Athletes' Handbook Changes for the 2006-2007 Season

[downunder]

Originally Posted by tehcow

Well I wasn't really referring to your situation because I don't know who you are, but I was thinking more of Challenge Australia, where the qualifying standard (in particular this year, but I'm sure this isn't the only time it has been the case) has been whoever sends in the form. I'm certainly not complaining but I just think it's pretty funny.

Thats because outside europe countries can set their own entry requirements for countries in the same zone.

Australia uses it as a development competition, which is why the bottom 30 placings are Australian. This top 16 is just an internal american thing. Maybe they realise that to be taken seriously there is no point sending fencers who are just going to get cut every time.

[D+F+P=Hadouken!]

Originally Posted by downunder

What makes you think that you deserve to go to a world cup if you can't get to even the top 16 in your country?

The idea is to get fencers who would not normally qualify into the mix. Theres sort of a top 16 "lock" per se, which makes it hard to break into, especially since you cannot go to WC's. Sometimes a single good event is enough to take a fencer over their current level.

[downunder]

Originally Posted by D+F+P=Hadouken!

The idea is to get fencers who would not normally qualify into the mix. Theres sort of a top 16 "lock" per se, which makes it hard to break into, especially since you cannot go to WC's. Sometimes a single good event is enough to take a fencer over their current level.

yet in the JO thread you say:

The real question you should ask yourself is "why do I deserve to go?"

Unless you're really a notch or twelve above the standard participants of the JO qualifiers, you may want to consider sucking it.

I think you're just happy with self-serving, double standards for events you want to go to. Some might even call that hypocrisy.

[Army Fencer]

Originally Posted by downunder

yeI think you're just happy with self-serving, double standards for events you want to go to. Some might even call that hypocrisy.

You know, ad hominem is so becoming.

[Inquartata]

Sometimes the threads blur together.

[Army Fencer]

Originally Posted by D+F+P=Hadouken!

The idea is to get fencers who would not normally qualify into the mix. Theres sort of a top 16 "lock" per se, which makes it hard to break into, especially since you cannot go to WC's. Sometimes a single good event is enough to take a fencer over their current level.

It's not so much of a lock as people like to suggest. If you look at the ME ranking list, only the top 8 athletes have a significant portion of their points from international competition. Every other fencer in the top 16 only has points from national events.

Perhaps it's a little unfair that three of the athletes in the top 8 wouldn't be there without international points (myself included), but all of us got there starting from where you are.

In my opinion, keeping it open to the top 16 is very reasonable. Opening the door for fencers down to the top 24 gives presents many opportunities to a lot of fencers.

[downunder]

Originally Posted by Army Fencer

You know, ad hominem is so becoming.

But he is setting two standards based on levels which he has already achieved, and which he wishes to achieve.

I think ad hominem is not correct here.

[Army Fencer]

Originally Posted by downunder

But he is setting two standards based on levels which he has already achieved, and which he wishes to achieve.

I think ad hominem is not correct here.

Pointing out errors in one's argument is one thing. Being mean about it is quite another.

[Sabresque]

I find it silly that they changed the format for the div I's again.

[dsapery]

Originally Posted by Sabresque

I find it silly that they changed the format for the div I's again.

Someone pointed out that the previous format violated the USFA rules.

There's a specific rule that states that "Before the competition starts, the Bout Committee will decide on and announce the number of fencers who will be eliminated based on the general index. This number may not be lower than 20% nor higher than 30% of the total number of participants in the pools."

The previous format eliminated 40% of the participants.

[KD5MDK]

However, can't that rule have been amended just as easily as the tournament format? (Well, not Just as easily, as formats are a committee decision, and rules are a Board decision, but in the same order of magnitude, I'd think.)

[dsapery]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

However, can't that rule have been amended just as easily as the tournament format? (Well, not Just as easily, as formats are a committee decision, and rules are a Board decision, but in the same order of magnitude, I'd think.)

In theory, yes. However since 99% of the USFA rule book is simply a English translation of the FIE rule book, it would probably be a harder sell to get the rule book changed.

The only "significant" difference between the USFA and FIE rule books pertains to the penalties for non-combativity.

[DHCJr]

Originally Posted by dsapery

In theory, yes. However since 99% of the USFA rule book is simply a English translation of the FIE rule book, it would probably be a harder sell to get the rule book changed.

The only "significant" difference between the USFA and FIE rule books pertains to the penalties for non-combativity.

I wouldn't agree with this.

Have you tried fencing a pool with 5 fencers or 8? FIE is illegal.

Does anyone have their name on their leg?

Have you worn a non-FIE uniform or mask?

But I do agree it is interesting that it did not include the non-combativity without making a note of it.

[KD5MDK]

The USFA rule book does note combativity. The only difference is in the application of cards in the 3rd occurance (USFA doesn't give a black).

[DHCJr]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

The USFA rule book does note combativity. The only difference is in the application of cards in the 3rd occurance (USFA doesn't give a black).

Where is this. I don't see anything on this in the newest rule book. I look in the penalty chart.

What dsapery was talking about is T.87.4 in the FIE rule book.

[KD5MDK]

The penalty chart is a guide, not the only authority. The t.87 in the new USFA rulebook has been updated.

[DHCJr]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

The penalty chart is a guide, not the only authority. The t.87 in the new USFA rulebook has been updated.

I give up! Where did they add the non-combativety? Here is the latest rule book I found from September 2006.

http://www.fencingofficials.org/Rule...USFA_Rules.pdf

T.87.4 paragraph is not included. So where is this place that shows the application of the card being red for the 3rd instance?

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by 2006 USFA Rulebook

Individual events

When both fencers make clear their unwillingness to fence:

For 10 or 15 touch Bouts by Direct Elimination:

a) For the first time, the referee will issue a yellow card to each of the two fencers and will proceed to the next period, without the minute rest.
b) For the second time, the referee will issue a red card to each of the two fencers and will proceed to the next period, without the minute rest.
c) However, when both fencers make clear their unwillingness to fence during the final period of a direct elimination bout, the referee will issue a yellow card or a red card respectively against each of the two fencers and will proceed to the overtime minute of the bout. This minute, which will be fenced in its entirety, will be decisive and will be preceded by a drawing of lots to decide the winner should the scores be equal at the end of the minute.

Team competitions

When both teams make clear their unwillingness to fence:

a) For the first time during a match, the referee will issue a yellow card to both of the teams and will proceed to the next bout.
b) For each subsequent time during a match, the referee will issue a red card to both of the teams and will proceed to the next bout.
c) However, when both teams make clear their unwillingness to fence during the ninth bout of a match, the referee will issue a yellow card or a red card respectively to both teams and will proceed to the last minute of the time allowed for the bout. This minute, which will be fenced in its entirety, will be decisive and will be preceded by a drawing of lots to decide the winner should the scores be equal at the end of the minute.

It doesn't explicitly state that the third occasion (in an individual bout) will be red, but it does by implication in part (c). It states that a yellow or red card will be issued against each fencer. For team events the rule explicitly states a red card will be issued for each subsequent occurance.

-B

[DHCJr]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

The USFA rule book does note combativity. The only difference is in the application of cards in the 3rd occurance (USFA doesn't give a black).

Neither does the FIE. See what I write below.

Originally Posted by oiuyt

It doesn't explicitly state that the third occasion (in an individual bout) will be red, but it does by implication in part (c). It states that a yellow or red card will be issued against each fencer. For team events the rule explicitly states a red card will be issued for each subsequent occurance.

-B

Thank you, oiuyt. The trouble is I didn't think of that section, because it is exactly the same as the FIE rulebook. They also give a yellow or a red, not a black. Page 34 French, Page 44 English

http://www.fie.ch/download/rules/fr/RTECHN.pdf

http://www.britishfencing.com/Attach...F%20book_t.pdf

I still wonder what happened to the 4th paragraph of T.87.