The state of directing

[kuroutesshin]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

It should be pointed out that Jim isn't actually out of the loop: These interpretations are always given out first at NACs, and the email is just to let everyone else who doesn't attend NACs know. Given Jim attends a lot of NACs, he's already aware of what's being done.

This sort of response is exactly what should have been written six posts earlier. So, we have a mechanism for clarifying rules or giving new interpretations to refs- but it is dependent on attending a NAC.

We shan't mention the other issues associate with refs and NACs.

But wouldn't a better system be to simply disseminate clarification or interpretations to the entire Commission, either by mail or internet?

Originally Posted by bigdawg2121

tl;dr

Directors need to know changes in interpretation, regardless of the situation. Having a hard copy in writing that you can point to and say "this is the way we're doing it" is a hallmark of accountability and good management.

The seemingly preferred dissemination tactic of posting it on Fencing.net and letting folks rip it to pieces seems to lack that organization...

[fencerbill]

Reminder: just because someone sends you an E-mail doesn't mean anyone reads it.

[kuroutesshin]

Originally Posted by fencerbill

Reminder: just because someone sends you an E-mail doesn't mean anyone reads it.

I will remember that if I recieve mail from my bank telling me I'm overdrawn. I'm much too busy to read emails from organizations to which I belong and contribute money and time to.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

Possibly more correct, but it's really just semantics. I've heard high level referees call both, and certainly all the fencers and knowledgeable spectators know what's going on either way.

Yes.

I was watching the videos on Tim Morehouse's site, from the World Cup in Spain, and at one point a referee clearly calls 'malparre'...

Ideally, we'd all use the correct terminology in formal settings like that, at least.

[tbryan]

Originally Posted by kuroutesshin

This sort of response is exactly what should have been written six posts earlier. So, we have a mechanism for clarifying rules or giving new interpretations to refs- but it is dependent on attending a NAC.

Correct. The requirement is that "all referees are required to attend a Rules Interpretation Seminar yearly." For the purposes of that requirement, attending the morning meeting on the first day of a NAC counts. If you aren't going to the NACs, you are required to attend a referee seminar so that you hear the rule changes there.

Originally Posted by kuroutesshin

But wouldn't a better system be to simply disseminate clarification or interpretations to the entire Commission, either by mail or internet?

Maybe, but it isn't easy. The newsletter accomplishes that, but I basically just use the newsletter as a starting point for discussions with referee mentors. The problem is that a website or an e-mail generally does not provide enough detail, and it's a difficult medium for asking questions. At a NAC meeting or a referee seminar, the instructor can explain a rule interpretation, get volunteers up to demonstrate various possibilities, answer questions, and clarify any ambiguity.

For an example, look at the epee question thread. It has two simple questions, and look at how much discussion and clarification that caused. The best part is that most of the people on that thread actually agree about everything we're saying. We aren't arguing. We're just trying to make sure that the other one is not saying something crazy or accidentally giving other readers the wrong idea. If we were in the same room, the conversation would be over in 5 minutes. Since it's on a forum, we have probably collectively spent hours typing up responses. I don't see anyone on the FOC volunteering to do that for every little item that they want to mention at a NAC morning meeting.

[KD5MDK]

Originally Posted by kuroutesshin

This sort of response is exactly what should have been written six posts earlier. So, we have a mechanism for clarifying rules or giving new interpretations to refs- but it is dependent on attending a NAC.

We shan't mention the other issues associate with refs and NACs.

But wouldn't a better system be to simply disseminate clarification or interpretations to the entire Commission, either by mail or internet?

I think the Fencing Officials Commission is pretty clear on interpretations. There's only about 12 of them, and they're mostly pretty active internationally.

Do you mean interpretations should be disseminated to all referees in the USFA? I agree. But that's a much harder task, as there's 1472 entries currently listed as a 10 or higher. Of those, 630 are a 6 or higher, and so eligible to serve at most NACs. Email addresses go bad, as people change jobs, change internet providers, stop checking old ones they don't use. There's no way to force verification of email addresses under our current IT capabilities.

In the future, when we get a fully integrated membership database that includes membership, user accessible contact management, and referee ratings all in the same system, this will work much better. But that's at least 2-3 projects into the future.

Directors need to know changes in interpretation, regardless of the situation. Having a hard copy in writing that you can point to and say "this is the way we're doing it" is a hallmark of accountability and good management.

The seemingly preferred dissemination tactic of posting it on Fencing.net and letting folks rip it to pieces seems to lack that organization...

The preferred dissemination tactic is to announce it at all NACs, all referee seminars and to have referees who go to NACs take it home to their local areas, all of which have the substantial benefit of allowing questions and clarification. Alongside that, it is released electronically to everyone who has signed up for the FOC email list. If people haven't signed up for the list, it's hard to blame the FOCs for that.

[dekko]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

If people haven't signed up for the list, it's hard to blame the FOCs for that.

I guess it would be impossible to cross reference names with the current US Fencing information to make sure they have current info. If there is information that important for all refs to get in an email or mailing is there a good reason the US Fencing info is not used? If they are not using it or not allowed to use it it's possible that we have now discovered a huge obstacle for getting info out, from a reffing POV.

[KD5MDK]

1) The membership information is in a difficult to access database only available to the National Office staff.

2) The referee information is only located in the foc.askfred.net database located somewhere completely different.

3) There are as I said nearly 1500 people who are currently considered trained referees at the moment, not to mention however many other people who aren't on the list of trained referees but have joined the FOC email list because they want to receive these updates. Managing this large a membership manually is pretty much impossible.

[kuroutesshin]

Very good answers- it's much more clear to me now.

Knowing specifically Michigan (and perhaps other divisions) is having a problem with competent refs- as I mentioned earlier we have three FOC examiners- we're trying to address the problem by coming up with new ideas and more frequent training seminars. In fact, our Division Championships and Annual Meeting is tomorrow- our officers mentioned apprenticeship programs to develop directors, as on example.

We'll see where it takes us, I guess.