avoid conflicts of interest mostly) this is obviously not ideal either. Generally the better fencers are going to have to end up refereeing most of the bouts in their pools.

I suppose that this could all work if we just got to the point where nearly every good fencer and coach had at least gone through the clinics and testing process, but very few of the people actually at most of these events have. The largest events here (Pomme de Terre, etc.) have hired referees, but many of our "run-of-the-mill" opens are now group A1 tournaments. We routinely have 40-50 entries (25-30 for sabre) in our tournaments, and we're giving out real ratings, but very few of the people involved are certified. Trying to do the administrative overhead to get every bout a certified referee would be a major hassle....

-B

[edew]

Well, here in the Bay Area, all our junior events are refereed by non-fencers. Most of our women's events are refereed by non-fencers. Same goes with (men's and women's) epee. Sabre is refereed by non-fencers as well, for the most part. The only problem we have is open men's foil. We just don't have people willing to referee foil who isn't also fencing (oh, and are capable of refereeing foil). Even our category-2 foil is mostly refereed by some non-fencers.

[foiledagain]

It would seem to me that we should find out what the USFA's intentions are with this rule.

On the surface it seems like they are trying to add some structure and credibility to the ratings system. As Mango pointed out, this is probably a good thing.

However, just putting out an unenforcible rule without explaination seems like a waste. A better approach would be to announce that "in two years we will mandate certified directors" and then provide a plan re: how to get enough certifications to make it work.

Putting it in the rules and then ignoring it makes all of the rules questionable. (If I can ignore that rule, then why can't I ignore this other rules)...Pretty soon the organization will be meaningless..or perhaps it already is. Based on the comments I have seen, it looks like the USFA is not held in high regard.

Can someone give me the background on why USFA is held in such contempt?

[radios]

To set minds at ease, my division doesn't really ignore those mentioned rules. My idea was to show people how bad it could get. Perhaps there was a bit of a reckless disregard for accuracy during my previous post. I attempted to make such ridiculous statements that they would be seen as an extreme example. anyway, I hope no impressionable minds were detrimentally molded in the process.

[Inquartata]

Aw, shoot! And I was all ready to move to your Division and get my "A"!

[swordsen]

The USFA has a prehaps undeserved reputaion for tripping over theiur own feet on a regular basis. It really shouldn't have this reputation because for what it is (a volunteer organization) it does a very good job.
but then something like this comes out.....
YOu kow, this wouldn't be so bad if they had implemented a practical way to get director certified before. but instead they take what was a fairly complicted path and make it damn near impossible in large parts of teh nation and then say oh by the way.....
sigh.

[oiuyt]

This isn't a new rule.... it's not even a new rulebook. Remember, the USFA rulebook is mostly a translation of the FIE rulebook with very few US specific rules. This is not one of them. What's happening is that the USFA has apparently decided that it will start enforcing this rule (with the threat of not recording new ratings as the enducement for local bout committees to get their referees rated). Given that the USFA HASN'T announced this yet, what make you think that they WON'T give a lead-time to allow more referees to complete certification?
I, for one, am glad that Eric gave us the heads up, the more warning the better. I know my division has been trying to come up with programs to get more people into the referee certification process for the past year without hitting on somethnig that would seem to work particularly well yet. Maybe this is the type of thing that'd do it. Of course we have 3 or 4 certified referee trainers locally. In divisions where people aren't avaialble this would clearly be a much larger issue.
Incidently, does anyone know what the process is to become a referee clinic giver? I remember seeing something about the class to certifiy clinic givers at nationals but don't know how the process works or what the entry qualifications are.
-B

[Stryder]

D8m-

The FIE rules have no bearing on fencing in the US. While the USFA and the FOC do use the FIE rules, they are free to make any changes they see fit. One of those changes was to allow coaching on the strip. As it was explained to me, this was done because when US fencers competed in WCups, they were not prepared for opponent's who were shamelessly coached while on the strip.

The USFA tries new things from time to time.

All of you have at one time or another b!tched and moaned about the poor quality of referee's you have to suffer through.
You also b!tched about the USFA not doing anything about it.

Now they have.

They have taken your advice, and taken a tougher stance on referee qualification. Now, (IF WE VOLUNTARILY ADHERE TO THIS POLICY) we will see the standard of refereeing go up in this country. If there are only a few qualified ref's in your area, they will become even more experienced and more qualified until the US has an elite corp of referee's that can officiate at any level. One day they may even get paid.

[d8m]

Originally posted by Stryder:
<STRONG> D8m- </STRONG>

Litlle 'd' as in d8m. Thanks.


<STRONG> The FIE rules have no bearing on fencing in the US. </STRONG>

Sadly, you are correct.
If the USFA hopes to train people to compete on an international level, then we must follow international rules.

<STRONG> While the USFA and the FOC do use the FIE rules, they are free to make any changes they see fit. One of those changes was to allow coaching on the strip. As it was explained to me, this was done because when US fencers competed in WCups, they were not prepared for opponent's who were shamelessly coached while on the strip. </STRONG>

Correct, partly. The rule was changed to allow coaching as long as it did not disturb order on the strip, which is up to the discretion of the ref. However it was the USFA who pressured the FOC to accept the change, and many FOC members are not happy about it.
An article was written in American Fencing saying what a horrible tragedy it was that coaching.


<STRONG> The USFA tries new things from time to time.

All of you have at one time or another b!tched and moaned about the poor quality of referee's you have to suffer through.
You also b!tched about the USFA not doing anything about it.

Now they have. </STRONG>

It is you opinion that they have done something to fix the problem. I have *****ed about the refs. Not at local tournaments, but at national events, where the top refs are supposed to be. This rule won't affect that. In fact it will probably lead to an increase in bad refs.

<STRONG> They have taken your advice, and taken a tougher stance on referee qualification. Now, (IF WE VOLUNTARILY ADHERE TO THIS POLICY) we will see the standard of refereeing go up in this country. </STRONG>

They haven't taken my advice. This is not a tougher stance on ref qualification. This is just an attempt to make people test. The test hasn't improved. The USFA will still not apply the rules the way they are applied at the top level of fencing (i.e. World Cups, Olympics), and most likely never will.

<STRONG> If there are only a few qualified ref's in your area, they will become even more experienced and more qualified until the US has an elite corp of referee's that can officiate at any level. </STRONG>


Why is Derek Cotton they only US ref asked to the Olympics?
Because he calls things the way the FIE wants them called.

And until the USFA starts to do the same, we will never get US refs officiating at the highest levels.

<STRONG> One day they may even get paid. </STRONG>

They will never pay the refs, which they should.

I understand that you think this is a step in the right direction.

It may help get more rated refs. But that doesn't neccessarily mean they will be good. It won't stop me from complaining about refs at NAC's and it won't create more international level US refs.

This unenforcable rule will help the USFA staff Summer Nationals and Div 2/3 circuits.

That's about it. I'm not against the rule, it just fixes a different problem than what I complain about.

[ 09-14-2001: Message edited by: d8m ]

[ 09-14-2001: Message edited by: d8m ]

[edew]

Originally posted by d8m:
<STRONG>

Why is Derek Cotton they only US ref asked to the Olympics?
Because he calls things the way the FIE wants them called.

And until the USFA starts to do the same, we will never get US refs officiating at the highest levels.

[ 09-14-2001: Message edited by: d8m ]</STRONG>

I think the IOC/FIE picks just ONE referee from each country for the Olympics, with maybe one or two more from the host country. Derek's paid his international dues by refereeing at many international tournaments. He was certainly nominated (if that's what was done) by the USFA/USOC.

[d8m]

EDEW,

Very true. Perhaps I should clairfy. I've not been expressing my thoughts clearly this week.

Derek is consistantly asked to ref at international tournaments. By the USFA, by the FIE.

Why, because he interprets and applies the rules as the FIE want refs to.
He doesn't card people for falling down. He doesn't card coaches for coaching.
Not at FIE tournaments, nor US ones.

In addition, when he pays attention, he has a very good eye for what happened on the strip.

[MikeHarm]

Wait a sec, I thought you were supposed to get carded for falling down for being out of control? I've gotten a red card or two on that one.

Mike

[veeco]

That's exactly what d8m says:

You're supposed to be carded, but most of the high level referees don't bother carding you because it's stupid to card someone for falling.

Now if you deliberately jump forward to touch someone, putting yourself off balance to have a longer reach, then that's cardable. Now if you counter attack, loose your balance, and fall backwards, then you won't be carded by a high level referee unless they have a grudge against you.

[Peach]

Charlie Washburn refs internationally, I believe.

--Delia