Level 5 Refs at USFA Qualifiers

[darius]

This rule is clearly predominantly for the benefit of the bureaucracy.

I fail to see why the bureaucracy really could care so much -- I can't see the USFA making *that* much off director's clinics when all is said and done, and (perhaps wrongly?) assume most of it goes towards paying expenses for the instructor.

It will, however, establish a baseline, that there is ONE person who has gone through the effort of proving that they know and can enforce the rules.

the cost won't fall on the divsion but the individual fencers.

And the cost is not so bad...I've only officially refereed at one national event and one sectional event, and have more than made my money back.

For those of us in small divisions who drive many hours to get to tournaments and end up spending multiple days there anyway, it's a good way to pay for gas and entry fees, especially if we're going anyway.

darius

[Inquartata]

Bureaucracies, as I said previously, care about (a) bringing in more revenue, (b) extending their jurisdiction and control, and (c) increasing the number of persons under their supervision. This rule not only brings in new revenue, but brings more people into officially sanctioned roles. The more things that cannot be done without not only the say so but the active permission of the hierarchy, the better, in other words.

[sallearmourer]

It won't bring in more money for the Usfa. Part of the cost is to cover the Rule Book. Have a level 5 doesn't mean that you going to get rights calls all time. Basically the FOC is trying to raise the quality of local referees. What made me mad is having a 3 rated referee who had not keep up rules change and when I try to explain the new change bascally I was told I didn't know the rule even though I showed the person the print explain the new change.


Tim

[Crash55]

Puppet Master: My division doesn't collect any sort of head tax from the clubs. Our money comes completely from hosting the qualifiers and whatever portion of the membership fee we receive from the USFA. Given that we already have the private clubs complaining that they don't make enough off of tournaments, a couple of clubs are hosting tournaments against each other and there hasn't been a representative from the southern half of our division at either the annual or scheduling meeting for a couple years I don't think we could institute a head tax.

We raised entry fees for the qualifiers by $5 this year to try and cover the costs of refs. I don't think it will produce enough money but it will cover the majority of it. After this year we will have a better idea of how much money we need to cover this new expense. How much is a normal head tax?

Th efirst I heard of this new rule was at our scheduling meeting and even then it was only our chairman that had heard of it. If it had been bantered around for a couple years why wasn't it more widely know. I went to the ref clinic run by Bruce Gilman nad Tom Ciccarone at the Youth NAC in Saratoga Springs in Jan. Had they mentioned this might be happening it would have given me a reason to actually get rated. I went primarily to learn the current interpretations.

Darius: The RPI Open is set for Apr 6 this year. There will of course be swords as prizes. We are holding another tournament on Oct 26 but I imagine it will be much smaller than the Open. We are using it get our new people used to competing before going to RMC the next weekend.

[darius]

Ni-ice. I'll be at the Open, although your Oct tournament conflicts with some events closer and dearer, so we probably won't be that direction.

And maybe I won't embarass myself in foil this year. Although the whole "dark-horse" sabre thing is really appealing, that's lightning striking twice.

(Hey, did you guys *really* send in that rating change? The USFA still has me as a U in sabre...)

darius

[achilleus]

Originally posted by Inquartata
Bureaucracies, as I said previously, care about (a) bringing in more revenue, (b) extending their jurisdiction and control, and (c) increasing the number of persons under their supervision. This rule not only brings in new revenue, but brings more people into officially sanctioned roles. The more things that cannot be done without not only the say so but the active permission of the hierarchy, the better, in other words.

How dare the USFA try an organize tournaments better!
How dare they try to increase the level of local refs!

In fact how dare they even organize national tournaments in general, because obviously they only care about more revenue and control!


Your previous arguments seemed to be genuine concerns about the difficulties divisions might face in meeting the new requirement. But now it seems just like a paranoid rant against the USFA.

[Puppet Master]

Originally posted by achilleus
It may seem quick, but really the USFA has been talking about doing this for a while, as usual, but never got around to doing it until now.

And all sports have rule changes as much as fencing. The rule changes are just unknown to most people. For example, every year the NBA reinterprets how it's officials call a foul, and then review the technical rules of the game.

dfdf

They may have been talking about it but they should have put in a longer grace period.

True, the NFL and NBA change or interpret the rules differently from year to year, but I don't see why, why mess with a good thing? Err in the NBA's case keeping changing them
The shot after the foul is getting ridiculous, its supposed to be allowed only when they're in the act of shooting. However, i'll give em credit they all seem to call it consistently.

However when was the last time they changed the method of scoring a goal or touchdown, changing row does this. The nba added the 3 pointer, but thats been a while.

But look at baseball, tennis, and hockey?? when's the last time their rules have changed?

Crash, can't remember how the head tax worked, it may have been a $1 a head, regardless of events entered. If you have ~8 tournaments in a season this should earn the division a few hundred dollars. I assumed most divisions did this. Considering most hosts charge 15-20 for the first event, this isn't much, especially if they own their own facility, there's no rent they have to pay. Not sure what your div members have to bellyache about. Another division asked for donations from its clubs, and might have gotten a few sponsors for one of its qaulifiers to pay for new scoring boxes and reels. This benefited everyone as most hosts use at least some of the division's equipment to run their tournaments. Hope this helps.
'

I think everyone agrees that more and better refs would benefit everyone. But the short notification and the method to get certified irks people in the smaller divisions. The usfa has left it to divisions and really a few responsible people and their money and time to go to a nac and (hopefully) get certified. The usfa always seems to leave it to the small divisions to catch themselves up, they don't seem to think of the problems they face(lack of money, manpower, somtimes even organization). In this case they could have extended the time or spit out a little money, or set up a specific program to get poeple certified.

[achilleus]

Originally posted by Puppet Master
True, the NFL and NBA change or interpret the rules differently from year to year, but I don't see why, why mess with a good thing? Err in the NBA's case keeping changing them
The shot after the foul is getting ridiculous, its supposed to be allowed only when they're in the act of shooting. However, i'll give em credit they all seem to call it consistently.

Consistency is what every ref shoots for. And as for why they keep changing them, well every little interpretation of what is or isn't a foul widens and grows into larger and larger issues. Back in the early 90's the NBA gave too much leeway on defense allowing the Pistons to get the bad boy rep. The game really slowed down and became very different than the uptempo game that gets ratings.

Originally posted by Puppet Master
However when was the last time they changed the method of scoring a goal or touchdown, changing row does this. The nba added the 3 pointer, but thats been a while.

How about reinterpreting the strike zone? And really, reinterpreting ROW, IMO is analogous to reinterpreting a foul in the NBA. Judgement calls are reinterpreted, not the materiality of the touch.

Originally posted by Puppet Master
But look at baseball, tennis, and hockey?? when's the last time their rules have changed?

The strike zone for MLB, and how about the change of rules in tennis regarding injury breaks, bathroom breaks, and the soon to reviewed let serve?

Originally posted by Puppet Master
I think everyone agrees that more and better refs would benefit everyone. But the short notification and the method to get certified irks people in the smaller divisions. The usfa has left it to divisions and really a few responsible people and their money and time to go to a nac and (hopefully) get certified. The usfa always seems to leave it to the small divisions to catch themselves up, they don't seem to think of the problems they face(lack of money, manpower, somtimes even organization). In this case they could have extended the time or spit out a little money, or set up a specific program to get poeple certified.

The USFA tried to do this, although not well. They assigned refs to run courses in certain areas. These refs periodically hold seminars to teach and test people who are willing. The idea was to encourage people who weren't willing to go to national events to get rated.

The plan has worked somewhat in the larger more populated divisions, and apparently failed in the smaller divisions.

I have a feeling though, that this is merely the second step in an attempt to have local tournaments more organized.

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by achilleus
How dare the USFA try an organize tournaments better!
How dare they try to increase the level of local refs!

Well, hey, why not just require 1's and 2's, then? And at EVERY tournament?

This isn't about organizing, it's about control. And that's fine, except that EVERY time they make one of these new rules, they spare no thought, apparently, for the effects they will have on smaller Divisions, who quite frankly already are dealing with all the handicaps they can handle.

And again I ask: How exactly is requiring that ONE person PRESENT at a tournament have a 5 RATING going to do anything at all to "increase the level of local refs"? Especially when it's ONLY for qualifiers?

In fact how dare they even organize national tournaments in general, because obviously they only care about more revenue and control!

Have you been to any of these? Have you noticed how much of the effort seems to be aimed at making things easier for the refs, the bout committee, the vendors, et al and how the fencers seem sort of like an afterthought?

You've noticed the further restriction of Div I events in order to lessen the burden on the refs and the organizers? Along with the commensurate hike in entry fees?

Of course, they have to do a certain amount---no tournaments, no revenue, no control ( beyond simple memberships ).

Your previous arguments seemed to be genuine concerns about the difficulties divisions might face in meeting the new requirement. But now it seems just like a paranoid rant against the USFA.

Yeah, I do tend to get carried away, don't I?

[achilleus]

Originally posted by Inquartata
Well, hey, why not just require 1's and 2's, then? And at EVERY tournament?

That's a great idea. If only we had that many 1's and 2's. Oh, wait, I got an idea, why don't implement a ref training program, start building a base of refs, and then start requiring rated refs at competitions to get them more practice, and then keep raising the bar, and eventually, we will have enough 1's and 2's!

Originally posted by Inquartata
This isn't about organizing, it's about control. And that's fine, except that EVERY time they make one of these new rules, they spare no thought, apparently, for the effects they will have on smaller Divisions, who quite frankly already are dealing with all the handicaps they can handle.

And again I ask: How exactly is requiring that ONE person PRESENT at a tournament have a 5 RATING going to do anything at all to "increase the level of local refs"? Especially when it's ONLY for qualifiers?

I, and others, have explained it several times throughout this thread, you haven't refuted any of the ideas, just dismissed them. Then again, we have no factual proof for our beliefs on how it will help either.

Really, this is step 2 for ref and tournament development in the US. A couple of years ago the USFA releaseda notice about ref development in a multi stage plan. Stage one was designating several different people in each region/division to give seminars and test people. This was designed to stregthen the base of refs, as well as attempting to standardize calls.

Stage two, require refs at local events. Basically encouraging and requiring more more ref seminars.

This requirment is only a stage. The rule will change again to require more in a couple of years.

Another thought that comes to mind is just being professional about the whole thing. When I join a basketball (or substitute soccer, baseball, softball, etc...) rec league they provide refs. I've never played a league that was self reffing. Why should fencing be different?

Originally posted by Inquartata
Have you been to any of these? Have you noticed how much of the effort seems to be aimed at making things easier for the refs, the bout committee, the vendors, et al and how the fencers seem sort of like an afterthought?

You've noticed the further restriction of Div I events in order to lessen the burden on the refs and the organizers? Along with the commensurate hike in entry fees?

Actually, the restrictions on Div. 1 tournaments have taken place for a variety of reasons. Many of which benefit the fencers. As a fencer who goes to every single one of these, I think restricting the div 1 events is great. I also think a one day event is great. Although, personally, I would have chosen a different method of restricting fencer's, but that's another thread.

And taking care of your volunteers is pretty neccessary if you want to maintain volunteers.

Again, the decisions are very rarely so onesided. Often time the USFA tries to please everybody and that's where the real mistakes come into play.

Originally posted by Inquartata
Yeah, I do tend to get carried away, don't I?

That's a nice way of putting it.

[nahouw]

I think that the USFA rule to require at least 1 referee classified at a level 5 for qualifying tournaments is very good. NOTE: for this season, they are only requiring 1; for subsequent seasons, I am sure they will require more classified referees officiating these events (whatever level -- at least they have a classification, which will ensure integrity and uniformity). Having referees of consistent quality will help raise the level of fencing.

The reason they are now requiring at least 1, is because that is the person who will be responsible for overseeing all the referees in the competition and be accountable to the USFA that the qualifying competition was held properly . I am in the NJ division, I am classified as a 5, and I am the person who oversees and assigns the referees. I am the person that the fencers contact if they feel there is a problem with a referee. I observe the referee in question, and after observation, I either explain to the fencer why the referee is calling things correctly, or I pull the referee and substitute another one in -- sometimes it is myself if I don't have another available referee.

We have a referee development program in our division. As part of this, once or twice per season we offer a referee's clinic. We invite a USFA referee course conductor, and for $15, those who attend the all-day clinic get lunch, and for those who pass the exam, they get our division referee shirt and a set of referee cards. This is not expensive to implement. If your division is run properly, you should have funds available for this crucial division activity. If your division does not have funds available, you need to examine all of your qualifying events and the costs involved to make a better determination on how you should set your fees for your qualifying events -- when you set a price for your qualifying events, you need to make sure you cover your costs of holding the event. The costs involved for running a division qualifying event include: site fee, site support fee, and referees fee. You then take this sum and divide it by the number of expected competitors. You round up to make sure that you will have enough money in the division to support the referee development effort.

Your division officiers have to realize that having the office isn't about a title, but rather, they have to do what the title dictates their responsibilites that they must do.

[Inquartata]

So, what does one do with the small Divisions? I am not even sure mine has a 9, much less a five.

You bet, require Divisional officers to assume a financial burden. A great way to help ensure no one is willing to hold office.

So what happens if no one cares to go to the trouble and expense of obtaining the 5? Sorry, no way for you to qualify people to Nationals, including Juniors---great way to build fencing, what?

Maybe they'll just de-commission the Division. Nah---all those lost membership fees...

Frankly I think some folks at USFA HQ are living in a dream world, envisioning all these highly qualified refs springing into being across the country at their behest...

[edew]

Another quote from Kelly's Heroes:

"Moriarity, always with the negative waves!"

Inq, you have to think of a solution, not think of the problems. Think solution, not problem. Solution, not problem. Solve, don't make problems.

You need 5s. Do something to get that to happen. If you can't, get out of the way and let someone else who has a brain to think things through. Make solutions, not problems.

It can be done. Solve. Find solution. Open your bleeping mind and think big, think differently, out of the box, and quit the *****ing. It's pathetic.

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by edew
Another quote from Kelly's Heroes:

"Moriarity, always with the negative waves!"

Inq, you have to think of a solution, not think of the problems. Think solution, not problem. Solution, not problem. Solve, don't make problems.

You need 5s. Do something to get that to happen. If you can't, get out of the way and let someone else who has a brain to think things through. Make solutions, not problems.

It can be done. Solve. Find solution. Open your bleeping mind and think big, think differently, out of the box, and quit the *****ing. It's pathetic.

Gee, you're right, Eric! Why didn't I see that no good has ever come of criticism?! If you can't be the solution, just keep quiet! Say nothing, yeah, that's the ticket!

And if you see your neighbors house burning down sometime, be sure to keep quiet unless you have firefighting training.

You want a "solution"? How about "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"? Fencing in this country seems to have been getting along just fine without having a decree requiring a ref of a given level at a particular competition for...how many decades? The rule sets out to cure a problem that doesn't exist. And if the USFA wants more qualified referees for running its tournaments there are much better ways to go about it than FORCING Divisions to expend resources better used otherwise.

[edew]

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it" is suddenly parried by, "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."

I think everyone can plainly see that refereeing is a bottleneck for continual growth in fencing. Fencing is, fortunately, growing at an almost double-digit rate, and certainly so in some areas. Referees are not growing at that same rate. But just calling someone "referee" doesn't make it so. Fencers need and deserve competent referees.

Now, you may argue whether a "5" makes for competence, and I have no quarrel there. The way they process work is sorta backwards. They get people to pass written before doing the practicals, when in most cases, the competent referees would already pass any practical and just need to pass the written, and newcomers shouldn't even bother to take the written if they have no feel for the concept of right-of-way.

But, supposing that the rating is relatively correlated with competence, then we need to get more 5's and higher. Will it cost money? You bet. Will some divisions suffer? You bet. Will fencing in general (the US looked at as a whole) benefit, you bet. So, some small divisions might be marginalized. Well, there are ways to deal with that. But you can't expect any program to meet 100% of the goals. Nothing ever does. People who want to seriously take up the sport might have to move to a new location and train and compete. People in small areas might want to entice competent officials or fencers or coaches to come there.

Look at some of the small divisions. Kansas, Greenville South Carolina, Louisiana. Those are hick towns for fencing. But, they managed to get a good coach who have competence in refereeing (or at least in explaining ROW), in fencing administration, and such. They can survive. Want to do well? Why not advertise for a good coach to come to your area to give lessons? Other areas have done so and have flourished. Instead, you ***** and moan, ***** and moan.

Fencing for the how-many-decades was restricted to three areas: New York, Pacific Coast, and Chicago. There were no Kanza Fencing Club, no Greenville Fencing, no Las Vegas, no Hawaii, no Fresno at least nothing that mattered to the USFA. And the growth of fencing then was maybe 1% per year, if that. Fencing population was almost constantly at 6-8K.

We are seeing tremendous growth. That has not been the case in your "how many decades". With that growth comes the need to have competent referees.

I change tires every 50K miles or so. Better to "fix it" before it's broken, sometimes, eh?

[Crash55]

Rather easy to say "think big, think differently, out of the box, and quit the *****ing" when your division is not going to have difficulties with this. Everyone has a right to criticize. No one forces you to read or pay attention to their criticism. Though I myslef tend to find ideas in other criticism and can often use it as a sanity check (something the USFA has obviously never heard of).

We will find a way to solve this problem but it will not be as easy as it could have been. Had the USFA given us a year to do this we could have done it without any serious difficulty. Now it is goiing to cost us both financially and morally. We will have to pay to bring refs in from outside. People are already suggesting shady ways of skirting the rules if we have difficulty finding/paying the refs. I am sure refs can be found that are willing, for a certain fee, to stay home but say they were at the tournament. I would not be surprised to see many small divisions take this approach. How does this help anyone?

I do think the idea of having rated refs oversee the qualifiers is a good one. I just think the implementation was done inanely. They would have been better off to only require level 10 this year and then level 5 next. That way all we would have to accomplish by our qualifiers is to have a ref clinic and a test. We would have had the whole year to find a tournament to get a level 5 rating.

Had this been the USFA's plan all along they should have told us ahead of time. I have already taken the ref clinic but as I have no interest in traveling to ref I saw no point in being rated and merely wanted the information. Had I known this was coming I would have taken teh written and practical by now.

Oh, you do not have to worry about my div paying people to certify our results without being there. One reason for mentioning it was to make sure no one associated with my div tried it.

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by edew
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it" is suddenly parried by, "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."

LOL!

I think everyone can plainly see that refereeing is a bottleneck for continual growth in fencing.

Since I do not, there exists at least one exception; hence
"everyone" is right out...

Unless of course you want to assert that I am nobody...in which case I reply that "Nobody's perfect"...

Referees are not growing at that same rate. But just calling someone "referee" doesn't make it so. Fencers need and deserve competent referees.

Sure. I just reject the idea that one can make them by fiat. "Ve haff vays off making you get a ratink! You VILL be a referee, schweinhund!"

How about, oh, I don't know---incentives? Paying refs a decent wage would be a good first step. Maybe if you get a certain rating as a ref, you have your membership fees forgiven and don't have to pay entry fees in national tounrament events in which you fence? Maybe we extend privileges to refs who get higher ratings. Maybe we hold free clinics and testings in Divisions instead of just sending them back a portion of the money from their dues? Surely there are better ways than just decreeing that if you don't have a 5 no one goes to Nationals...

[Lordy]

Crash,



What's the problem? Mitch and I are both Level 5. We are fine.

[edew]

Hey Inq. You can FOAD if you want to play the nitpicking game. "Everyone" certainly means everyone who has an