Huh.

[oiuyt]

http://askfred.net/Events/moreInfo.p...nament_id=2075

"This tournament is not USFA-sanctioned and is not a tournament held under the auspices of the Gulf Coast Texas Division."

"USFA Rules and Membership & Rules:
Fencers must be able to show proof of membership with an expiration date of 7/31/06 or later."

"waiver of participation is required for all Gulf Texas Division competitions."

Does make me wonder whether the reason for being non-USFA sanctioned is a local politics thing, is because they're running a Y8 event and want fencers younger than 7 to be allowed to compete, or is some other reason. And whether or not the Gulf Texas Division requirement is going to be enforced for this non-Gulf Coast Division event.

-B

[keropie]

I kinda gotta wonder how bulletproof their waiver is, as well, and how insurance would be handled. And how reasonable it is to require USFA membership for a non-USFA sanctioned event. And how the fencers will feel about not being able to earn a rating. And why someone would bring up this many questions just so 7 year olds (and younger) can fence. Seems 'questionable' to me...

[Mr Epee]

In case you didn't get the memo:

They can do any damn thing they want... it's Texas

effin' Texians

[KD5MDK]

Given the date, I suspect it may not be sanctioned because the decision to host it came less than 30 days before the event. That is, I don't recall having seen it posted before.

[dsapery]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

In case you didn't get the memo:

They can do any damn thing they want... it's Texas

effin' Texians

Actually, the USFA Operations Manual says just the opposite:

Except as herein provided, members of the United States Fencing Association (USFA) may participate only in competitions scheduled by or under the auspices of the National Board of Directors or of the divisions and sections of the USFA. Violations of this rule are punishable by disciplinary penalties according to the gravity of the offense.

That said, in 25 years of USFA membership, I don't recall a single instance of this rule being enforced...

[Padawan]

Yes, there was an instance of this being enforced in 1998. I have the newspaper articles to prove it. Contrary to what MM says.

[Mergs]

Originally Posted by Padawan

Contrary to what MM says.

MM? What part of left field did that come out of? In reading the thread, I don't see anyone that has those initials.

As for being a non-sanctioned event, requiring USFA membership and the liability aspect, I would say that:

1. Given the recent politics of the Division and Section regarding what is and what isn't a 'sanctioned' event, i.e. can ratings be earned, AND the fact that it is an age restricted tournament in age brackets that outside of Nationals don't exsist, this tournament wouldn't pass the smell test as an official event.

2. While the event may not be sanctioned, USFA membership can possibly be required by the organizer as a way of either trying to protect himself with the USFA insurance or increasing membership. But then again, the argument could be made that by being a non-sanctioned event, the liabiltiy protection is forfiet. Which brings us to

3. Being a business, I'm sure that the organizer has insurance to cover events held on his premisises, at least I would hope so, because the USFA insurance is supplemental to existing insurance (as I found out the hard way) and really shouldn't be relied on soley for liability protection.

P.S. Now someone with the initials MM has weighed in.

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by Mergs

MM? What part of left field did that come out of? In reading the thread, I don't see anyone that has those initials.

probably out of the part of left field known as "reality". You really should be able to figure out who MM is...

-m

[RebelFencer]

Michael Massik(sp?) I'm guessing. And I'll let you guess what former organization it probably was regarding.

[epeemike81]

hmm....

Padawan wasn't very clear... not sure I can
Figure it out.... I must just be out of the
Loop.

-m

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

hmm....

Padawan wasn't very clear... not sure I can
Figure it out.... I must just be out of the
Loop.

-m

Gee, Mike, you seem to be suffering from unusual sentance structure! Is there anything I can do to help? Perhaps For Limiting the scope of these odd posts?

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by MyrddinsPrecint

Gee, Mike, you seem to be suffering from unusual sentance structure! Is there anything I can do to help? Perhaps For Limiting the scope of these odd posts?

Nice post, though (as usual) your capitalization seems to be pushing fundamental lines of grammar.

-m

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by Mergs

MM? What part of left field did that come out of? In reading the thread, I don't see anyone that has those initials.

As for being a non-sanctioned event, requiring USFA membership and the liability aspect, I would say that:

1. Given the recent politics of the Division and Section regarding what is and what isn't a 'sanctioned' event, i.e. can ratings be earned, AND the fact that it is an age restricted tournament in age brackets that outside of Nationals don't exsist, this tournament wouldn't pass the smell test as an official event.

2. While the event may not be sanctioned, USFA membership can possibly be required by the organizer as a way of either trying to protect himself with the USFA insurance or increasing membership. But then again, the argument could be made that by being a non-sanctioned event, the liabiltiy protection is forfiet. Which brings us to

3. Being a business, I'm sure that the organizer has insurance to cover events held on his premisises, at least I would hope so, because the USFA insurance is supplemental to existing insurance (as I found out the hard way) and really shouldn't be relied on soley for liability protection.

P.S. Now someone with the initials MM has weighed in.

MM == Michael Massik. Padawan ( == Alan Blakeborough) was referring to the PFL (Professional Fencing League). The year the PFL was functioning the USFA enforced their, at the time, restriction against professional fencers by requiring everyone entering Summer Nationals to sign a small disclaimer asserting that they were amateurs.

While I could be mistaken, I don't believe the USFA sanctioned anyone for participating in non-USFA events, but rather enforced an existing rule against professionals that dated back to when the Olympics were limited to amateurs and when the USFA was the AFLA (Amateur Fencers League of America).

There is no longer a prohibition on professionals in our sport and people who participated in the PFL (and received prize money) are eligible to fully participate as USFA members.

Note, I am not an insurance specialist. I haven't personally reviewed the coverage statements to confirm the following, but am rather basing this paragraph on verbally transmitted information from the insurance agent that came to speak at Coaches College and from my recollection of a summary of changes about the coverage. The insurance coverage covers things other than sanctioned events. It covers fencing-related activities. The new insurance policy is not invalidated by incomplete uniforms, despite the commonly thrown around conventional wisdom. Club practices are covered, this is basically a club practice open to more outsiders. Doesn't mean that they couldn't be doing OTHER things that would increase the liability risk, but not being USFA sanctioned shouldn't, in and of itself, have that effect.

Originally Posted by keropia

I kinda gotta wonder how bulletproof their waiver is

It's a liability waiver signed in advance -- it's not at all bulletproof, pretty much regardless of what it says. Advance waivers are useful because they discourage lawsuits, not because they win them. Sign a waiver AFTER an accident and there's some more strength there. (just as I'm not an insurance specialist, I am also not a lawyer)

Going back to the other comment for a bit, given the number of glaring factual errors and outright fabricated quotes that I've seen in newspaper articles I hardly see them as evidence. I'd be more swayed by anecdotal evidence that included specific names of people that were sanctioned for participating in a non-USFA event (with the reason for the sanction being directly such participation). And what the santions were. And, as mentioned above, I wouldn't consider the amateur/professional thing to qualify. An argument might be made that there was selective enforcement of the rule at that time, or that the PFL was targetted by the means of enforcement, but those aren't the same thing as disciplinary actions against people for participation in non-sanctioned events.

-B

[chefencer]

Originally Posted by dsapery

according to the gravity of the offense.[/font]

That said, in 25 years of USFA membership, I don't recall a single instance of this rule being enforced...

I think this distills the issue - I doubt the offenses have ever merited disciplinary action. Are you going to punish people for going to a club tourney?

[KD5MDK]

Originally Posted by Mergs

1. Given the recent politics of the Division and Section regarding what is and what isn't a 'sanctioned' event, i.e. can ratings be earned, AND the fact that it is an age restricted tournament in age brackets that outside of Nationals don't exsist, this tournament wouldn't pass the smell test as an official event.

I have not heard anything specific to this particular tournament, but I don't think the age bracket thing is the reason. Permitted ages were an issue at our Sectional meeting last week, and 2 things were reasonably clear: 1) There is no restriction on having Y8 events currently, as long as all participants are either 7 or 8 years old. 2) Even if 1 event in a sanctioned tournament becomes unsanctioned, that does not mean that all other events there are unsanctioned.

Now, you many note that the host club has an article in the most recent American Fencing, where the club owner says that not all of the practice strips are regulation size, and I have heard that is an issue the Division has taken issue with. So if the owner did not promise to use only the regulation strips, it might be unsanctioned for that.

However, I continue to suspect that the primary cause (or at least, justification) for not sanctioning it is that it was not announced or put on the Division calendar at least 30 days in advance.

[Padawan]

by the way I don't believe you can waive away your right to sue the host of a tournament. It just helps in court to show that the person understood the risks of the activity. I am not a lawyer nor do I play one on television. Please consult your an attorney for proper guidence.

ps OIUYT is so smart, don't you agree?

[mrbiggs]

Are college fencers and high school fencers in dangerous violation of the rules because nearly all of those competitions are non-USFA? I doubt it, especially since there are so many provisions for people who fence for a club and school in the rules and on the USFA registration form. This tournament is unusual in requiring usfa membership while being non-USFA, but it doesn't make sense to me that people should worry about having their memberships revoked.

Also, I've competed in several non-usfa events, and it really wasn't a big deal. I just didn't have to use my card and the directors weren't quite as good.

Not to mention several events which were usfa, but in which usfa rules weren't followed. (In the details, the general format was ok.)

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Originally Posted by Padawan

ps OIUYT is so smart, don't you agree?

I don't think it's that he's smart, i think it's that he's tall.

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

Are college fencers and high school fencers in dangerous violation of the rules because nearly all of those competitions are non-USFA? (Well, nearly all high school, I don't know about college.)

um, if it's a college tournament, it's restricted who can show up, which, by definition, can't be usfa.

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by MyrddinsPrecint

um, if it's a college tournament, it's restricted who can show up, which, by definition, can't be usfa.

Okay, good. I wasn't sure and didn't want to make a fool out of myself.

[DJ Apostrophe]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs part 1

Are college fencers and high school fencers in dangerous violation of the rules because nearly all of those competitions are non-USFA? I doubt it, especially since there are so many provisions for people who fence for a club and school in the rules and on the USFA registration form.

Originally Posted by MP

um, if it's a college tournament, it's restricted who can show up, which, by definition, can't be usfa.

Originally Posted by mrbiggs part 2

Okay, good. I wasn't sure and didn't want to make a fool out of myself.

Mr. Biggs, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
(Apologies to the writers of Billy Madison)

You do realize she never ACTUALLY answered your question, don't you???


-w