Tournament Procedure Question

[darius]

OK, so I've got a question about tournament operation and procedure, and how it should be handled.

Fencer X and Fencer Y are supposed to fence each other. Due to a software error, Fencer Y gets cut out of the tableau, meaning that Fencer X is assumed to have a bye.

Fencer X is then scheduled to compete against Fencer Z. Midway through the bout between Fencer X and Fencer Z, the error is discovered. What is the proper procedure? The bout should be stopped, and the appropriate bouts should be fenced, correct?

Now, let's say that the organizers allow the bout to be completed, and the fencers, with no knowledge of what has happened, sign the scoresheets. They they tell Fencer X that he must fence with Fencer Y (with appropriate rest), and that if he wins, his result from his X/Z bout will stand, but if he loses to Y, Y and Z will have to fence.

Fencer X fences the initial bout against Y, and then upon consultation with coaches, calls for a bout commitee, which overrules his protest. The main justification given is that Fencer X *already lost* to Fencer Z, even though the bout should not have continued past the point where the error was discovered. The fencer's protest hinged on a belief that the tableau should be applied equally, not based on a previously determined matchup. (If X wins, Z automatically advanced to the next rount. If Y wins, Z must fence.)

Any thoughts? The USFA rulebook has little guidance on this issue, only specifying that bouts are to be fenced in the appropriate order. Should a bout fenced out-of-order be allowed to stand, even if its results hinge on a previous bout?

This is also a place where the "did they sign? Tough $#*&!" argument breaks down. In this case, the bout committee knew about the problem -- if that argument was valid, then clearly that bout had been fenced, and Fencer Y is also out of the tableau without ever having fenced a DE bout, correct?

darius

[keropie]

Well, clearly the best thing to do would have been to stop the bout in progress, back up, do the bout that got skipped, and then move foward (i.e., the X vs. Z bout never started). Given that that bout was allowed to finish, I think the only two options (which have in my mind equal 'fairness' viability, but different time requirements) are to go back and fence X vs. Y, winner fences Z (again, in the case of X) OR fence X vs. Y, if Y wins then Y and Z fence, otherwise let the results (Z winning) stand. I'd have to vote for the second one, I think, just for time purposes, but then again, if I managed to stop the bout in progress and X did win, I'd start the X vs. Z bout over, I think.

Moral of the story: don't mess up lol. Usually this is why (as a ref) I prefer to have the table or at least my part of it with me at strip (or a copy), as this can sometimes clear things up.

[Jim Letson]

First, I think that the situation was handled inappropriately in that the bout committee, upon discovering their error, allowed the X vs. Z bout to continue to completion. You're right in saying that they ought to have stopped the bout and let them know of the problem, and scheduled the proper bouts as soon as X was ready to fence Y.

That said, Z still did fence a bout and win it, and though there was a computer error, it's not necessarily fair to make someone win the same bout twice. It strikes me as a kind of a double-jeopardy rule.

I think that Fencer Y is in the worst position here, though, because he's not on the board as a fencer after pools, which freezes him out, and leaves him a bit more vulnerable to Fencer X, who's warmed up from his non-bout with Fencer Z. If he loses, it's unfair to him, and if he wins, it's not fair to Z because he still has to fence the same round twice.

Generally speaking, there's no really great solution to the problem. Regardless of which course you take, someone gets glitched out of his right bout, and since the bout committee wasn't too proactive after initially discovering their mixup, it's more their fault and their problem anyway.

It's interesting that the USFA didn't ever think of something like this being possible. Any chance we can write a letter or something? Propose a concrete no-batting-out-of-order rule adoption at Nationals? I'm not up on the procedures for amending rules.

JL

[MyrddinsPrecint]

First problem:

Announce seeding has been posted. Then announce that the tableaux has been posted. At that point, Depending on how many events are being run, you probably don't have strips or directors, so they have a good 30 minutes to mill about and notice that they aren't promoted. Then when you get greif about the error, you can place some of the blame on the person left off, and they have the chance to discover the error and let you know long before the fencing starts.

Furthermore, wasn't there recently a thread about the feasibility of training people to run tournaments? Might this be an appropriate moment to bring that up again?

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Originally Posted by Jim Letson

It's interesting that the USFA didn't ever think of something like this being possible. Any chance we can write a letter or something? Propose a concrete no-batting-out-of-order rule adoption at Nationals? I'm not up on the procedures for amending rules.

These things do not become USFA rules, they become policies. Such as "There will be no changes once fencing has started" is a New England Division policy stated somewhere (who knows how well enforced it is), meaning "if you didn't show up until 3 minutes after check in closed, and we started fencing, don't expect you'll get in" .... etc, etc.

En Garde is defaulted to cut off promotion to DEs at 80%. It's an easy mistake to make, if you're trying to rush through the turnover between Pools and DEs, or if you don't know the software well. I'm not sure if any other programs have similar problems--- But IIRC, National events don't run En Garde, so if it's just and En Garde problem, the USFA is more likly to say "use a different program, and you won't have that problem" than create a rule.


Rules, as said over and over again by Jon Moss, are created for one of two reasons: Because someone cheated, or Because of TV.

[rcmatthews]

Originally Posted by MyrddinsPrecint

First problem:

Announce seeding has been posted. Then announce that the tableaux has been posted. At that point, Depending on how many events are being run, you probably don't have strips or directors, so they have a good 30 minutes to mill about and notice that they aren't promoted. Then when you get greif about the error, you can place some of the blame on the person left off, and they have the chance to discover the error and let you know long before the fencing starts.

Furthermore, wasn't there recently a thread about the feasibility of training people to run tournaments? Might this be an appropriate moment to bring that up again?

I never understand why the people who run tournaments think that the fencers exist to serve them. It is the other way around. You can't fairly shift the blame for a bout commitee mistake onto the fencers.

[erooMynohtnA]

Originally Posted by rcmatthews

I never understand why the people who run tournaments think that the fencers exist to serve them. It is the other way around. You can't fairly shift the blame for a bout commitee mistake onto the fencers.

Regardless of whether the bout commitee thinks the fencers exist to serve them, it's still a better system to tell fencers that the seedings have been posted and ask them to please check accuracy. The worst that will happen is exactly what would if the announcement had never been made. The best is that the fencer catches the error. A middle of the road scenario is that the fencer misses the error, realizes it later, but since the fencers were asked to check, the responsibility lies with him so fencing will continue uninterrupted. He's out of luck, but at least it doesn't compromise the position of the two other fencers.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Originally Posted by rcmatthews

I never understand why the people who run tournaments think that the fencers exist to serve them. It is the other way around. You can't fairly shift the blame for a bout commitee mistake onto the fencers.

Ouch.


I don't know any BC that thinks that fencers exist to serve them, and I know a lot of fencers and a lot of parents of fencers that think that the people who volunteer to run tournaments should not only run the tournament, but also bend over backwards for them.

As a fencer, If I want to know when my event is going to go out, I don't ask, I stand near the bout committee table. By just standing there, without interrupting them at all, they will soon discuss where they are in what event, and i can make a very reasonable guess without having to interrupt them, which means my event will go out faster. The very first time I helped out in the running of a tournament, I literally sat in front of the people actually running the tournament, and fielded the "when is my event going out" questions. And I was almost as busy as the people behind the table.

Not to mention the families who come in after pools have started, and demand that their child be allowed to fence. Not to mention any other bizarre events that tend to happen if you help out often enough.....


I have little patience for people running tournaments who don't know what's going on, and I have little patience for fencers who don't know the work behind running a tournament. In fact, I don't have much patience at all.

But from my perspective, the best chance at a well run tournament is if there's lots of appropriate communication. If you're running 6 events in one day, someone's rating will be entered wrong, though someone's error. If seeding is posted, with time for people to check it, if someone is from the wrong club, or has the wrong rating, or isn't on there at all, it's much faster to fix if it's posted and announced and checked.

Go ahead and give all the blame to the BC if everything is not done perfectly 100% of the time--- but if the BC makes it very easy for all fencers to verify information, and they don't take it, shouldn't they be at least a little responsible?

[edew]

At the 2003(?) Summer Nationals, the Div III MF had a screw-up just like this. The quarter finals had fencers X and Y fencing instead of fencers X and Z. Had particular fencers won, it would not have been a problem, but no, other fencers won and the semi-finals couldn't be run. They had to re-do the quarter-finals, which by then was being (re-)started just after midnight. Not a pretty sight.

BC people screwed up, not a computer error.

[Frank Pratt]

Originally Posted by rcmatthews

I never understand why the people who run tournaments think that the fencers exist to serve them. It is the other way around. You can't fairly shift the blame for a bout commitee mistake onto the fencers.

I agree. If a fencer signs off on a pool sheet or DE score sheet that had errors, then they share some of the blame, and it sucks to be them. However, I don't recall seeing anything in the rules that makes fencers responsible for seeding. The BC needs to do everything they can to make sure that each round is seeded properly. It only takes a minute or two to make sure than everyone's name is printed somewhere on the DE bracket. Asking the fencers to check the seeding list and the DE table is an excellent idea. In my experience, fencers, parents, and coaches have caught a lot of seeding errors before re-seeding could cause serious problems. Nonetheless, the BC is ultimately responsible for seeding errors.

Originally Posted by MyrddinsPrecint

<snip>. . . wasn't there recently a thread about the feasibility of training people to run tournaments? Might this be an appropriate moment to bring that up again?</snip>

Agreed. Perhaps a rule should be implemented to require that anyone on a BC with more than a certain number of pre-registered fencers (or a certain number of events) undergo training administered by the USFA (or by the Division.)

[downunder]

quite clearly you go back to where the error was made and refence (if required) everything from there.

[darius]

I agree. If a fencer signs off on a pool sheet or DE score sheet that had errors, then they share some of the blame, and it sucks to be them. However, I don't recall seeing anything in the rules that makes fencers responsible for seeding.

In this case, however, fencer X did everything right - he looked at the tableau and fenced what he was given. He has no way of knowing that he is supposed to fence another bout. The organizers knew this, and allowed him to finish the bout in service of expediting the competition.

It's not the inital screw-up that is the problem, it's the cover-up!

darius

[oiuyt]

Out of curiosity, was this at a largish tournament run near me by a team of experienced out-of-area bout committee people that claim to be among the best in the country (ie did it happen this past weekend at the Mr Ma Cup)?

-B

(despite whether this incident occurred at a tournament run by that team of people, I do believe that they are extremely capable)

[darius]

Out of curiosity, was this at a largish tournament run near me by a team of experienced out-of-area bout committee people that claim to be among the best in the country (ie did it happen this past weekend at the Mr Ma Cup)?

Correct.

(despite whether this incident occurred at a tournament run by that team of people, I do believe that they are extremely capable)

Despite the fact that I had a fairly large role as squeaky wheel, I'd say the same thing - this is the 2nd weekend in a row I've attended with that bout committee. They are extremely capable and efficient.

In this specific case, a little too efficient. As a computer scientist, I love efficiency, but not at the expense of accuracy.

darius

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by darius

Despite the fact that I had a fairly large role as squeaky wheel, I'd say the same thing - this is the 2nd weekend in a row I've attended with that bout committee. They are extremely capable and efficient.

In this specific case, a little too efficient. As a computer scientist, I love efficiency, but not at the expense of accuracy.

Yes. They are known for efficiency. Usually obtained through extreme competence.

I'd say this one was badly blown. The bout should have been stopped, the correct bout should have been started, and the partial bout should have been discarded.

-B

[oiuyt]

Mmmm, a question occurs. When was X told about the ruling?

If the situation was made explicitly clear after the X-Z bout and before the X-Y bout, but the protest wasn't made until after the X-Y bout (it's unclear how the timeline unfolded in the original description, but this seems likely) then the protest should be considered untimely, regardless of its merit.

-B

[darius]

Mmmm, a question occurs. When was X told about the ruling?

If the situation was made explicitly clear after the X-Z bout and before the X-Y bout, but the protest wasn't made until after the X-Y bout (it's unclear how the timeline unfolded in the original description, but this seems likely) then the protest should be considered untimely, regardless of its merit.

That's a good one, and I'm not entirely sure of the timing there, given that I was running around being a fencer/coach/occasional referee.

X had already fenced Y when he asked me to step in. ("We even gave him his rest!" the bout committee proudly proclaimed.) What is not clear is whether X was told whether the result of his non-bout with Z would be in effect before the X-Y bout took place. I will find out, though.

darius

[Mauler]

While all this was taking place, I was enjoying *gasp* a DAY OFF from the fencing world!?! That's right! I did not referee a single fencing bout entire Saturday! Not even a DVD or an iPod movie of a fencing bout!

... just wanted to get that out. *twitch*

[sleepyweasle]

OMG! Was that the poor guy running around frantically shouting that he couldn't find his name on the DE tableau? That poor thing...my heart went out to him at the time...