2008 Summer Nationals

[Mauler]

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.

Who was the FOC?

[usafencer]

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.

I believe that in the semi-finals of the CWF event in Tucson this past October, the girls were paired up incorrectly, so the girls fenced one opponent, won or lost, then were informed that there was a mistake in the bracket. They then fenced the correct opponent, which ended up altering the finalists. It wasn't at 9pm either

[oiuyt]

Also scores like V2-1 or V5-5 need extra care when being tallied, even if they were written correctly.

Yes. Definitely take special care when recording a V5-5 pool bout... :)

-B

[epeemike81]

Yes. Definitely take special care when recording a V5-5 pool bout...

-B

I wouldn't say special care, but take a little while to think about it before you record it... and then don't.

-m

[tchwojko]

I wouldn't say special care, but take a little while to think about it before you record it... and then don't.

-m

Oops. I was thinking of scores tied in overtime.

Am I remembering incorrectly, didn't epee bouts that got to 5-5 (due to a double at 4-4) used to be recorded as V5-5 rather than V5-4? (I'm thinking back when DEs were best of three.) Or was that either a figment of my imagination, or incompetence at a small tournament combined with my ignorance at the time?

[peet]

Oops. I was thinking of scores tied in overtime.

Am I remembering incorrectly, didn't epee bouts that got to 5-5 (due to a double at 4-4) used to be recorded as V5-5 rather than V5-4? (I'm thinking back when DEs were best of three.) Or was that either a figment of my imagination, or incompetence at a small tournament combined with my ignorance at the time?

Double touches at 4-4 or in overtime are not recorded. I don't remember a time when they were, but I've only been fencing for about 14 years. Fencing history certainly goes further back than that...

-p

[tchwojko]

Double touches at 4-4 or in overtime are not recorded. I don't remember a time when they were, but I've only been fencing for about 14 years. Fencing history certainly goes further back than that...

-p

Before that would be college fencing for me, and the score was irrelevant to the team results.

It was just my imagination then. Oops.

[mfp]

I've found it amusing that Fencing Time puts up a popup window when a 5-5 pool bout is entered alerting about the equal score and asking for the user to indicate the winner instead of suggesting a talk with the pool ref. :)

[edew]

I think it's perfectly legitimate because there's no requirement that pool bouts go to 5 touches. Maybe someone is running a 10-touch pool tournament. Perhaps dberke can settle the details of FT and it's operations on scores in pools.

[Philistine]

Oops. I was thinking of scores tied in overtime.

Am I remembering incorrectly, didn't epee bouts that got to 5-5 (due to a double at 4-4) used to be recorded as V5-5 rather than V5-4? (I'm thinking back when DEs were best of three.) Or was that either a figment of my imagination, or incompetence at a small tournament combined with my ignorance at the time?

IIRC, a "normal" 5-5 epee bout would be a double defeat. Both lose. To the extent a double defeat wasn't allowed -- in a fence-off for example, I think then it was scored V5-D5.

But this is only my memory from 20-some years ago, and being a saber fencer who has fenced exactly one epee tournament in my life....

--Philistine

[dberke]

I think it's perfectly legitimate because there's no requirement that pool bouts go to 5 touches. Maybe someone is running a 10-touch pool tournament. Perhaps dberke can settle the details of FT and it's operations on scores in pools.

Well, since FT does allow you to set the maximum pool score, I could presumably detect a Vx-Dx (where x=max score) situation. I'll add that to the to-do list since it's so easy to fix.

Amusing related item: FT will warn you if you enter a tied pool score (like V3-D3) in a saber bout since that situation should never happen!

Dan

[tchwojko]

Well, since FT does allow you to set the maximum pool score, I could presumably detect a Vx-Dx (where x=max score) situation. I'll add that to the to-do list since it's so easy to fix.

Amusing related item: FT will warn you if you enter a tied pool score (like V3-D3) in a saber bout since that situation should never happen!

Dan

I'm amused by the fact that my mistake in writing about checking scores has turned into a feature request for Dan. Let's see what else I can stir up with blatantly wrong procedures...

[mfp]

Well, since FT does allow you to set the maximum pool score,

Only high as 99

[oiuyt]

Amusing related item: FT will warn you if you enter a tied pool score (like V3-D3) in a saber bout since that situation should never happen!

Dan- Does it warn when there are non-equal sub-maximal sabre scores? Why only ties?

-B

[dberke]

Dan- Does it warn when there are non-equal sub-maximal sabre scores? Why only ties?

-B

Hmm, I'd have to check. I guess it would make sense to warn about things like V4-D3 in saber... *adds to to-do list*

Dan

[KD5MDK]

I thought that was part of the feature request I put in a year or so ago, so I think it does.

Edit: I think the message is something like "You have indicated the sabre bout ended on time. Are you sure that is what happened?"

[Allen Evans]

Oops. I was thinking of scores tied in overtime.

Am I remembering incorrectly, didn't epee bouts that got to 5-5 (due to a double at 4-4) used to be recorded as V5-5 rather than V5-4? (I'm thinking back when DEs were best of three.) Or was that either a figment of my imagination, or incompetence at a small tournament combined with my ignorance at the time?

I think you're mixing up a couple of rules. It use to be that when time was expired, with the score NOT tied, the scores were advanced (eg, a 4-3 win became a 5-4 win).

AE

[edew]

Many, many years ago, double touches at la belle gave a double-defeat: D5-D5 (or, if it was tied and the score occurred during the extra minute, D3-D3, say).

That occurred only in pools. Of course, many many years ago, all bouts were in pools to a final pool of 6. There were no DEs. When DEs were instituted, double-touches at the end (10-10, say) were counted as 10-10, and kept on going until a single touch occurred, I believe.

[tchwojko]

Many, many years ago, double touches at la belle gave a double-defeat: D5-D5 (or, if it was tied and the score occurred during the extra minute, D3-D3, say).

I learned that the hard way.

One of my first NACs, I was groggy from a long drive and a fever, and was used to college meets where a bout never ended in a tie. I lost my last bout in a double defeat against a guy who figured that I needed to win to make the cut. I was being patient and waiting for overtime that didn't exist. He was waiting for a desperate last second attack.

[tchwojko]

I think you're mixing up a couple of rules. It use to be that when time was expired, with the score NOT tied, the scores were advanced (eg, a 4-3 win became a 5-4 win).

AE

That's kind of you, but I think I was just plain wrong.