for US 2006 Veterans to the World Championships

[KD5MDK]

As opposed to the Board Members who complain about the organization in other forums? In any event, unless someone convinces him it doesn't seem rediculous, it'll probably come up at the next Board meeting.

[KD5MDK]

Originally Posted by Goofy

It seems to...
...but it probably means that Result #1 in the total still gives a tie, so you go to Result #2 of the total.

The next highest point result of the 3 events is automatically your 2nd Result, right? I mean, if I earn 800, 500, 300, they're not going to use the 800 and the 300 as my results. So how can 2 people end up tied and have one result the same if their second result isn't also the same?

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

it'll probably come up at the next Board meeting.

Not likely, the deadline for motions for July has already passed.

The Board doesn't really handle things at that level in any case, the committees do (whether this falls under IPSC or Vets I don't know). On the other hand, the deadline could easily have been set by staff.

-B

[fencerbill]

As I understand it, from some remarks to me by Peach, these tie breakers were proposed by the Veterans committee with no input from other veterans. I certainly wasn't asked. Unless something else has happened, they have not been considered by the USFA office or by the Executive Committee.

What I asked at Reno, and I don't know if anyone pursued it further, is what are precedents within the USFA for resolving tiebreakers? I suggested that Carla Richards be consulted. Perhaps Steve Sobel, Sam Cheris, or others active in the USFA for a long time will know of precedents?

If you try to resolve a tiebreaker by throwing out the one who is not present, start retaining your lawyer now.

Also, what will be the terms of the tiebreaker? That day, immediately? What if one fencer, although present, didn't compete? Does he get a chance to warm up. What if one fencer is fresh and the other is tired? What if one had an injury? Better hire more lawyers.

I agree with the others who say tiebreaker number 2 is invalid. How can more than one person have a total of two results that is the same, have the same value for the higher number, and have a different value for the second number?

What seems different this year compared to previous years is that you have to pay your entry fee before you get there.

It sounds like the British are trying to get their income in advance of the event to pay for their expenses. What happens, as it did for Bill Goering before Limoges, that at the last minute someone doesn't go? Will the British return the entry fee?

[fencerbill]

Originally Posted by Peach

Good point. Question: Has anyone on the board received this paperwork when they have NOT nailed down a spot on the team? In my own event, two spots are locked already.

Yes, I did also.

[Peach]

I don't remember what my remarks to you were, Bill. The joy of advancing age is I can't hear, and I can't see, but I can't remember anything either so I don't notice any difference. As I recall, the issue of possible ties was raised by a veteran USFA member, who e-mailed the veteran committee chair, who asked for input from everyone on the committee, checked the suggestions with the USFA, discussed it via e-mail, and came up with the procedure. We didn't know if there would be a tie, but if there was one, we needed to have some way of dealing with it instead of getting landed with a tie and not having any procedure set up. If that were to happen, there really would be the spectre of lawyers in the wings

BTW, the Veterans committee meeting will be Friday, July 7 at 5:00 p.m. at Summer Nationals.

[fencerbill]

Was any effort made to inquire about precedents?

[Peach]

Could you say more? I don't know what you mean. Not that I can necessarily answer it if I do know, because "was any effort made" implies that I can tell what everyone did. You can ask Paul Levy if you like--he is much more on top of things than I am.

[fencerbill]

I earlier suggested inquiring of Carla Richards, Steve Sobel, Sam Cheris, etc. if there were any earlier precedents of ways to break ties for international team selection. Of course in the long ago, the big wheels in New York just sat down and picked the international teams, before point standings.

[fencerbill]

A couple of years ago a fencer challenged a Veterans team selection and won the challenge. Something like a national sports arbitration, but above the USFA. These things have to be done properly to avoid such things.

I don't know what else could be done. But that doesn't mean an unhappy fencer won't raise a fuss.

[Peach]

Bill--Yeah, they did. Paul Levy talked to Jane Carter, chair of IPSC. Sam Cheris's recollection, according to Jane, was:

'... We have had the problem before and it was decided by whoever had the best result at the last competition in which both fencers competed. This obviously not the only way to do this, but this is the method used the last time I was involved in such a situation.'

She told Paul that the Vets committee, since it came up with the criteria for team selection in the first place, should be the one to determine how to resolve the tie.

[oiuyt]

The Athlete Handbook defines National Teams as follows:

Originally Posted by Athlete Handbook

4.5.1. Definition of National Team
The members of the US teams to the Cadet, Junior, and Senior World Championships, the corresponding alternates, and the official cadre are considered members of the USFA National Team. This designation is primarily for the benefit and promotion of the fencers with their schools and in local and national media.

Note that this definition does NOT cover Vet teams.

Anyway, later in that chapter it describes how ties for selection to National Teams (as defined above) are decided:

Originally Posted by Athlete Handbook

4.5.2.5. Ties for Selection
Ties for selection will be resolved in the following priority:
1. Total number of points accumulated for designated “A” competitions used in calculating the sum of points in Group II of the selection criteria. See Chapter 3.4.2-4 for specific details.
2. Highest points earned at a single designated “A” used in calculating the sum of points in Group II.
3. Next highest points earned at a single designated “A” until there is no tie.
4. Highest place at a single designated “A”.
5. Next highest place at a single designated “A” until there is no tie.
6. Highest place in any U.S. national point competition
7. Next highest place in any U.S. national point competition until there is no tie.
8. If there is still a tie, then the IPSC will resolve the tie.

Seems like this is the precedent that fencerbill is looking for. I suppose the equivalent is having the Vet committee resolve the tie. Not sure that would count as a particularly unbiased choice. Ties are also considerably more likely under the Vet rules than the senior/junior/cadet rules (more points events reduces the chances of exact ties).

edit: Mmm, or put the Vets under the purview of the IPSC, and then have the IPSC split ties. Vets are clearly international performers. Very arguable that they SHOULD be on the same level as the cadet/junior/senior teams (although I'm not sure either the vets OR the IPSC would prefer it that way... comments from the vets here?).

-B

[Peach]

Kinda reminds me of the fencer who complains the bout-deciding call at 14-14 was wrong. If you let it get to 14-14, anything can happen (and it usually does).

[fencerbill]

Originally Posted by Peach

Bill--Yeah, they did. Paul Levy talked to Jane Carter, chair of IPSC. Sam Cheris's recollection, according to Jane, was:

Quote:
'... We have had the problem before and it was decided by whoever had the best result at the last competition in which both fencers competed. This obviously not the only way to do this, but this is the method used the last time I was involved in such a situation.'


She told Paul that the Vets committee, since it came up with the criteria for team selection in the first place, should be the one to determine how to resolve the tie.

That at least would have been definitive. It would have been useful to have included it.


Edit. Cheris's recollection sounds like number 6 from Athlete's Handbook 4.5.2.5 with "last in which both competed" instead of "any".

[Goldgar]

Originally Posted by Peach

Question: Has anyone on the board received this paperwork when they have NOT nailed down a spot on the team?

Yes. I got it, and I'm not currently in the top 4 on the points list.

[KD5MDK]

Step 7 from the Athlete's Handbook sounds like it would go to the 3rd result (if any) if the first two are tied, assuming it was implemented. Of course, with only 3 events a year, the most recent competition both fencers attended could be a year ago (assuming each attended different NACs, and tied for 3rd at Summer Nationals).

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by oiuyt

Seems like this is the precedent that fencerbill is looking for. I suppose the equivalent is having the Vet committee resolve the tie. Not sure that would count as a particularly unbiased choice.
-B

If one is going for an unbiased tie resolver, could one not let the vet committee of the say, US Ping Pong Federation, break the tie?

Why not break the tie with a singel 15-point bout?


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Joe biebel]

Originally Posted by jjefferies

Heh! Heh! Heh!
Man are you kidding? You get to pay for everything. Travel, housing, food, warmup suits. In 2004, Krems, we did get a nifty little vinyl pouch which I now use to hold my passport and a couple (2) of tags for our bags.

I'm not sure but the seniors may be some of their costs defrayed. My understanding is that the only people who get their way paid are the USFA officials. Athletes pay.

Ask not what the USFA can do for you, Ask what you can do for the USFA!

Yes, it's true that the veterans pay all of the expenses (except the cost of sending the officials) to go to the world championships. We are however perfectly positioned (because of our age) to receive lucrative financial arrangements with the various "baby boomer" product companies. This is why you see the "NASCAR" like uniforms on them with the ridiculous number of product (Depends, Aspirin, Ibuprophen, Viagra, etc.) endorsements. Television and print ads also help a great deal.

[tbryan]

Originally Posted by Peach

there really would be the spectre of lawyers in the wings

Wow. I skimmed this thread and first read that as "spectres of lawyers with wings." That's sounds like some wicked nightmare of someone who fell asleep after watching The Wizard of Oz, Law & Order, and A Christmas Carol. Either that, or the theme of Tim Burton's next film.

Anyway, back to your regularly-scheduled fencing discussion...

[KD5MDK]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

Hi!

Why not break the tie with a singel 15-point bout?


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

Because they don't fence 15 point bouts in veterans competition.