Event classifications and fencers who withdraw

[dberke]

As a followup to the threads that have been discussing how event classifications are affected by fencer withdrawals during the pool round, I present the following reply that I just received from the USFA explaining their interpretation (emphasis added):

From: Dana Brown
To: Daniel Berke
Date: Sep 5, 2007 1:45 PM
Subject: FW: Numbers required for rated events
Mailed-by: usfencing.org

Hi Dan,

I have included the interpretation of this rule from Corinne Greenman, which would agree with your assessment.

Please let me know if I can be of further assistance.

Thank you,
Dana Brown
USFA Membership

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Corinne Greenman
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 1:59 PM
To: Dana Brown; Christine Simmons
Subject: RE: Numbers required for rated events

As if he had never taken part, means that he wasn't there at the competition and therefore can not be counted toward the classifications.

Corinne Greenman
Director of Sport Technical Programs
USFA Webmaster
US Fencing Association
1 Olympic Plaza
Colorado Springs, CO 80909

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Daniel Berke
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 6:00 PM
To: Information
Subject: Numbers required for rated events

Hi everyone,

A debate is raging online about how withdrawals affect the classification level of events. You may have already received some emails on this. In case you haven't, can someone please clarify the rule?

Suppose you have a possible A1 event with exactly 15 fencers (and the required 2As, 2Bs and 2Cs.). You start the event with all 15 fencers, and one is injured (let's say it's a U, not one of the A's, B's, or C's) during the pools and withdraws (before completing all their pool bouts). The remaining 14 fencers go to a DE and fence all the bouts. The 2 A's and 2 B's finish in the top 8 as required by the A1 level. Does the winner still earn an A?

The reason for the confusion is rule o.20:

o.20 A fencer who withdraws, or who is excluded, is scratched from the pool, and his results are annulled as if he had not taken part.

The question is, does the phrase "as if he had not taken part" mean that, for event classification purposes, he is no longer counted in the number of fencers present? Does the requirement for 15 fencers mean the number of fencers present at the start of the event, or the number that complete the event?

I, and many others, have understood this to mean that if all 15 fencers don't progress to the second round, then the minimum number of fencers is not met, and so the event would become a 14-person E1 event.

My instinct tells me that the fencers should need to at least complete the first round of pools when determining the event size. If that were not the case, the system could easily be abused... say you had 13 fencers. You recruit 2 people who are USFA members who happen to be in the room. You seed them into the pools, and then immediately withdraw them, as they had no intent to fence. But if their presence counts, then you still have a 15-person event. It would seem that requiring people to finish the pools demonstrates a good-faith effort to fence, so the event maintains its 15-person size.

If someone could clarify this rule, it would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks!
Dan Berke
Western WA Division Chair

Hopefully that will settle the confusion around the issue once and for all.

Dan

[oso97]

As a followup to the threads that have been discussing how event classifications are affected by fencer withdrawals during the pool round, I present the following reply that I just received from the USFA explaining their interpretation (emphasis added):



Hopefully that will settle the confusion around the issue once and for all.

Dan

I'm not so convinced that the proper authority to settle this question is the national office staff. Their role is not to arbitrate or to interpret rules questions.

Dan, you need to submit this to the TOURNAMENT COMMITTEE. The answer may indeed be the same, but it should come from someone with the authority to make such interpretations.

[mrbiggs]

Hopefully that will settle the confusion around the issue once and for all.

lol



(Thanks for actually checking the information, though, whether or not it will likely end discussion.)

[dberke]

I'm not so convinced that the proper authority to settle this question is the national office staff. Their role is not to arbitrate or to interpret rules questions.

Dan, you need to submit this to the TOURNAMENT COMMITTEE. The answer may indeed be the same, but it should come from someone with the authority to make such interpretations.

I agree completely. I assumed they were in consultation with the TC on this. I'll double-check with them just to be sure.

Dan

[DJ Apostrophe]

Personal rant...

I hate the "As if they had never taken part" being used to say that they don't count for classification purposes... If they withdraw from a pool, and you then consider them 'never there', then all of your pools are now unbalanced and unfair... suppose you have an event with 15 people in it. Say that each person is uniquely seeded through some method... Assuming a lack of conflicts, your pools would look like this:

Pool 1 (avg seed: 7.8):
1
6
7
12
13

Pool 2 (avg seed: 8.0):
2
5
8
11
14

Pool 3 (avg seed: 8.2):
3
4
9
10
15

Now, let's assume fencer number 12 gets injured and withdraws... your pools now look like this:

Pool 1 (avg seed: 6.75):
1
6
7
13

Pool 2 (avg seed: 8.0):
2
5
8
11
14

Pool 3 (avg seed: 8.2):
3
4
9
10
15

Pool 1 is now MUCH tougher for everyone else in it, and it violates pool construction rules: The high seed is no longer in a large pool (another USFA specific operation). You can't look at these pools and say 'This is how it would have been if fencer number 12 had never been there.' It is simply NOT true.

Note: I'm not griping against the national office's interpretation of the rule (though I do agree that it is something that the TC should answer, not the NO), but rather the head in the sand mentality that you can pretend like something else happened after the fact. Having that person registered for the event changes the construction of the tournament.

/rant

-w

[oiuyt]

So clearly we should reconstitute pools and start over. Repeat until we either run out of fencers or manage to make it through without any withdrawls.

Given that the BC is allowed to reorder bouts to ensure smooth operations, it's reasonable to use once we're down to a single pool as the halting mechanism.

-B

[KD5MDK]

As I recall, ratings were awarded at the (15) tournament size for the tournament that brought this question up, which indicates that the NO did not examine the results, or is not applying the rule consistantly.

[fencerbill]

As a followup to the threads that have been discussing how event classifications are affected by fencer withdrawals during the pool round, I present the following reply that I just received from the USFA explaining their interpretation (emphasis added):



Hopefully that will settle the confusion around the issue once and for all.

Dan

I'll believe it when I hear Carla Richards say it. I would question an opinion from the National Office or even from the people on the Tournament Committee.

[oso97]

I'll believe it when I hear Carla Richards say it. I would question an opinion from the National Office or even from the people on the Tournament Committee.

Nonetheless, the TC is the appropriate group to make a ruling on such matters. Subject to discussion and review by the EC and the BOD (in that order).

[DJ Apostrophe]

So clearly we should reconstitute pools and start over. Repeat until we either run out of fencers or manage to make it through without any withdrawls.

Given that the BC is allowed to reorder bouts to ensure smooth operations, it's reasonable to use once we're down to a single pool as the halting mechanism.

-B

Yeah, nothing like reseeding a whole round of pools when the last pool to finish in the second flight has an injury withdrawal in one of its final bouts!

-w

[oiuyt]

Yeah, nothing like reseeding a whole round of pools when the last pool to finish in the second flight has an injury withdrawal in one of its final bouts!

-w

Yes, but clearly that was a potentially abusive situation, as described in the query to the NO:

You recruit 2 people who are USFA members who happen to be in the room. You seed them into the pools, and then immediately withdraw them, as they had no intent to fence. But if their presence counts, then you still have a 15-person event.

:eyeroll:

If/when the question gets asked of the TC I'd be significantly more comfortable if it either didn't include such language or included a similar-level version of a case arguing the other direction (the PdF tournament actually provides a perfect example of where the medical withdrawl is NOT abusive and likely had minimal to no impact on the actual difficulty of the tournament.

-B

[Zelda]

Having twice been on the wrong side of a withdrawal from a pool - ITS NOT NICE!!!

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Having twice been on the wrong side of a withdrawal from a pool - ITS NOT NICE!!!

What exactly is the right side of a withdrawal? Either you suffer because someone dropped from your pool, or you're suffering and then you withdraw........

[oiuyt]

What exactly is the right side of a withdrawal? Either you suffer because someone dropped from your pool, or you're suffering and then you withdraw........

* Someone from another pool withdraws, damaging the seed of other people, relatively improving your results.

* Someone you've already lost to withdraws, scratching that result.

* Someone who is crushing you in a DE bout gets injured and withdraws.

* Someone on another team (which is crushing yours) in a team event gets injured and withdraws. They have no sub (or a weak enough one that it amounts to much the same thing).

* Someone is injured and withdraws. This so upsets another fencers (friend, teammate, person who injured them) that they either withdraw or otherwise are rattled enough that their ability to fence well disappears.

C'mon MP, get creative. Lots of ways this could be beneficial.

-B

[H Man]

o20 (pools) if a fencer withdraws , excluded, scrathed from the pool the results are annuled ..as if he had not taken part. bye bye.

o25 ...Direct Elimination...

A fencer who withdraws (note back..for whatever reason) does not lose his place in the overall classification of the competition...

Pool-never there. DE there.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

C'mon MP, get creative. Lots of ways this could be beneficial.

I don't do creative. (at least not on the first day of classes....)

Also:

Doesn't your soul suffer under all these circumstances? The competition could have been that much richer because that person was in it; aren't we all hurt by that person's absence?

[fencerbill]

o20 (pools) if a fencer withdraws , excluded, scrathed from the pool the results are annuled ..as if he had not taken part. bye bye.

o25 ...Direct Elimination...

A fencer who withdraws (note back..for whatever reason) does not lose his place in the overall classification of the competition...

Pool-never there. DE there.

It does NOT say he was never there, it says the results (of his bouts) are annulled, as if he had not taken part. (Parenthetical phrase added)

It does NOT say he did not take part, it says ... as if he had not taken part. They wouldn't use "as if he had not taken part" unless he did take part.

The poor language construction blurs the intent of the rule.

[H Man]

[B]Annul /. 1: To reduce to nothing; annihilate; obliterate; to make void or of no effect; to nullify; to abolish; to do away with. To cancel; destoy; abrogate. ,,,,BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY, With Pronunciations


ann-nul[./B] 1: to reduce to nothing;OBLITERATE 2: to make ineffective or inoperative: NEUTRALIZED 3: to declare or make legally invalid or void= synNULLIFY Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (10 ed).

[H Man]

Pardon me.

[KD5MDK]

Yes, but clearly that was a potentially abusive situation, as described in the query to the NO:



:eyeroll:

If/when the question gets asked of the TC I'd be significantly more comfortable if it either didn't include such language or included a similar-level version of a case arguing the other direction (the PdF tournament actually provides a perfect example of where the medical withdrawl is NOT abusive and likely had minimal to no impact on the actual difficulty of the tournament.

-B

Should the presence of abusive intent alter the outcome of the decision, (ie, case by case basis) or should there be one absolute rule, in either direction?