Manhatten Fencing lets the same underage fencers fence in Open again

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by nyacfencing

and yet only one (not two) underage fencer competed in their open event...

Mmmm, one of the two fencers in question appears to have her birthyear on FRED changed from 1995 to 1994 in the past couple of days.

She fenced a Y12 event last month. She's on the Y12WS confirmed entry list for Portland this weekend.

Whichever year is the true one, SOMETHING is wrong with the situation. And having someone play games with the recorded information is an indication that there's at least awareness of an issue.

The National Office has a procedure now in place (following a suggestion made around the time of the previous similar discussion here on FNet) to automatically flag classification changes that come in for athletes under 13, in order to highlight them for additional scrutiny. I don't know what, if any, steps beyond that are taken. Note that neither of the fencers in question here actually have D2008 classifications in the USFA database (ie from the previous Liberty Cup). FRED has them listed that way, but they are actually both classified as D2007.

That does raise the issue of another suggestion that can/should be passed along from divisions to tournament organizers to remind them to use the classifications listed in the membership listings on USFencing.org rather than those on FRED. Looking at the results listings for the past two months for one of these fencers, 2 (out of 5) organizers incorrectly used the D2008 listing from FRED.

Note that this issue is hardly limited to Metro NYC division. Just looking at the two fencers mentioned here one will also be able to easily find a senior Connecticut Division event last fall in which they both competed. I assume that there are other athletes which have, similarly, competed in events for which they are not age-eligible in other divisions.

-B

[KD5MDK]

You'd think a policy which has caused so much controversy and been around for well over a year would be understood by people who keep involved in the USFA.

[nyacfencing]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

Mmmm, one of the two fencers in question appears to have her birthyear on FRED changed from 1995 to 1994 in the past couple of days.

I actually sent an email to the USFA requesting that they color code the USFA cards. Instead of them all being white, you could make the background color of cadet/junior fencers blue (or some other color). This way, when they present them at check-in there would be no way to possibly overlook it.

USFA Response: Too expensive.

In lieu of recent situations, I am actually happier to hear them turn down an expensive proposal than to go bankrupt.

[seven6ty]

In lieu of recent situations, I am actually happier to hear them turn down an expensive proposal than to go bankrupt.

That just means they have more ridiculous proposals to blow obscene amounts of money on, which will then cause the bankrupcy.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Originally Posted by nyacfencing

They were still somewhat confused as to the exact age rules and hadn't realized they had accidentally broken them. (snip) The athletes handbook is notably confusing on calculating all of this..

It's not exactly like trying to calculate a Soyuz re-rentry trajectory. For the 2007-2008 season, if you're not 13 or older on January 1st, and you don't have points in Junior, you don't fence Open events. There's very little notably confusatory about it.

Originally Posted by nyacfencing

Also, they wanted to give Fencing Freakster the opportunity to make childish comments like "I don't want to enforce the rules in my division if they are not enforced in New York.".

As opposed to the smarmy, "wink-wink" New York version of: "Well, Gol-durned! Them pesky reg-you-lations done went and got more twists and turns than a sidewinder with a belly-ache! We cain't hardly figger out whether this young'un should be a'comin' or a goin'!"?

Originally Posted by nyacfencing

People were quick to point fingers, assuming others had the worst of intentions without taking the time to find out the full story.

And as Oiuyt so thoughtfully pointed out, you seem to be rather guilty of glossing over the facts a bit yourself, podnah. The two ladies in question are registered in the Y12 in Portland...a birthdate is seemingly being altered...one would think a National Coach i should be fairly conversant with age rules...and the club in question has now apparently been given an official warning by the USFA for these age violations.

Hardly the "gee, it's really difficult, and they promise not to do it again" scenario you're painting.

[nyacfencing]

Originally Posted by Capt. Slo-mo

a birthdate is seemingly being altered...

I'm sorry... maybe I missed it. In what official system were their birthdates altered? And who performed this alleged alteration? And even if they did alter it... what does it matter?

I am a huge AskFred fan, but until the USFA makes it an official system (and controls are put in place), it is just some web service. People can fake data in there all they want...

Anybody who wanted to could create a fake tournament using another divisions and clubs name; add a bunch of USFA members that weren't there; change all their birth years and ratings to anything they wanted; and enter pool and finals results showing ratings changes. Even if somebody did this and we figured out who it was, there isn't anything I or the USFA could do about it. AskFred is not a USFA system and is not under its auspices (although I hope that they officially accept it and that one day it is).

At this point AskFred is simply a suggestion of fact... and not a statement of one.

[Mo]

Originally Posted by nyacfencing

I'm sorry... maybe I missed it. In what official system were their birthdates altered? And who performed this alleged alteration? And even if they did alter it... what does it matter?

I am a huge AskFred fan, but until the USFA makes it an official system (and controls are put in place), it is just some web service. People can fake data in there all they want...

At this point AskFred is simply a suggestion of fact... and not a statement of one.

Blah blah blah, You are still having under age fencers in open events that do not belong there.
Pointing out possiblilities does what could have gone wrong doesn't fool anyone. You know you are doing this on purpose. You have had it pointed out before. You just want to have your own way.
Get over yourself.
No one can really stop you and you have pointed that out. Don't try to justify you behavior though.
Calling FF names can be fun for you but you know you are wrong. That is not going to change.
When I served as Div Chair that meant any rating change was invalid for the competition. Most of us try to go along with the rules. Rules are for lesser fencers I suppose...
The momster

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Originally Posted by nyacfencing

Anybody who wanted to could create a fake tournament...(yik yak yuk)

(yik/yak/yuk added)
And I could dress up as Liza Minelli and belt out show tunes instead of the National Anthem at the next NAC (since I got such rave reviews for it last time!)...but that's not the story we're discussing.

We're talking about a club that should know better allowing 2 USFA-listed Y-12 fencers to fence in an open. And not for the first time, apparently.

Maybe you should just register as their chief apologist and save us all some time.

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by nyacfencing

I actually sent an email to the USFA requesting that they color code the USFA cards. Instead of them all being white, you could make the background color of cadet/junior fencers blue (or some other color). This way, when they present them at check-in there would be no way to possibly overlook it.

USFA Response: Too expensive.

That's a really good suggestion (or, rather the same suggestion for sub-13's, although given that 12-year-olds rarely look 20+, your solution serves the purpose).

It might well be too expensive, unfortunately, depending on the process used for generating the cards.

Of course the cards have birthyear and "verified" status printed on them. The issue comes up when people don't require the cards and use the membership listing provided on USFencing.org, as suggested. That listing, of course, doesn't include any age information.

The issue of child protection has been raised as the reason for not including age information on the publically-available membership listings.

This is a good example of how seemingly simple issues in our sport are inter-related with many other considerations.

A change HERE will result in changes there, there, and the other place, and would require changes to allow for it to happen over there and in this obscure regulation. We might not want to do it because of this consideration and that policy, which we have for very good reasons. This is one of the reasons why it is so important for people making decisions to spend enough time and be involved in enough things to get sufficient context to be aware of the interconnections.

Given that we've probably beaten this particular deceased equine sufficiently for now, I hope people won't mind a bit of intentional thread-drift....

Any other suggestions for solutions, partial solutions, or even improvements in current systems to help ensure that this particular policy is routinely followed? Other than the removal of the policy.

I'll start with one that has been made in the past, although that may or may not have happened here on FNet....

If FRED (or similar) were official and had access to age data (or better, age data and points standings) in complete and official form it would be possible to do age-eligibility verification at the time of registration without the issues of public disclosure of the ages of children.

-B

[nyacfencing]

Originally Posted by Mo

Blah blah blah, You are still having under age fencers in open events that do not belong there.

You? You who? This wasn't my event.

Originally Posted by Mo

You know you are doing this on purpose.

Um... again, I didn't do this... so not sure how I did it on purpose.

Originally Posted by Mo

You just want to have your own way.

Which is clearly why I spoke with the club and asked them to be more vigilent.

Originally Posted by Mo

Get over yourself.

Difficult when you're as awesome as I am.

Originally Posted by Mo

No one can really stop you and you have pointed that out.

Stop me from doing what?

Originally Posted by Mo

Don't try to justify you behavior though.

What behavior? I didn't do this.

Originally Posted by Mo

When I served as Div Chair that meant any rating change was invalid for the competition.

A mean, viscious post aimed at the wrong person because you didn't take the time to read the whole thread. I can only imagine why "served" is past tense.

Originally Posted by Mo

Rules are for lesser fencers I suppose.

No, but clearly reading the whole thread is for more diligent people.

Thanks... momster.

Originally Posted by Capt. Slo-mo

We're talking about a club that should know better allowing 2 USFA-listed Y-12 fencers to fence in an open. And not for the first time, apparently.

This I agree with.

Originally Posted by Capt. Slo-mo

Maybe you should just register as their chief apologist and save us all some time.

Yeah... I am feeling this way. I'm not even sure why, as I barely know them and they have never attended a division meeting. But being a tournament organizer who knows how impossibly difficult it is to run large events and ensure you meet every little rule... I have a lot of sympathy.

[KD5MDK]

The thing is, lots of divisons don't seem to find it so hard.

If they've never attended a division meeting, perhaps the division needs to perform more oversight before sanctioning their tournaments?

[keith]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

Any other suggestions for solutions, partial solutions, or even improvements in current systems to help ensure that this particular policy is routinely followed? Other than the removal of the policy.

Since the rule is enforce due to a liability issue an 'accidental' oversight by an overworked individual could result in a situation that makes the USFAs current financial hole irrelevant. In that case the only appropriate action is for divisions found repeatedly in breach to have sanctioning authority removed until they learn to be a bit less accident prone.

Originally Posted by oiuyt

If FRED (or similar) were official and had access to age data (or better, age data and points standings) in complete and official form it would be possible to do age-eligibility verification at the time of registration without the issues of public disclosure of the ages of children.

This assumes that the internet connection does not drop out during registration...

You can have any number of rules but unless people are worried about enforcement (and penalties) they are just going to keep taking the slap on the wrist.

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by keith

This assumes that the internet connection does not drop out during registration...

Mmmm. Possible solution is to require on-site registrants to provide either a valid USFencing membership card OR, for those joining at the tournament, proof of age (and, of course, a completed membership form). That then fixes the situation as long as there was some period of time after the close of on-line registration and the start of the tournament for the organizers to get the entry list from FRED (which could even be automated, with FRED sending it to the organizer(s) when the deadline hits).

Again, there are lots of dependencies. A minor change in one place propigates sometimes subtle changes elsewhere. Also a good reason why transparency in the decision-making processes is vital -- more eyeballs looking at a problem and/or solution is likely to catch more flaws earlier and end up with a better final result.

-B

[peet]

Originally Posted by keith

This assumes that the internet connection does not drop out during registration...

1. I think oiuyt may have meant that age eligibility could be verified during preregistration, before event day, as well as on event day (for those who did not preregister).

2. A modern internet connection doesn't drop very often.

3. In the rare cases when it does drop (or there is no internet at the venue), that would just put you back to the current system: checking membership cards. Usually when you implement a tech solution for something, you keep the non-tech solution as a backup.


It's so much easier and more effective to control for eligibility earlier in the process (before event day) rather than later (after the ratings & results are submitted).

-p

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Originally Posted by nyacfencing

I can only imagine why "served" is past tense.

Oh, we're playing the "imagination game?"

I can only imagine the reason you're the Division Secretary is that you adore dressing up in women's clothing, and have a fondness for fuchsia lipstick.

Or was it aubergine? I always get those two confused...

[CvilleFencer]

I can only imagine the reason you're the Division Secretary is that you adore dressing up in women's clothing, and have a fondness for fuchsia lipstick.

Wow, I didn't know Ruddy Guillianni was the Metro Division Secretary!

Lets play nice guys. Name calling won't help anything and detracts from the value of the thread and the valid points that are made on all sides.

[keith]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

Mmmm. Possible solution is to require on-site registrants to provide either a valid USFencing membership card OR, for those joining at the tournament, proof of age (and, of course, a completed membership form). That then fixes the situation as long as there was some period of time after the close of on-line registration and the start of the tournament for the organizers to get the entry list from FRED (which could even be automated, with FRED sending it to the organizer(s) when the deadline hits).

All true, and all of which is probably being done by the majority of competition organisers. The problem is that their is always a group on individuals who are willing to break the rules; either because they don't like the rules or they need one more warm body to lift the competition rating. Making it easier to check ages doesn't do anything to adjust that behaviour. A meaningful sanction would.

While a database would make it easier for those trying to keep to the rules - it probably only impacts traveling competitors. Most divisions, even the larger ones, are small enough that people know who should (and should not) be fencing in opens.

Originally Posted by oiuyt