Manhatten Fencing lets the same underage fencers fence in Open again

[fencing freakster]

http://askfred.net/Results/results.p...nament_id=5130

[InFerrumVeritas]

Well, it is a safety thing. I think the better idea is to enforce it in NYC, rather than ignore/nix the rule.

[CvilleFencer]

Keeping in mind that I don't have any idea if information on FRED is accurate or not, after a quick look over the link you provide it looks like the only D's that fenced Y14 and Open saber are eligible for both based on a 93 and 94 birthyears...

Just to get the accusation straight, are you saying that those birth years are incorrect or that their D ratings are not valid (easily checked against the USFA master list if someone cares to do so) or something different?

[CvilleFencer]

Ah, that makes more sense but is not something that is readily apparent from the link that you provided. I seem to remember a thread on the event you mentioned a while back now that you bring it up.

In that thread I think there were a lot of possibilities brought up and options spelled out but if you feel that the rules are not being followed by all means get your evidence together and contact the USFA. After all they seem to have a newfound dedication to running everything EXACTLY as written in any set of rules or guidelines...

When it happens, it certainly is not right/fair/safe for underage fencers to fence adults regardless of rather or not they can hold their own. I am not a fan of the rule having 11 year olds that can and do fence very strongly against rated adults but as long as it is a rule it should be followed by all divisions/clubs. Instead of complaining on an anonymous forum present your case to the USFA and stand up for what you think, that would be my advice. And for what its worth I wish you the best of luck with it.

When this type of thing does happen I personally think the USFA should come down hard and publicly on the clubs/divisions that let it happen (as in it was not a one time mistake) otherwise it encourages the practice and undermines all the rules of the USFA.

[whtouche]

Originally Posted by fencing freakster

I don't want to enforce the rules in my division if they are not enforced in New York.

This seems to be more of a hissy fit than any real concern for the fair application of the rules.

As Cville mentioned above, in the last thread you posted complaining about the same problem several options were recommended to you, from contacting the division, the USFA, the tournament organizers, etc. I would be curious to know if you followed any of those suggested courses of action, and what the responses were from those you contacted with your grievance?

If you did nothing but wait for these kids to fence another event, then post another complaint on fencing.net, then I would say you have an unrealistic perception of the transformative powers of airing concerns on this board

[seven6ty]

Why do you continue to make posts about this on an internet board, where nothing will ever get done about it... Instead of directly contacting the USFA and dealing with them?

[keith]

Originally Posted by seven6ty

Why do you continue to make posts about this on an internet board, where nothing will ever get done about it... Instead of directly contacting the USFA and dealing with them?

While the logic is impeccable I suspect there may be a flaw in the arguement.


Could be wrong tho.

[CvilleFencer]

Oh well then. Of course the USFA listens and is guided by the rank and file members and their wishes. As evidence I give you the ability of members to sign up for national events online, the publishing of event start times well in advance of the actual event and the reorganization of sectional/divisional guidelines along the expressed wishes of the membership of the USFA. Surely you are on the right track in your attempts to elicit change as USFA members *****ing amongst themselves or on forums has done so much to elicit positive change in the past.

Just out of curiosity however, if the USFA called you up, explained the insurance and liability issues to you and then told you it was your job to rewrite the rule(s) on this issue factoring in your wish to "let those that can hold their own fence in opens". They tell you your job is to define in a fair and across the board manor the new rule(s) that will fullfill both the requirements of the parents, coaches and lawyers offering safety for the youth fencers and being applicable only those very select few who can hold their own to fence, how would you go about doing it?

[seven6ty]

It's a good rule, and it's there for a reason. Just pointing out that exceptions to the rule occur, isn't a very good reason to have it changed. I mean hey, a few tournaments ago a director forgot to check the weights and shims on my weapon... Does that mean we should do away with that procedure, simply because an exception to the rule got by??

Seriously, until you've seen a grown man mercilessly whacking a young kid time and again with a saber to the point where they are just about in tears, you won't really understand why it's there. Not to mention having to put up with the over-reactive parents who are sitting on the sidelines the whole time.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Originally Posted by CvilleFencer

Just out of curiosity however, if the USFA called you up, explained the insurance and liability issues to you and then told you it was your job to rewrite the rule(s) on this issue factoring in your wish to "let those that can hold their own fence in opens".

I know we've been having this safety/liability/insurance argument for a while, but I don't recall ever seeing any paperwork on this.

1. Insurance. Has there been a documented case where the USFA has had it's insurance threatened because of allowing a 12 year old in an open event? If so, how do they get around the "Junior Points" accomodation?

2. Liability. What club/tournament/NAC has had a liability issue regarding a sub-13 fencer in an open or Div 1 event?

3. Safety. Where are the injury stats for 10-12 year olds fencing in previously allowed opens? How is that inherently more dangerous than allowing a 62 year old in an open full of fleching teenagers?

Some people give more weight to the insurance/liability/safety arguments than others. It doesn't necessarily mean those who question the legitimacy of the 13-up rule are slavering misfits hell-bent on crippling the youth of America.

[Allen Evans]

As a coach, I support this rule. For every 11 and 12 year old that can hold their own with an adult, there are four or five other children who can't -- but their parents think they can.

I have seen more than one child come to an early end of their fencing career by being entered by adults into events that were over the children's heads.

Specific age group events are more and more accessible. Energy put into supporting and growing those events makes more sense than fighting to over turn a rule that makes sense.

Allen Evans

[teacup]

In general, I am not a fan of mixed opens, even when all fencers are over 13 and although I support the over 13 rule, one group I think is disadvantaged from this rule is 12 year old girls.

Girls mature earlier than boys. Of course the ideal is strong age appropriate women's events but if none are available or turnout is really small, if they are experienced, I would rather have a twelve year old girl fence in a women's event rather than a mixed Y14 event.

[Nospam]

Originally Posted by fencing freakster

http://askfred.net/Results/results.p...nament_id=5130

The same two fencers with their "illegal" D08's were allowed to fence again in another open....get rid of the open rule, if NYC can constantly ignore it.....
Why isn't my child allowed to do the same????

If those fencers are bold enough to fence in an event where they do not belong and are obviously violating the rules then YOU should be bold enough to name them. Why would you protect them? Out them and everyone will know who they are and that they earned their rating illegally. (That will do something to stop these parents from entering their underage kids to gain a rating. Obviously, this event that was fenced affected you so you should be upset. And I don't blame you. It's time we brought this issue to the forefront - that is the only way it will be addressed. And PS - If the fencer fenced illegally and gained a rating - THE RATING SHOULD BE REMOVED.

The USFA is aware of the situation and has not addressed it. Make it a priority and they will.

[jkdjeff]

Sidestepping the issue of whether the rule SHOULD be changed, which I really am not qualified to discuss:

If you're seriously interested in getting this rule changed, this is probably not the way to go about it.

[epeeforlife]

There is only one question that should be asked. What do the bylaws say? Nothing else matters!

[Capt. Slo-mo]

The unabridged answer to the under-13 dilemma is fully explained in a document stored on the computer of the USFA general counsel.

All you have to do: ask for it.

[bunbury]

Originally Posted by Nospam

If those fencers are bold enough to fence in an event where they do not belong and are obviously violating the rules then YOU should be bold enough to name them. Why would you protect them? Out them and everyone will know who they are and that they earned their rating illegally. (That will do something to stop these parents from entering their underage kids to gain a rating. Obviously, this event that was fenced affected you so you should be upset. And I don't blame you. It's time we brought this issue to the forefront - that is the only way it will be addressed. And PS - If the fencer fenced illegally and gained a rating - THE RATING SHOULD BE REMOVED.

The USFA is aware of the situation and has not addressed it. Make it a priority and they will.

Wow, its amazing how blatantly a poster who didn't read the thread at all stands out.

[larkmaj]

Originally Posted by Nospam

If those fencers are bold enough to fence in an event where they do not belong and are obviously violating the rules then YOU should be bold enough to name them. Why would you protect them? Out them and everyone will know who they are and that they earned their rating illegally. (That will do something to stop these parents from entering their underage kids to gain a rating. Obviously, this event that was fenced affected you so you should be upset. And I don't blame you. It's time we brought this issue to the forefront - that is the only way it will be addressed. And PS - If the fencer fenced illegally and gained a rating - THE RATING SHOULD BE REMOVED.

The USFA is aware of the situation and has not addressed it. Make it a priority and they will.

You are making the same mistake in fencing freakster's motives we all did. FF is not trying to out these people and penalize the offenders for breaking the rules. FF wants the rule to change and is using this example as some sort of special treatment and saying why not me. Naming names may do something if the former were true, but I don't think it'll do something in this case.

I think the approach FF is taking is even less appropriate given the motives than if they were what we originally thought. Instead of just coming out here and whining that they're treated unfairly and Johnny got to play in the sandbox, but they didn't, they should have come out here saying "I have a problem with this rule, how do I go about getting it changed?"

[D'Art]

Originally Posted by Capt. Slo-mo

The unabridged answer to the under-13 dilemma is fully explained in a document stored on the computer of the USFA general counsel.

All you have to do: ask for it.

Catch 22, per chance?

[nyacfencing]

As Metropolitan Division secretary, I emailed Manhattan FC about this issue yesterday and had a short conversation with them.

As would be suspected, they don't spend their days searching this website waiting to see if anybody complains about them on it instead of contacting them directly with issues as they should.

They were still somewhat confused as to the exact age rules and hadn't realized they had accidentally broken them. They promised to be more vigilant at their next event.

In their defense, there were a large number of underage fencers present for the youth events, and yet only one (not two) underage fencer competed in their open event... and from what I understand that fencer is 13 but fell behind the USFA guidelines for the season. The athletes handbook is notably confusing on calculating all of this.

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 is usual, people were quick to point fingers, assuming others had the worst of intentions without taking the time to find out the full story. We're all just trying out best to offer great opportunities to the fencers. Attitudes like "some" of those displayed here are not helpful to this end.