2008 Summer Nationals

[Mr Epee]

Fencing ideally is a lifetime sport. Kids screw up because they're kids, but that doesn't mean you should take away the consequences of those mistakes.

'cept that in this case every kid then pays a price for one kid's mistake.

Not sure that Little Peter learning a valuable lesson at the expense of Little Paul, Little James, Little Andrew, Little Mathew, Little Mark, Little Luke, and Little John... is a desirable outcome.

The referee is the one tasked with maintaining an accurate score sheet.

That's where the buck stops.

[Mr.MightyMouse]

Perhaps the "blues clues" were at fault, when on second day in MS the ref wrote down results in the wrong columns, creating an almost free for all, as well?
He eventually handed the board to the coaches, who in turn handed it to participants, who in turn after an animated discussion and multiple corrections handed it back to the ref, who in turn while directing a bout at the same time forgot to add a touch to the electronic scoreboard, eventually creating another "gevolt" when he did tack it on.
As mentioned previously - to someone's credit - saber flowed almost seamlessly post that particular afternoon.

[erooMynohtnA]

a.From the kid who said that she was being rushed to sign,
b.have you ever seen a ref announcing results at the end of the pool
c. watching prolly over 50 pools over last few days without a single "end of" announcement.

A. She shouldn't be rushed, but time is an issue. It's not going to lose her any touches to take her time and risk a couple dirty looks.
B. No, but I've seen the bouts recorded on a pool sheet, and I can both read and count.
C. I thought the end of a pool is pretty obvious when you go sign the score sheet because all the bouts are done.

Perhaps the "blues clues" were at fault, when on second day in MS the ref wrote down results in the wrong columns, creating an almost free for all, as well?
He eventually handed the board to the coaches, who in turn handed it to participants, who in turn after an animated discussion and multiple corrections handed it back to the ref, who in turn while directing a bout at the same time forgot to add a touch to the electronic scoreboard, eventually creating another "gevolt" when he did tack it on.
As mentioned previously - to someone's credit - saber flowed almost seamlessly post that particular afternoon.

Oh, man, that reminds me of this one time that a ref didn't call a line for me, and then the clock was off, so we had to get a new one, and we had to guess the time and all the coaches didn't have any sandwiches and got grumpy, and my mask was really sweaty, and I wanted a purple chair.

You're getting into a disparate and nonconstructive list of complaints pretty fast.

The ref messed up, and the fencers messed up. The BC did its job according to the rules. What rule change do you suggest as the third line of defense past the referee and the fencers? The buck has to stop somewhere.

[tbryan]

For the 98th blasted time - read the thread, the BC member stated that DE seeding has not started.

I'm confused. Are you talking about this post?

I was At the bout committee table when this or the exact same thing happened. The fault with the score sheet was discovered after the round results were posted and just before the DE table was to be posted.

In this case, it sounds like the pools were done. The results were computed. The seeding was finished. The round results were already posted, and the DE tables had been printed and taped together, ready to post.

Changing a pool result at that point would require making the change. Pulling down the round results. Reprinting the round results. Posting the round results. And reprinting the DE tables. I have no idea how long that would take, but it certainly would create a delay.

If you realize a mistake immediately after signing, they might change it. At that point, the pools are probably still in progress. Nothing has been printed or posted. The problem will be gathering back the referee and other fencers affected by the change to get them to agree. (They already signed, too.)

[tbryan]

b.have you ever seen a ref announcing results at the end of the pool
c. watching prolly over 50 pools over last few days without a single "end of" announcement.

I believe that t.87 means that the referee should announce the result of a pool bout or a DE bout. That is, especially when we aren't using a machine with a visible scoring display, the referee should announce something like this at the end of the bout:

"Touch. Point to the left. Mr. Smith won against Mr. Jones, 5 to 3."

Or maybe.

"Halt. Time has expired. Ms. Jones won against Ms. Smith, 2 to 1."

When there's a separate score keeper, that's a really important so that the score keeper can verify that they have 5 for Mr. Smith and 3 for Mr. Jones. Even without a score keeper, it lets the fencers hear what the referee is about to write down on the score sheet.

I doubt that you have heard referees saying that. What you more commonly hear is "Bout for the left, 5 to 3." I say that all the time. I agree that it's problematic since I might not remember whether Mr. Jones or Mr. Smith was on my left. I've never thought much about it. Hm....

Of course, at Nationals, most of the machines visibly display the score. I'm not sure how much announcing the score matters since it's visible for all to see. The problem is less likely going to be getting the numbers right. The problem will be when the referee writes the scores in the wrong boxes on the score sheet. Maybe announcing it would help. Not sure. It seems just as easy for the fencers to go to the table after each bout to check that the score was recorded correctly and check when their next bout it. And it saves the referee's voice, which is important for a tournament like Nationals.

If you really think that there's a problem with not announcing the scores at the end of the bouts, then send an e-mail to the FOC. If they get multiple complaints, they may start emphasizing that referees should announce the score. Or they'll decide that scores will not be announced, and fencers should check the display on the box and what's written on the score sheet.

I don't think that the rules ever intended the referee to announce the final pool results in any way.

[tbryan]

The referee is the one tasked with maintaining an accurate score sheet.

That's where the buck stops.

I'm not sure where you're going with this one.

The referee is responsible for the score sheet. Really, I think that clarification is made since there may be a separate score keeper. The rules don't want divided responsibility. Even if there is a separate score keeper, the referee is supposed to check the score sheet to ensure that the scores are recorded correctly.

So, either the referee supervises the score keeper, or he is recording the scores himself. In either case, he's responsible for the score sheet, but mistakes will happen. The referee should seek to minimize potential problems, and he should form habits to ensure that scores are recorded accurately.

But mistakes will still happen. So, we provide an extra check. Before the referee turns in the score sheet, each fencer has to sign to verify that the score sheet is correct. That's the fencer's best chance to catch any mistakes that might have been made.

Even if the score sheet is correct, mistakes can still be made. The bout committee might enter the data incorrectly. To catch that problem, the fencer checks the round results.

It's not ideal, but for each boundary where there is a potential for human error, the system provides an opportunity for the fencer to check and verify that no mistakes were made.

If the fencer signs a score sheet but does not check it, he is skipping his opportunity to check for mistakes at that step of the process. That doesn't absolve the referee from responsibility. But the system provides a step in the process where it's easy for the fencer to catch that mistake without disrupting the tournament.

Or are you trying to say that since the accuracy of the score sheet is the referee's responsibility, and by extension, the organizer's responsibility, all errors should be corrected, no matter how late in the process they are discovered? You just lost your first DE and then realized that your seeding was wrong? No problem. Throw out all of the DE bouts fenced so far. Correct the pool sheet, reseed, and start DEs again?

That seems ridiculous to me. So, I'm still wondering where you're going with this emphasis that the referee is responsible for an accurate score sheet.

[noodle]

For the 98th blasted time - read the thread, the BC member stated that DE seeding has not started.

what are you reading? it clearly states that the problem was caught when the STANDINGS AFTER POOLS were posted. that IS the seeding into DEs.

to fix the problem, it would take 5-10 minutes (at least) to get the referee and fencers together to verify the error, 5-10 minutes to make the change, 5-10 minutes to print out the revised standings after pools and have them posted, and another 10-20 minutes to wait to ensure things are good still and proceed with producing the bracket.

its not a trivial thing to do. if you make a change on the officially posted seeding, you have to scrap whats posted and repost the newly changed one to make sure everyone's ok with it and no mistakes were made.

[HDG]

t.87 as acception 9/2007

The factual assertion I put in bold and underlined; not the rule

[the ancient one]

Example:

Actual result: Smith 1 Jones 5.
Recorded result: Smith 5 Jones 1.

I have encountered this sort of mistake several times.

[Mac A. Bee]

I believe that t.87 means that the referee should announce the result of a pool bout or a DE bout...at Nationals, most of the machines visibly display the score.

I've been announcing victors' names and bout-ending scores all week. So have my peer and higher-rated colleagues. If you encounter a referee who doesn't, you could politely request same at the conclusion of your bout.

[tbryan]

I've been announcing victors' names and bout-ending scores all week. So have my peer and higher-rated colleagues. If you encounter a referee who doesn't, you could politely request same at the conclusion of your bout.

Good to know. As a fencer, I honestly wouldn't notice. I generally know what the score is, and I often check it on the score sheet immediately after the bout.

As a referee...I'm not sure what I do. I have to go referee a bout and pay attention to what my current habit actually is. It's quite possible that I'm the one saying "bout right, 5 to 3." Sounds like it's time to change that habit.

[mdstasinos]

Good to know. As a fencer, I honestly wouldn't notice. I generally know what the score is, and I often check it on the score sheet immediately after the bout.

As a referee...I'm not sure what I do. I have to go referee a bout and pay attention to what my current habit actually is. It's quite possible that I'm the one saying "bout right, 5 to 3." Sounds like it's time to change that habit.

For years I simply call the score after every touch, final score after the bout pointing to the victor and I announce the results at the end of each pool, reminding the fencers to check the scores to make sure they are correctly marked. I have not had an issue with a score recorded incorrectly since I started doing this in the early 90's. It is also important to look at the fencers name on their jacket, leg or lame before you record the bout score. Whenever possible if you use the fencers name when calling out the score,"Touch right, Smith 2-1," it cuts down on the mistakes.

[tchwojko]

Whenever possible if you use the fencers name when calling out the score,"Touch right, Smith 2-1," it cuts down on the mistakes.

My name cuts down on that practice , but I always check my score after it's written down. Even when the ref calls the score correctly, it's possible it got recorded in the wrong column, written backwards, etc. Also scores like V2-1 or V5-5 need extra care when being tallied, even if they were written correctly.

There are multiple places accidents happen, and the fencer is the one who has the most vested interest in making sure that things are correct.

When I deal with HR or any other administrative organization, I call and double check as often as is reasonable. Most of the time it's their responsibility, but I'm the one affected the most.

[Agent_V]

(snip...)
It is also important to look at the fencers name on their jacket, leg or lame before you record the bout score. (/snip)

It's also just as important to do this before the bout even begins... yes, I have had the wrong two fencers fence a whole bout. (SN's a few years ago with the damn Div II WF DE's only starting around 9pm.)

Alexander

[Mr Epee]

It's also just as important to do this before the bout even begins... yes, I have had the wrong two fencers fence a whole bout. (SN's a few years ago with the damn Div II WF DE's only starting around 9pm.)

Alexander

HOLY COW!!!

You let two fencers fence the wrong DE?

You should have personally refunded their entry fee... wow what a boner.

Oh wait. Did you say Div II WF? Ah. Well that makes total sense. They don't deserve basic competence.

If you were too tired/spaced to work the bout, the code of ethics requires you to decline the job.

[Agent_V]

HOLY COW!!!

You let two fencers fence the wrong DE?

You should have personally refunded their entry fee... wow what a boner.

Oh wait. Did you say Div II WF? Ah. Well that makes total sense. They don't deserve basic competence.

If you were too tired/spaced to work the bout, the code of ethics requires you to decline the job.

Indeed, I did ask to be retired for the evening, but this request was refused by the FOC in charge - "everyone else is as tired as you" was the response. (Surely you remember some of those late evenings at nationals yourself?)
Nonetheless, the insinuation that I allowed myself to be lax because of it 'only being DIV II WF' is a bit off the mark (although that certainly is a problem in the refereeing community). Ignorance was far more to blame. Up to that point, my sequence of checking fencers had not included actually looking for their names (whether refereeing a points event or not). In four previous years of refereeing I had not had the wrong two fencers come to my strip when called, until then.

Now my routine is a bit different.

[Mr.MightyMouse]

It's also just as important to do this before the bout even begins... yes, I have had the wrong two fencers fence a whole bout. (SN's a few years ago with the damn Div II WF DE's only starting around 9pm.)

Alexander

That is hilarious - I once saw a wrong guy fence through a pool bout in Qualifiers, Ivy League graduate nevertheless, but never a DE.

[Mr.MightyMouse]

what are you reading? it clearly states that the problem was caught when the STANDINGS AFTER POOLS were posted. that IS the seeding into DEs.

to fix the problem, it would take 5-10 minutes (at least) to get the referee and fencers together to verify the error, 5-10 minutes to make the change, 5-10 minutes to print out the revised standings after pools and have them posted, and another 10-20 minutes to wait to ensure things are good still and proceed with producing the bracket.

its not a trivial thing to do. if you make a change on the officially posted seeding, you have to scrap whats posted and repost the newly changed one to make sure everyone's ok with it and no mistakes were made.

Perhaps you are correct, I've never been on BC and would think that it'd be a 5 minute ordeal.
Mea Culpa.

[Agent_V]

That is hilarious - I once saw a wrong guy fence through a pool bout in Qualifiers, Ivy League graduate nevertheless, but never a DE.

It's not that hilarious at 9:30pm when everyone is bloody tired and you just delayed the event by half an hour, not to mention being unfairly tiring to the two fencers. Even thinking back on it now - it's still not hilarious.

[tbryan]

Perhaps you are correct, I've never been on BC and would think that it'd be a 5 minute ordeal.

Having experienced reseeds at national events, noodle's time estimate seems much more likely. I'm sure that it takes more than 5 minutes just to print out the multi-page round results and send runners out across the venue to post them on the bulletin boards.

In this case, the other referee and fencer already signed the score sheet to say that it was accurate. You'll need to get both of those people back to the bout committee table, explain the change, and get their agreement before you can change anything. Of course, the referee may be in the middle of pools for another event.

Sometimes they post round results, someone notices an error, and it turns out that the score sheet was correct, but someone keyed the information incorrectly. Of course, in that case, they don't need to get the other fencer and referee involved before making the correction, but they still need to reseed and post the round results again. Even that seems burns at least 15 minutes the times that I've seen it happen at national events.