Level 5 Refs at USFA Qualifiers

[Mo]

"I applaud the USFA for requiring a level 5 ref at a qualifyer. I've seen young fencers with high aspirations done in by nasty old men, throwing around their power and their ignorance of the rules of modern competitive fencing."


Fencingmom,
It is wonderful for another mom to see young fencers getting ripped off by nasty old men. It is good to have company.
In finals, the bad calls can have a ripple effect. Losing points to a bad call resulting in a lost match can be a spread of anywhere from 60-100 points. That can be the difference between being first or second in an age group.
For 14 and Under, Cadet and Junior, point spreads are tight. The loss of points for bad calling can make the difference between making a national team and not making one.
Gross incompetence coupled with a good ole boy attitude can have a profound effect in the results of a fencer. It is a situation that needs to be addressed.
The level five requirement is a decent start.

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by edew
Hey Inq. You can FOAD if you want to play the nitpicking game. "Everyone" certainly means everyone who has any clue about the state of fencing. If you don't, well, that explains a lot.

Hey, Eric. I don't hurl invective, not even abbreviated invective. Go ahead if you like. I am sure I will D some day, and so will you. The rest of your remark I ignore as beneath contempt. I atrtribute it to the obviously inflated opinion you seem to have of yourself...

No one is awarding a referee rating to anyone by fiat. Referees go through a fairly difficult written exam and then go through an even more elaborate practical observation period. That's hardly fiat.

Do you read? CAN you read? "Fiat" referred to the USFA's decree that every Qualifier be attended by a 5 ref. The decree is the fiat, not the awarding of the rating.

I'll make it still clearer, as you'll probably not comprehend even that:

USFA: "Tournaments intended to qualify fencers to Nationals must have at least one referee rated 5 or higher in attendance".

Everyone but Eric: "That's making people get rated by fiat".

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by Fencing Mom

I think that is one of the points of the ruling. With no referees rated 5 or better, some fencers who deserve it, don't go to Nationals or JO's.

Of course. I merely object to them trying to doing it with the stick instead of the carrot. I cannot fathom why it's thought better to "punish" fencers by keeping them out of Nationals in order to force SOMEONE to go to the trouble and expense of getting a 5 than to use positive incentives...

My kid has learned foil from an excellent coach who also referees nationally and internationally. He has attended camps at two different Division 1 schools that either win or place in the top 5 of the NCAA's. What he has learned is an "attack" from his coach and from the university big-name Russian coaches is called "preparation" or something else by mediocre and worse refs. And while it hasn't stopped him from qualifying , it must surely have stopped some.

This is one of the facts of life in fencing---you have to learn to adjust to the referee. As you've noted, no way has yet been discovered to guarantee consistency in judging---two refs of a given level or rating will still see things and call things differently. I have encountered the same phenomenon as has your son: the same action is "attack" on one strip and "prep" on another, even at the same national-level tournament with high-level officiating. And the ratings of the refs do not seem to change this much...

Again, I'm sure that there may be some incremental gains to the general quality of refereeing accruing from the testing and rating process. How much, I am not sure of---but even if it's a lot, I still don't think the end justifies the mean in this case.

I applaud the USFA for requiring a level 5 ref at a qualifyer. I've seen young fencers with high aspirations done in by nasty old men, throwing around their power and their ignorance of the rules of modern competitive fencing.

Sadly, you will see the same thing at the international level, too, ratings or no...

And I'm sorry if your division has to scramble to meet the requirements this year, but taking the written and practical tests are not that difficult. My kid and his buddies have done it -they're refereeing the lower rated division tournaments and are itching to get higher referee ratings.

With respect, you cannot extrapolate your experience to others. The individual time constraints and financial considerations of those in different circumstances may make what seemed simple to you difficult for others. And even the level of interest may not be the same. Someone who never fences out of the Division and never goes to Nationals anyway might have no motive to get a rating for his own sake, much less of his fellows; someone who only wants to fence may not care to referee at all, much less get rated.

I see by your profile that you're in Pennsylvania. Your situation is thus very different from some in other places. One size does not fit all---the USFA just insists on ignoring that, I'm afraid.

[achilleus]

Originally posted by Inquartata
Of course. I merely object to them trying to doing it with the stick instead of the carrot. I cannot fathom why it's thought better to "punish" fencers by keeping them out of Nationals in order to force SOMEONE to go to the trouble and expense of getting a 5 than to use positive incentives...

Um, how are fencer's being kept out of nationals? Division qualifiers will be more expensive, to cover the cost of paying for refs. The refs can be homegrown, or flown in.

Originally posted by Inquartata
This is one of the facts of life in fencing---you have to learn to adjust to the referee. As you've noted, no way has yet been discovered to guarantee consistency in judging---two refs of a given level or rating will still see things and call things differently. I have encountered the same phenomenon as has your son: the same action is "attack" on one strip and "prep" on another, even at the same national-level tournament with high-level officiating. And the ratings of the refs do not seem to change this much...

Yes, this is a fact in fencing, but the goal of the FIE is to objectify the rules as much as possible. The goal of the USFA is to make sure our fencers play by the same rules as the FIE, so that our fencers can compete at a higher level. So, it makes sense to limit the amount of misinterpretation out there.

Originally posted by Inquartata
Again, I'm sure that there may be some incremental gains to the general quality of refereeing accruing from the testing and rating process. How much, I am not sure of---but even if it's a lot, I still don't think the end justifies the mean in this case.

Again, I think it's a win-win situation, that benefits the majority. It helps build the base of refs for the USFA, and it helps the local fencing communities fence according to current interpretations. And it also makes fencers feel more confident knowing that their ref has some experience.

Originally posted by Inquartata
Sadly, you will see the same thing at the international level, too, ratings or no...

Very, very, very true.

Originally posted by Inquartata
With respect, you cannot extrapolate your experience to others. The individual time constraints and financial considerations of those in different circumstances may make what seemed simple to you difficult for others. And even the level of interest may not be the same. Someone who never fences out of the Division and never goes to Nationals anyway might have no motive to get a rating for his own sake, much less of his fellows; someone who only wants to fence may not care to referee at all, much less get rated.

I see by your profile that you're in Pennsylvania. Your situation is thus very different from some in other places. One size does not fit all---the USFA just insists on ignoring that, I'm afraid.

You're right, one size doesn't fit all, but the USFA needs to grow and expand, and if it caters to the smaller divisions, then it will always be held back. It's not the best solution, and there may have been better ways to go about implementing the rule, but given the USFA's lack of funds, this is probably the best they could do. And remember, it's just a starting point.

[achilleus]

Originally posted by Inquartata
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...

All nice ideas, and while were at it, why don't we just pay our fencers like professional athletes?

Bottom line is the USFA doesn't have the monetary resources to pay refs what they are worth, our provide free clinics. Unless of course, you'd like to donate lots of money?

[achilleus]

Originally posted by Inquartata
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.

Depends on whether you actually believe that fencing is getting along just fine in the US. The Goal of the USFA is expand fencing and get an olympic medal.

Keeping those goals in mind, this step is a logical one.

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by achilleus
Um, how are fencer's being kept out of nationals? Division qualifiers will be more expensive, to cover the cost of paying for refs. The refs can be homegrown, or flown in.

Because the rule says that Qualifiers must now have at least 1 ref rated 5 or higher or the event is invalid. No 5 ref, nobody qualifies.

You are right in that the Division can take on the additional expense of importing a 5 and thus validate their qualifiers. I would say that imposing such costs on a Division by fiat are as objectionable as telling it it must force one of its members to undergo the expense and inconvenience of becoming a 5. Either way, the USFA is solving its own problem ( not enough rated officials ) by forcing the cost of creating more onto the Divisions...a cost which will hit some Divisions much harder than others.

Yes, this is a fact in fencing, but the goal of the FIE is to objectify the rules as much as possible. The goal of the USFA is to make sure our fencers play by the same rules as the FIE, so that our fencers can compete at a higher level. So, it makes sense to limit the amount of misinterpretation out there.

Agreed. I just don't think this is a very good or fair way to go about doing it.

Again, I think it's a win-win situation, that benefits the majority.

The smaller Divisions such as mine do not "win" anything beyond the right to go to more trouble and spend more money in order to grow the corps of rated officials for the USFA. If you define "the majority" as "the bigger, more heavily populated, more affluent Divisions", you're right, it benefits them---they already have rated refs for the most part, and will incur no costs. The only benefit across the board is the unmeasurable ( therfore questionable ) "enhancement" of expertise among directors...more than offset by the cost, IMO.

[achilleus]

Originally posted by Inquartata
Because the rule says that Qualifiers must now have at least 1 ref rated 5 or higher or the event is invalid. No 5 ref, nobody qualifies.

You are right in that the Division can take on the additional expense of importing a 5 and thus validate their qualifiers. I would say that imposing such costs on a Division by fiat are as objectionable as telling it it must force one of its members to undergo the expense and inconvenience of becoming a 5. Either way, the USFA is solving its own problem ( not enough rated officials ) by forcing the cost of creating more onto the Divisions...a cost which will hit some Divisions much harder than others.

The division won't bear the cost, the fencer's will.The qualifiers will be more expensive, and to cover cost, the tournament is more expensive. And it's not that difficult to get a ref to drive or fly out, it just takes money. But then again, so does competing at national events.

Originally posted by Inquartata
The smaller Divisions such as mine do not "win" anything beyond the right to go to more trouble and spend more money in order to grow the corps of rated officials for the USFA. If you define "the majority" as "the bigger, more heavily populated, more affluent Divisions", you're right, it benefits them---they already have rated refs for the most part, and will incur no costs. The only benefit across the board is the unmeasurable ( therfore questionable ) "enhancement" of expertise among directors...more than offset by the cost, IMO.

The majority of the divisions aren't protesting as vehemently as you. The majority of the divisions have refs available, either in the division, or a neighboring division that is a short drive away. The majority of the fencing populace reside in these divisions. What about majority don't you understand?

The USFA can't please everybody. When they try to do that things are usually worse off than before. This isn't one of those cases.

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by achilleus
The division won't bear the cost, the fencer's will.

A distinction without a difference, as far as I can see. The fencers ARE the Division, no?

The qualifiers will be more expensive, and to cover cost, the tournament is more expensive. And it's not that difficult to get a ref to drive or fly out, it just takes money. But then again, so does competing at national events.

This is the point, is it not? The rule causes recreational fencers who don't want to compete nationally---and who far outnumber the serious, driven competitors, in my experience---to dig deeper into their pockets to meet a new cost which will not benefit them at all. To pay more so that the Division may comply with a rule which benefits (a) the USFA, by expanding the pool of officials it can call upon for its NACs, and (b) the elite or most competitive members of the Division who care about Nationals. The rest? Cash cows.

[The majority of the divisions aren't protesting as vehemently as you. The majority of the divisions have refs available, either in the division, or a neighboring division that is a short drive away. The majority of the fencing populace reside in these divisions. What about majority don't you understand?

I understand majority. I said, of COURSE this rule is fine with them, as it doesn't affect them negatively. How does that make it OK? Or are you arguing that it is acceptable to screw a few people in order to provide a small net benefit to some and remain neutral for the lion's share? Perhaps only the majority matters and the minority is only there to serve their interests?

[achilleus]

Originally posted by Inquartata
A distinction without a difference, as far as I can see. The fencers ARE the Division, no?

This is the point, is it not? The rule causes recreational fencers who don't want to compete nationally---and who far outnumber the serious, driven competitors, in my experience---to dig deeper into their pockets to meet a new cost which will not benefit them at all. To pay more so that the Division may comply with a rule which benefits (a) the USFA, by expanding the pool of officials it can call upon for its NACs, and (b) the elite or most competitive members of the Division who care about Nationals. The rest? Cash cows.

The USFA has looked at the rec fencer that way for a long, long time.

Despite that, I don't see the price going up so much as to prevent people from going to tournaments. After all, people involved with fencing understand that it costs money.

Originally posted by Inquartata
I understand majority.

Um, you asked if that's what I meant by majority. What definition did you expect?

Originally posted by Inquartata
I said, of COURSE this rule is fine with them, as it doesn't affect them negatively. How does that make it OK? Or are you arguing that it is acceptable to screw a few people in order to provide a small net benefit to some and remain neutral for the lion's share? Perhaps only the majority matters and the minority is only there to serve their interests?

The USFA needs to grow, and unfortunately that growth is impossible if it caters to the lowest common denominator. And growth is what the USFA is after.

You can argue that this won't help growth, but I think it's safe to say that people on this board will disagree with you.

Bottom line, this rule is a great starting point for better reffing, and better organization of tournaments.

[edew]

Inq, you know what would happen if you double the entry fees at all local tournaments? You get more fencers to attend the tournament! And, you'll have fencers REQUESTING that rated referees be present because they're paying good money, and there's lots on the line.

Of course, there's a limit to what people will pay. But given that USFA is charging $40/$35 or whatever and there doesn't seem to be any let-up at national level events (even those that have no point value, like Div II/III), you need to review your business economics again.

Somehow, from your writings, it appears you see things with a clear black-and-white sort of way, and reality is much more colorful and hued. Also, as noted before, you seem to show a lack of offering solutions while B&M about the problem, when in reality, it's not a problem.

Now, if you, personally, are negatively affected by an increase in entry fees, may I suggest you take up a cheaper sport, like tiddly-winks. Doesn't tax the brain much either, I'm told.

[swordsen]

My my, peope are getting nasty now.

maybe in SF more people would show up if you doubled the cost of events. Around here I suspect I would be looking at an empty gym come tournament day.

[achilleus]

Originally posted by swordsen
My my, peope are getting nasty now.

I wouldn't say people, I'd say EDEW...

Originally posted by swordsen
maybe in SF more people would show up if you doubled the cost of events. Around here I suspect I would be looking at an empty gym come tournament day.

Actually, the west coast is that way. Take a look at ocfencing.org and look at the Long Beach Invitational. Granted it's a larger tournament than most, but everyone out here is willing to pay for refs. After all, those who show up to fence, are there to fence, not officiate.

[edew]

I'll be fencing at the Long Beach Invitational. And officiating as well. They will pay part of my travel cost in exchange for my officiating.

And, they'll get their numbers for fencers (despite it being so early in the season).

The Duel In The Desert is rather expensive, at around $50 total (entry fee and registration fee). It will be well attended again this year.

If you look at the Southern California Division's webpage, you'll see the Southern California Youth Circuit. It charges $9.00. Excuse me, but why $9.00? Why not an even $10 so hosts don't have to get a bunch of $1's before the event? Parents are going to pay for the entry fee, not the fencers themselves (they're youths). If parents can't afford the extra $1, they shouldn't be in the sport.

And what will that extra $1 do? If thirty fencers show up, you've got that extra $30 to pay (or partially pay) a decent referee while still come out relatively ahead. You can buy better prizes. You can save up for a Favero remote control unit at $600.00.

People appreciate value. Part of what determines value is the price. People see a Lexus as more valuable than a Toyota despite the fact that they have the same chassis and engine and lots of other items. Why? Because a Lexus costs more than a Toyota.

Why do most fencers buy Adidas fencing shoes? (And don't give me the "I don't wear them" BS. If you look around at a tournament, around 90% of all fencers wear Adidas fencing shoes.) Because they are perceived to have better value. And Adidas can charge a premium for that perception.

I am surprised at people's lack of realization on pricing. If you pick up almost any book on marketing or sales, the number one mantra they give is, "a lower price does not imply a larger demand". The only items where price and demand are related as such are commodity items. Oil and gas are commodity items. You don't really care whether you get your gas from ARCO or Chevron or Citgo or wherever. (Well, some do, because those oil companies try to make their product into a non-commodity). Generally, people go to the lowest cost, or most convenient.

But fencing is NOT a commodity. Fencing is not grain or oil or electricity. It shouldn't be marketed as such, and should not be dependent on "lower price will bring in more people."

I will guarantee, for those club owners reading here: if you have not raised your floor fees or lesson fees within the past three years, raise them and you will get MORE people in your doors, MORE people willing to pay the additonal fee (of course, you need to advertise that fee).

How much should you raise it? Well, that depends on your area and your current fees. If you're charging $10/lesson, go to $20. Yeah, you'll scare away all your present students. Maybe. Some will stay. But you know what, with the extra money, you can advertise and new people will come. They won't know about the older price and will decide there and then whether it's worth the $20.

If your floor fee is $3, make it $5. If it's $5, make it $7 (or better yet, $10).

The West Coast may very well be that way. We may be charging the nation's highest entry fees. But guess what? Our numbers are growing, we are running low on coaches. Our biggest bottleneck for even greater growth are lack of coaches and lack of space, not lack of demand.

The Bay Cup, which I administer, charges a one-time per year $40 fee on all fencers, whether they fence all possible events or just one. Are we losing people to the sport? We get grumblings, of course, from some people. We get some people who would like to sneak in without paying the $40. But for the most part, 99% of the fencers pay, and they THANK me for running the program. (And frankly, I get $0.00 from doing the work.) I'm getting emails from clubs who've been outside the loop, asking how to join. We had a drop from the sabre contingent from Sacramento this past season, but our youth program practically made up the difference. Our youth-12 events this year will average about 50 fencers for the boys' events and 20 fencers for the girls.

I've been asked to raise the ENTRY fees to $20/event for this year. I'm actually dragging my feet because some others are saying that it's too quick, no notice, and what are fencers going to get for that (typical questions like the gripes others have posted here). So, it's CAPPED at $20, but expected to be $15 for most events.

What events will charge $20? Those with slo-mo instant replay. Those with special prizes for fencers in addition to the medals. Those who provide a full suite of referees for the critical events (Open Men's Foil, Open Men's Sabre). All of our other events are fully staffed with referees. Why do people want to referee at our events? Because we pay them up to $80/day. Paying 6 referees $80 means $480. To make that profitable for the host club, we can't be dicking around at $10/fencer-event prices. (The Bay Cup's $40/fencer registration fee pays for part of that $480.)

Look, we in the Bay Area are in a recession. Lots of people are out of work, some of them fencers. I too am wary of raising prices. I think that's a natural reaction most people have at raising prices. But I'm constantly amazed at the effect, and have to remind myself of that fact. Raising prices don't scare people away. It brings in more people. Imagine that.

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by achilleus
The USFA has looked at the rec fencer that way for a long, long time.

Yep.

Despite that, I don't see the price going up so much as to prevent people from going to tournaments. After all, people involved with fencing understand that it costs money.

Yep, again. But this costs also falls on those who DON'T want to fence competitively, as I said. their Divisions will have to charge them to cover the cost of getting one or more refs rated 5, or else to import them for Qualifiers. And they get very little return for it.

The USFA needs to grow, and unfortunately that growth is impossible if it caters to the lowest common denominator. And growth is what the USFA is after.

Unfortunately, if it ignores it's membership it might end up with a little cadre of elite fencers and not much else. The "lowest common denominator" pays the bills. Ignore them too far and...well, we have had acrimonious disputed elections over control of the USFA before. Wasn't pretty.

You can argue that this won't help growth, but I think it's safe to say that people on this board will disagree with you.

Which is not of course the same thing as saying that I am wrong...

Bottom line, this rule is a great starting point for better reffing, and better organization of tournaments.

I simply disagree. even we lowest common denominators can still do that, can't we?

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by edew
Inq, you know what would happen if you double the entry fees at all local tournaments? You get more fencers to attend the tournament!

Eric, which school of economics did you attend, and when did they manage to repeal the laws of supply and demand?

And, you'll have fencers REQUESTING that rated referees be present because they're paying good money, and there's lots on the line.

Mmm hmm...

Of course, there's a limit to what people will pay. But given that USFA is charging $40/$35 or whatever and there doesn't seem to be any let-up at national level events (even those that have no point value, like Div II/III), you need to review your business economics again.

We shall see what happens to attendance at NACs. As to the last point, there's a saying: "Don't try to teach your grandmother to suck eggs". I've a degree in economics---what're your qualifications?

[achilleus]

Originally posted by edew

Why do most fencers buy Adidas fencing shoes? (And don't give me the "I don't wear them" BS. If you look around at a tournament, around 90% of all fencers wear Adidas fencing shoes.)

Because they don't know any better.

Sorry, I really think that's a bad analogy here.

A well organized tournament, everyone can agree is worth more money. A fencing shoe, well, that's a different story.

[achilleus]

Originally posted by Inquartata

Yep, again. But this costs also falls on those who DON'T want to fence competitively, as I said. their Divisions will have to charge them to cover the cost of getting one or more refs rated 5, or else to import them for Qualifiers. And they get very little return for it.

A well organized tournament is worth the money. Believe me. Again check out the LBI or Duel in the Desert...

Originally posted by Inquartata
Unfortunately, if it ignores it's membership it might end up with a little cadre of elite fencers and not much else. The "lowest common denominator" pays the bills. Ignore them too far and...well, we have had acrimonious disputed elections over control of the USFA before. Wasn't pretty.

No, the majority pays the bills. The lowest common denominator, and the highest are ignored.

Originally posted by Inquartata
Which is not of course the same thing as saying that I am wrong...

I don't see the world in black and white. I think this good for fencing, for the reasons I've mentioned. Yes it hurts some divisions, but on the whole, it's a step in the right direction.

Originally posted by Inquartata
I simply disagree. even we lowest common denominators can still do that, can't we?

Sure. But the rule is still in effect.

[edew]

Well, here's the fact. I just got home from officiating at the first Open Men's Foil and Category-2 Men's Foil event we held for the Bay Cup. 29 entries for the Category-2 and 30 in the Open. That's 59 fencers! Last year, we averaged about 17 fencers in the Category-2 and 25 in the Open. And guess what, we charged $20 (as opposed to the standard $15) entry fee. Did people ***** there? Actually, they were very happy. We got compliments for running the event quaickly and efficiently.

As for pricing strategies in general, I'd suggest you read some books by Ries and Trout, Neil Rackham, and Kiyosaki's "Rich Dad/Poor Dad" books. All of them say the same thing: a high price does not immediately mean fewer buyers.

Andy Grove made the same comment to his directors and managers: never price a product based on the cost of making the product. Price it on what the market will bear. If someone is willing to pay $400 for a CPU chip, charge $400, even if it costs you $35/chip to make. Charge $500 and see if there's any drop in takers.

If you look at concerts nowadays, you have folks like the Rolling Stones who charge $300/ticket. People pay. That's $300! But they sell out all their concerts. Should they consider their costs for running a concert, add 10% and be happy at that number? Of course now, they determine what the market will pay, add 10% to that, and arrive at that $300 or whatever it is.

You guys really need to take some REAL economics course (not the BS thing that is taught in schools).

[sallearmourer]

EDEW is right. I use to charge 10.00 for rewires plus parts at NACS. I raise that to 20.00 plus parts. You think that I had a drop
in the number of rewires I do. NO NO NO they increased.. We from a small division and we have a number of 5 level or above referees. When we have a tournement in Moutain Home we have frencers from Portland and Seattle and NV attended our event. They pay to travel to us because we have good equipement and good nationals level referees. You be surpised at what pepole will pay for good service. Yes fencing is growing even in ID,


Tim