Qualifiers Referee Question

[trazom]

I know that for qualifiers there is required to be a referee present with a 5 or better rating to act on behalf of the FOC. What if that person is actually fencing?

The qualifier was held which had zero rated referees working - even 10s - in a division with plenty of well-qualified referees.

Was the tournament roughly run OK from a BC standpoint? yes.
Did abysmal refereeing cause problems? definitely yes

Best example of lousy refereeing:
allowing spectators to pull on the reel cords while a bout was in progress - and allow touches to stand even when the spectator admits to pulling on the reel cord.

[peet]

I know that for qualifiers there is required to be a referee present with a 5 or better rating to act on behalf of the FOC. What if that person is actually fencing?

The qualifier was held which had zero rated referees working - even 10s - in a division with plenty of well-qualified referees.

I'm aware of a requirement for sectional level qualifiers (to Div1A, etc) to have a FOC member present, but I'm not aware of a requirement for division level qualifiers to have referees of a certain qualification present to act in that role. Others with more experience running qualifiers may be better informed than me on that point though.

Note that I've seen a number of sectionals run without an FOC present.

I will speak to your other point though:

Best example of lousy refereeing:
allowing spectators to pull on the reel cords while a bout was in progress - and allow touches to stand even when the spectator admits to pulling on the reel cord.

1. I'm not sure how a ref can control the spectators, unless there is a sports zone with barriers, as at a NAC. I doubt most division level events have that type of zone established, and even when there is one, it's still very possible for a spectator to breeze by the end of a strip and kick out a floor cord without the ref even knowing, much less being able to stop them.

2. Allowing touches to stand after discovering the disconnected floor cord could be either correct or incorrect, depending on details not included in your description. Specifically, if there has been any fencing since the last touch, no touches can be annulled. If there has not been any fencing since the last touch, the ref should annul the previous touch (assuming it was against the fencer whose cord got unplugged).

(I'm assuming we're talking about epee here)...

HTH,

-p

[edit]
I just looked at the ref ratings in your profile; I guess you already know all this stuff... sorry....
[/edit]

[TooLoftheDeviL]

Divisional qualifiers requires the attendance of a referee rated 5 or better. It does, however, require them to actually be refereeing.

[peet]

Divisional qualifiers requires the attendance of a referee rated 5 or better. It does, however, require them to actually be refereeing.

Ah, thanks for that information.
Of course, I'd not be surprised if that requirement is even less well adhered to than the sectional one...

[trazom]

1. I'm not sure how a ref can control the spectators, unless there is a sports zone with barriers, as at a NAC. I doubt most division level events have that type of zone established, and even when there is one, it's still very possible for a spectator to breeze by the end of a strip and kick out a floor cord without the ref even knowing, much less being able to stop them.

Its a little tougher to do so accidentally when the reels are suspended. It was more the general "let the spectators do whatever they want". In one of my bouts I had to ask the ref 3 times to tell the spectators to stop standing *on the center line*.

2. Allowing touches to stand after discovering the disconnected floor cord could be either correct or incorrect, depending on details not included in your description. Specifically, if there has been any fencing since the last touch, no touches can be annulled. If there has not been any fencing since the last touch, the ref should annul the previous touch (assuming it was against the fencer whose cord got unplugged).

The fencer was physically pulled backwards by the tug on the reel cord. How can you be watching the bout and not see that? And yes, the fencer protested immediately, the spectator apologized immediately and admitted to pulling the reel cord backwards, yet the opponent's touch stayed valid. The touch was just after the reel cord pull.

Basically, a bunch of blind refs, none of whom knew any of the rules. There were several rated refs in the room (i.e. me) but we were all competing. And we were talking as we watched various bouts as to how bad the calls were.

Other things that were missed (stuff I consider basic)
no visual inspection of mask,
no check for plastron or BP (in womens)
massive blade curves - looked more like "L" than "|" - and I'm not a blade curve absolutist
horrible calls on passing, falling, floor touches, etc...

Sample: Attack from the left to the leg. Counter attack from the right to the chest. Attack misses leg completely and ends up on the floor. Counter attack lands squarely in the middle of the chest. Both lights are on. Referee tossed out the point.

Considering that this is a division with a ton of qualified refs, and the nearest real FOC member was maybe 15 miles away - if he took the long route - I thought this was a bit excessively incompetent.

[trazom]

Ah, thanks for that information.
Of course, I'd not be surprised if that requirement is even less well adhered to than the sectional one...

It may be in some sections. It hasn't been an issue in the two sections I've been a member of.

But when you have 30+ refs in the division rated 5 or higher.... I would think its pretty inexcusable. And this isn't a large geographic division either. Most of the refs are within an easy hour drive.

Anyway, I just wanted to check on the requirement. The handbook merely states "present".

[peet]

Its a little tougher to do so accidentally when the reels are suspended. It was more the general "let the spectators do whatever they want". In one of my bouts I had to ask the ref 3 times to tell the spectators to stop standing *on the center line*.



The fencer was physically pulled backwards by the tug on the reel cord. How can you be watching the bout and not see that? And yes, the fencer protested immediately, the spectator apologized immediately and admitted to pulling the reel cord backwards, yet the opponent's touch stayed valid. The touch was just after the reel cord pull.

Basically, a bunch of blind refs, none of whom knew any of the rules. There were several rated refs in the room (i.e. me) but we were all competing. And we were talking as we watched various bouts as to how bad the calls were.

Other things that were missed (stuff I consider basic)
no visual inspection of mask,
no check for plastron or BP (in womens)
massive blade curves - looked more like "L" than "|" - and I'm not a blade curve absolutist
horrible calls on passing, falling, floor touches, etc...

Sample: Attack from the left to the leg. Counter attack from the right to the chest. Attack misses leg completely and ends up on the floor. Counter attack lands squarely in the middle of the chest. Both lights are on. Referee tossed out the point.

Considering that this is a division with a ton of qualified refs, and the nearest real FOC member was maybe 15 miles away - if he took the long route - I thought this was a bit excessively incompetent.

Ah, now that's sounding more like a whole bunch of mistakes!

re: spectators "on the center line": Do I understand correctly that there were spectators standing directly on the strip, between the guard lines, during fencing? That would be pretty bad!


-p

[trazom]

Ah, now that's sounding more like a whole bunch of mistakes!

re: spectators "on the center line": Do I understand correctly that there were spectators standing directly on the strip, between the guard lines, during fencing? That would be pretty bad!


-p

Yup. Plus on the on guard lines. And everywhere in between.

I was tempted to fleche into them just to get them to clear out...

[KD5MDK]

Divisional qualifiers requires the attendance of a referee rated 5 or better. It does, however, require them to actually be refereeing.

In the past I suggested to oiuyt that the Qualifier Form be given a spot for the qualifying referee to sign (or I suppose at least be listed) so their presence could be verified and checked.

[oiuyt]

In the past I suggested to oiuyt that the Qualifier Form be given a spot for the qualifying referee to sign (or I suppose at least be listed) so their presence could be verified and checked.

Along those lines, I submitted the following motion in 2006 (Feb first hearing, July second hearing):

Motion (Mr. Baker): Starting with the 2006-2007 season each division and section chair must sign a statement stating that, to the best of his/her knowledge, all USFA guidelines and regulations have been followed for each national qualification-path tournament. This statement should be submitted to the National Office along with the results-reporting paperwork for these events. In the event that the policies have not been followed, the division/section chair is required to enclose a brief account of what policies were not properly enforced and a rationale or explanation for why that was the case. A summary of these guidelines and regulations should be made available to all division/section officers. This summary will be created and updated, as needed, by the Divisions and Sections Committee.

Rationale: From complaints received in an individual capacity, it is clear that some divisions are routinely violating such national policies as having at least one national-level referee present at qualifiers, requiring safe (legal) uniforms of competitors, checking USFA membership at events, etc.

In a specific situation from this season’s JO qualification process, a fencer from a near-by division submitted a written protest to his division’s officers concerning the manner in which the tournament was conducted. The response that he received from two of the three officers made it clear that not only were the officers aware of the regulations, they were aware that the regulations were not followed, and that the division officers thought it in the best interest of the division to continue to ignore these regulations in the future. Rather than apologize for these failings and commit to ensuring no future repetition, the officers in question defended their actions as appropriate and chastised the young fencer for having the audacity to complain about how a volunteer organized and ran the competitions.

It is clearly in the best interest of fencing and the USFA that those guidelines passed down from the national level are actually adhered to at the local level by all divisions, under all circumstances, but most especially during any national qualification-path tournaments. Without adherence to these basic policies we end up with problems with both safety and fairness in our events.

It was defeated at the July BoD meeting that year. Not quite what KD5MDK mentions, but in the same vein.

I feel that there is still a need for both better promolgation of the rules, policies, and procedures, and a need for them to be better followed. I see two areas that need to be addressed here.

There needs to be better communications so that people at the local level know what is required and can't/don't use ignorance as an excuse (even moreso if it's a justified excuse, rather than willful, as that highlights a breakdown in information flow). I aimed to accomplish that through the provision that the Divisions and Sections Committee produce, publish, and maintain a summary of the applicable policies. As this discussion has helped highlight, there's still a need for such a document. We have too many semi-obscure (or worse) policies in too many different locations.

There also needs to be greater accountability at all levels. In the anecdote that I related in the rationale portion of my motion, the divisional officers were clearly aware of the rules that weren't being followed and chose the convenience of ignoring them. I don't think this is a particularly isolated occurance, as I received queries originating from close to half a dozen different divisions convinced I was talking about THEIR JO qualifiers just that one year.

While I (intentionally) omitted any reference to specific penalties for non-compliance, merely the act of requiring someone to put his/her name on the line as responsible for insuring proper conduct of the tournaments was designed to increase the seriousness with which local officers took their responsibilities.

-B

[Jay Young]

In one of my bouts I had to ask the ref 3 times to tell the spectators to stop standing *on the center line

I'd just take the card for intentional touch not on valid target area and beat someone with my blade. They'll get the hint.

As far as the incompetent refs, why didn't the division hire these 5's and above that are within the division. There couldn't have been THAT many scheduling conflicts. Honestly, I'd point the finger at the LOC and division officers. They're responsible for the tournament. If it sucked, they're to blame.

[fencerX]

It was defeated at the July BoD meeting that year.

Why?

While I (intentionally) omitted any reference to specific penalties for non-compliance, merely the act of requiring someone to put his/her name on the line as responsible for insuring proper conduct of the tournaments was designed to increase the seriousness with which local officers took their responsibilities.

The National Office now requires a division officer to sign any classification change reports that get submitted. Did that increase any "seriousness" out of those who weren't serious enough in the first place? Seriously.

[dekko]

Divisional qualifiers requires the attendance of a referee rated 5 or better. It does, however, require them to actually be refereeing.

This is true however this requirement is incomplete. There have been many times that a ref has a 5, in epee for instance, and is the 5 ref of record while this same person has no rating, or a very low rating, in the other two events and there are no refs with 5s, or sometimes any rating, in the other two and the requirement is satisfied. The overall event had a 5 level ref but with the ref only having a 5 in one event does leave a good opportunity for a lack of reffin quality in the other two.

[KD5MDK]

I don't think the 5 requirement is intended to mean that the referees will all be high quality. It is to require that someone will be present who has attended a National Tournament and be aware of how tournaments are supposed to be run and the rules are followed.

[oiuyt]

Why?

Other than the trivial answer that more than half of the BoD members assembled thought that it shouldn't pass?

From the discussion, some were unhappy with the lack of specific penalties in the motion. Others thought that the whole thing was unnecessary and that it was solving a non-problem. I'm sure there were additional reasons presented, as well as reasons that weren't stated. Given that it was two years ago now I'm afraid I don't recall all of the specifics.

As mentioned, I had intentionally omitted specific penalties. I did this for a couple of reasons: a) I thought the idea should stand on its own and that penalties, if any, should be a separate conversation, and b) The penalties likely should be heavily context-dependent.

We have requirements of various types currently demanding actions from division and section officers. I don't know of any that have specific non-conformance clauses, other than the general one that if a division/section isn't filing the proper paperwork (certainly financial, possibly others?) that the USFA can withhold their membership dues rebate checks. That said, mostly this should almost certainly be handled as a "gentle reminder"-type response, at least until a division/section has shown repeated unwillingness to comply.

I didn't see anything to gain from laying out specific sanctions at the time of the motion. Indeed, I beleive that would have mostly served as a distraction.

Then again, not including them was part of the reason the motion was defeated, so...

-B

[oso97]

Of course, given the fact that there will likely be substantial changes in the composition the USFA BOD come September, there are numerous opportunities for things that have been defeated to come up again...

[KD5MDK]

We have requirements of various types currently demanding actions from division and section officers. I don't know of any that have specific non-conformance clauses, other than the general one that if a division/section isn't filing the proper paperwork (certainly financial, possibly others?) that the USFA can withhold their membership dues rebate checks. That said, mostly this should almost certainly be handled as a "gentle reminder"-type response, at least until a division/section has shown repeated unwillingness to comply.

What % of Divisions and Sections currently aren't receiving their checks for financial reporting anyway? It might be a lot lower than people think.

[HDG]

This is true however this requirement is incomplete. There have been many times that a ref has a 5, in epee for instance, and is the 5 ref of record while this same person has no rating, or a very low rating, in the other two events and there are no refs with 5s, or sometimes any rating, in the other two and the requirement is satisfied. The overall event had a 5 level ref but with the ref only having a 5 in one event does leave a good opportunity for a lack of reffin quality in the other two.

For what it's worth, our division does its utmost to have at least a 5 in each weapon at all qualifying events.

[KShan5[PrFC]]

For what it's worth, our division does its utmost to have at least a 5 in each weapon at all qualifying events.

Same...though there are plenty of tournaments qualifiers, opens and even E and Unders where a 5 is the lowest rated ref that day.

[trazom]

Same...though there are plenty of tournaments qualifiers, opens and even E and Unders where a 5 is the lowest rated ref that day.

This tournament was very out of character for the division. Every other event I have either competed at or reffed at had multiple well-qualified refs. I guess that's why I was so shocked.

That said, I had never attended a tournament run by this particular group of people before.