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

[edew]

Our FOC representative came back from NY telling me that the t.35 rule (all bouts must be presided by a Referee with a national or international license) will be enforced, or else fencers will not receive their ratings. That seems to be a pretty big hammer to force fencers to get referee-ratings. What are people doing about it?

To get a rating (the rule does not require any specific level of rating), one must first take the referee seminar. THEN, one can take the exam. Apparently, once one has taken the seminar, one can take the exam any time and as often as one wants. One is allowed to referee with just a 10 or 9 rating, but one has to take and "pass" the exam.

Don't know if you've passed an exam? If your USFA card doesn't indicate that you have a referees rating, then you haven't. Go and take the test.

But, enforcement of this rule will make running local tournaments a bear.

[veeco]

And just how would this rule be enforced? If they ask who was referring at that particular tournament, just say so and so. They did not necessarily had to be there.

Unless the USFA pays someone (possibly with a referee ranking?) to come and check-out each and every local tournament, they can't really enforce this rule.

To me it more sounds like a useless rant from the USFA. The beast has moved in its sleep. Probably a bad dream :-).

[ 09-10-2001: Message edited by: veeco ]

[edew]

Don't know how it's going to be enforced, which is why I need to hear more about it. It may be that each bout must be initialized by the referee (including pool bouts?). Still, it doesn't seem like it's possible to prevent forging a signature.

One possibility is that they will require local tournaments to pay referees by the bout (in which they officiate). And them itemize the cost and who the amounts were paid to. Ugh. Looks like a murderous bureaucracy.

[Foil Girl]

I agree! Ugh, what a bug! They WON'T be able to enforce this, and if they can it will be impossible to run local tournaments. Pay the directors by the bout? mannnnn, this ain't gonna work. But all will work out, I hope...

[its_me_mango]

i like the new rule, i want a director that knows what's he's doing/or she? it's really the best thing for fencing.

[d8m]

Originally posted by its_me_mango:
<STRONG>i like the new rule, i want a director that knows what's he's doing/or she? it's really the best thing for fencing.</STRONG>

I too want a director that knows what's going on. That would be good for fencing. Not the best but good.

Really, though, I've had rated refs that at NAC's that are supposed to know their stuff, but still suck. A rating is not neccessarily a guarantee for good reffing.

And enforcement sounds difficult...

[attila]

What an opportunuty! For years the classical guys have been waiting for a chance to rule the world. Here it is. If every classical fencer gets of their butt and gets a ref rating then they can do away with the flick. This could work. As you and I know, sporty fencers are some of the laziest people on the planet. We won't actually get out and work at something "other" than our game. Reffing is for those who "can't". Old Nick E. must be wetting his trousers by now.......

[Inquartata]

I applaud the satire, attila, but...I trust that "reffing is for those who can't" is meant in the same spirit. I've seen some very good fencers waxed by several guys who only referee now. Mike D'Asaro and Derek Cotton spring to mind, as does Attilio Tass. And that's just my very short list...

As to this rule---it seems rather draconian. Methinks I smell an effort by the USFA to make money off training and testing referees. Can high fees and yearly license costs be far away?

[rjccj]

Will be one of those well intentioned rules that noone will enforce. Veeco is right, the USFA would have to hire people to travel to all the local tourny's and supervise, make sure all the refs are certified. Would be more expensive than they could ever make on certifications. Besides, most of the large local tourny's I've been to have had rated refs anyway. The small local ones, where only lower ratings are earned, it doesn't seem practical.

[Peach]

I ran this past the people at my club last night, some of them national referees; it's their opinion this will not be enforced, but is another way of encouraging people to begin going through the referee certification process.

We have eight national referees at my club and a number of lower ratings, including a dad and some of the junior fencers, so we can afford to be blasé about it, though. My coach has been pushing people to take the referee exam and the practical for years, more as a way of helping his fencers understand the game than anything else as far as I can see.

[damianip]

It seems to me that getting the process of getting a referee's certification is one of the best kept secrets in fencing.

Typically, the seminar's are infrequently held and poorly promoted. I typically have find out about them two weeks after the fact.

If the USFA wants more trained refs, then they have to make a point of soliciting and accomodating the students. Explaining and promotinf the process explicitly, rather than hiding it, as all info seems to be, deep in the rulebook or ops manual.

I'll bet there's going to be at least a few fencers who, having won their tournaments, are going to find that they didn't get a rating because, by no fault of their own, the ref or refs were not licensed.

Paolo

[Mergs]

Seems to me that if the USFA was serious about ensuring that there are nationally rated directors, that it would be a requisite for either attending or graduating from Coaches College, which it isn't.

"an un-enforcable law is a bad law" Except if when a person's rating changes and the paperwork that goes forward HAS to have a rated director's signature on it. That in itself will be a nightmare of paperwork. You think it's slow getting a response from them now? Just wait.

[edew]

Originally posted by its_me_mango:
<STRONG>i like the new rule, i want a director that knows what's he's doing/or she? it's really the best thing for fencing.</STRONG>

No it's not. The rule does not specify the level of competency. A person can just attend the seminar, and then take the written exam and become licensed. That person may not know his (her?) left from right when it concerns actions. Many top level fencers, who do know and can see actions, are not rated referees. I would prefer to have such a person referee my bout than someone with "book" knowledge.

[d8m]

You know the more I think about it...

The people who said the USFA are trying to get more refs ar right.


This rule is probably just an attempt by the USFA to have more refs available when they run a national tournament, like Summer Nationals.

[azfencer]

That rule would basically make it impossible for our division to hold USFA tournaments! I don't know real numbers but I think we only have one person in the state who is a rated director. We don't have anyone qualified to run a directors clinic to qualify referees either. Somehow I doubt the USFA really wants to eliminate fencing in smaller divisions. It would be great if more fencers took the referee exam, but I don't see them really enforcing this rule. Its not a matter of money to pay referees, there just aren't any! In an ideal world...

[swordsen]

This is about the stupidest idea the USFA has ever floated. And that is saying alot. It is unenforceable and if it was enforced it would destroy local tournaments and incentive to compete in them.

Which idiot in specific proposed this stupidity so I can tell him in person what I think of it??????

[Crash55]

Our division has one maybe two rated refs in it so we won't be able to give out any ratings. We have peopel who would try and get rated but there has never been a ref clinic in our division. So the only people I know of that have become rated have travelled to other divisions or NACs (to take the practical tests) to get rated.

[radios]

well, in my division, we ignore most USFA rules anyway. For example, we had no A's in our division, so we hosted our own A tournament to generate some. We, of course, dodged that rule that you need at least 15 fencers, and ratings? yep, we blew that rule off too. This is just another pitiful attempt by the USFA to give our sovereign division some sort of rules, but because they haven't checked on those other rule infractions, I doubt (as was mentioned in previous posts) that they will do anything about us blowing this one off as well. I mean what, are they going to "send" one of their officials to our "sanctioned" tournaments? No way, they just don't have the resources.

[Craig]

So, what division is that? I'd like to know which fencers I fence actually earned the ratings that they have.

[edew]

A rating doesn't have any (economic) value. At best, it's a badge of honor. In reality, it helps in some small degree to set the initial seeding of a tournament. So if this radios guy (gal) fence in a division with a bunch of fencers who did not rightfully earned their classifications, who cares? If I don't fence in that division, it won't bother me. If I encounter that fencer in a national or sectional event, well, the result will be clearly evident very soon. Maybe one or two fencers may be negatively impacted by a fake rating. But, after the course of the day's event, people will more or less finish where they rightfully belong.