Div II/III quals and the Sep 2006 BoD meeting

[Fechter1]

Should the DT ever consult a coach to determine a fencer's appropriate seeding?

No. At least (or especially) not the fencer's own coach. You go with what you have on hand.

[oiuyt]

Should the DT ever consult a coach to determine a fencer's appropriate seeding?

For a foreign fencer, not seeded via FIE points, at a NAC, the (US) National Coach should be consulted. As per the Athlete's Handbook.

It's possible there's another instance listed in there, that's the only one that springs to mind.

Are we playing "Gotcha!" games?

-B

[KD5MDK]

Yeah, my ego was pretty badly bruised. Sorry.

#8 - As long as the ratings are certified (by yesterday's BC), what's wrong with this one? Again, arguments can be made for either case.

USFA policy says ratings are not official until received and confirmed by National Office. Even at Summer Nationals a rating earned on June 30 won't be used on July 9th.

[oso97]

Should the DT ever consult a coach to determine a fencer's appropriate seeding?

No. But that doesn't prevent an inexperienced or sloppy DT from doing so!

[Fechter1]

USFA policy says ratings are not official until received and confirmed by National Office. Even at Summer Nationals a rating earned on June 30 won't be used on July 9th.

I would seem to stand corrected (and gladly so) on the technical rule.

However, common practice (as I've seen it, conducted it, and would advocate it) has been to take the official results from tournaments (as indicated by: Signed USFA cards, official results list, etc) as valid.

Question: what if the tournament manager is the same for subsequent events (or, for that matter, what about multiple events the same day)? Does it make sense to seed a newly minted A (or any other rating) as if the rating had never been earned?

Follow-up question: In the case of ratings received/earned at Nationals (or NACs), when does the new rating become "active"? (For example, you went into Atlanta as an E, first up is D2, you win, earn a B. Where are you going to be seeded into D3 the next day?)

In the somewhat recent past, turnaround time by the national office with respect to new USFA cards, which I assume are the official ratings confirmations, has not been optimal... I remember waiting for more than 2 months for one particular rating... But as I had gotten my USFA card signed by the TC, I was seeded according to my new rating.

Sorry about the threadjack, maye we should move this to a new thread...

[KD5MDK]

You'll be seeded as an E.

[Chafunkta]

Follow-up question: In the case of ratings received/earned at Nationals (or NACs), when does the new rating become "active"? (For example, you went into Atlanta as an E, first up is D2, you win, earn a B. Where are you going to be seeded into D3 the next day?)

As KD5MDK said, you'll be seeded as an E.

NACs and Summer Nationals have posted deadlines for ratings changes. For this year's nationals the deadline is May 30. So if you qualify for, let's say, D3 as an E06, and then earn a new B07 rating after you qualify, but before the May 30th classification change deadline, you'll be seeded as a B07 in the D3 tournament. On the other hand, if you earn your B07 past May 30th, you'll still be seeded as the rating you had when you qualified; an E06.

I don't know of any other tournaments that have this system. I assume some big regional events may, but none come to mind. So theoretically, if the tournament comittee uses the system you mentioned, by accepting signed USFA cards and such, you can earn a B one day and fence as a B the next day.

Another question: If someone is falsely seeded as an A because they forged the signature on a USFA card, will the tournament results be null and void?

[teacup]

The rating has to be submitted to the USFA by the sanctioning division or section officer. At a two day tournament over the weekend, if you earn a higher rating on the first day it cannot be used the second day since the USFA office is closed. Results need to be verified and checked for errors.

As stated earlier, the USFA does not update ratings for later events during National tournaments. If you start Summer Nationals with an E, you remain an E for each event you have entered. Local, sectional, regional tournaments should all follow the same rule.

[fencerbill]

Should the DT ever consult a coach to determine a fencer's appropriate seeding?

I have seen it and think it is a good idea at a local event, particularly for an E or unclassified event. It isn't good for anyone when all the best fencers are in the same pool. Less important now with DEs but has been disastrous in the old days with pools all the way through.

[Frank Pratt]

<snip>However, common practice (as I've seen it, conducted it, and would advocate it) has been to take the official results from tournaments (as indicated by: Signed USFA cards, official results list, etc) as valid.

It is common practice; I think everyone has seen this happen at one time or another. However, I know of at least one competition that lost its USFA sanctioning because a fencer earned a new rating at an event on a Saturday, and was seeded with his new rating at another competition the next day. The USFA de-sanctioned the event after they learned what had happened.

At our tournaments, we always hold an Open event after an E/Under or Unclassified event, which usually means we have at least one newly rated fencer going into the Open competition. The fencer is never happy about doing so well and then not being rewarded for his/her performance with a better seed. However, they always understand that they may loose that rating altogether if it is used for seeding before the USFA approves it. Personally, I would happily face 1 or 2 more high-rated fencers in that next competition before I would risk loosing my well-earned classification altogether.

In understand why many (perhaps most) people disagree with this policy. However, the USFA has received some requests for classification changes that were inaccuate, fraudulent, or perhaps even intentionally fraudulent. If this is true, I have a hard time arguing against the a policy that mandates some oversight.