Level 5 Refs at USFA Qualifiers

[Crash55]

My division had its scheduling meeting last week and it came up that all divisional qaulifiers now need to be overseen by a level 5 ref in each weapon. Our chairman called Bruce Gilman and he confirmed this. Has anyone else heard of this rule?

This seems rather extreme to me, especially deciding to impose it immediately. tehy should have given us a year so we could try and people rated. At present I do not believe my division has enough rated refs to do this so we will have to bring refs in form outside and this could get expensive.

Had they given us a year warning we could have pushed people to get rated. I have taken the ref clinic but I won't have a chance to take the practical until the Saraoga Springs Youth NAC at the earliest. Though that is dependent upon someone willing to give me the test.

From what I had been told you don't get to take the test until the refs decide you have paid your dues. Wehad one family that was traveling to tournaments just so their soen could get rated. Repeatedly they were told that people would be their to give the test but when they arrived the person either wasn't there or they wouldn't schedule the test. This happened repeatedly to them and I ghave heard similar stories.

I find it extremely annoying and hypocritical of the USFA to impose this rule about requiring levle 5 refs while throwing hurdles in the way of getting certified. This won't hurt the big divisions with lots of refs but the small ones that can't easily get certified refs. The USFA should have at least given these divisions some time so we could try and get people certified.

What do the rest of you think? I seriously considered trying to get the division to boycott Nationals but I doubt nayone there would notice. I would like to get together with some other divisions and send a protest letter to the USFA. Maybe if enough of us ocmplain they will relaize that this is a bad idea and will only hurt grassrots fencing. If anyone is interested please contact me.

Andrew Littlefield, Ph.D.
Vice Chairman Hudson Berkshire Division
littla@alum.rpi.edu

[sallearmourer]

You live in New York State and I know for a fact that there are several FOC pepole that live in the area. Sch. a tournement for your area for testing ref have your chairman talk to some of the foc to set up testing for ratings. I mean its not like you live in Id like I do. We have three rated referees in my family. Testing for a five rating doesn't have to be at a National Tournament.

What follows is from Adelia Loomis and not me. This is a disclaimer

Andrew, as the Vice Chairman of your division you should know each and every rated referee you have. There are ways to find out if you do not know. The FOC website has a list of almost every rated referee in the US. You could always ask the clubs if they have any rated referee and how high they are rated. I first took my written in the general and Epee in Louisville 2001. I then took the seminar and practical at that year's summer Nationals. That fall I took my written in Foil and Sabre, I now have a 5 in both Sabre and Foil, I also have a 4 in Epee. If a 17-year-old can do all of that in less than a year. I'm certain a man who has already earned a Ph. D. can do that. I know at least 4 FOC's in The NY area. Shall I name them? Sharon Everson, Jeff Bukantz, George Kolomavitch, Bruce Gillman. In order to take the written or the practical at a NAC, you must must put in a request in written form at least two weeks before the NAC to the FOC in charge of
that tournament. Since there are 4 of them in your Section, I'm sure it won't be that hard to set up a Tournament in order to test referees for their practicals. Also, talk to the closest FOC in your area and arrange for a seminar. Talk to the fencers, find out how many want to take the course. Then you set up the tournament.

Adelia Loomis

Tim :

[Crash55]

Well it depends upon what you mean by the area. The only FOC person I know is Bruce Gilman and he is in Long Island. I am upstate. If we had a tournament that would be big enough to get a level 5 rating then we probably could convince Bruce to come give the tests. Howevernone of our tournaments are that big. If you look at the ref study guide these are the levels:


A level 7 rating requires a passing score on the written
exam and a demonstrated proficiency at a level equivalent
to the finals of a C rated competition.
A level 6 rating requires a passing score on the written exam
and a demonstrated proficiency at a level equivalent to the
finals of a B rated competition.
A level 5 rating requires a passing score on the written exam
and a demonstrated proficiency at a level equivalent to the
first round of an Open North American Cup competition. A
level 5 rating must be earned before subsequent ratings can
be earned.

We normally only manage one or two c-rated events per weapon per year in this division and we haven't had a B rated event since the Blakeborough/PFL days. Our best bet for generating ratings is the Youth NAC in Saratoga in Jan.

[sallearmourer]

You do have a least one five rated referee in the Division. And at least 3 others with ratings. You can also get higher ratings at sectionals and be tested for ratings there. When I think of New York it's one state when you have 6 hrs for a local like we do that distance.


You do have a problem.

Tim

[Crash55]

I know one level 5 ref in epee and saber. I am not sure who our other rated refs are. At present I can only think of one level 10.

The problem with using sectionals to get ratings is that it is after the qualifiers. Had they given us advance warning we could have gotten a few people certified there last year. That is actually my biggest complaint, had we had a year's advance warning we could have gotten the neccesary people rated.

Six hours for a local event? We can't get people to travel 1.5 hrs nevermind 6. For a big event maybe 2.5 but no more than that.

[sallearmourer]

Yep Anywhere from 4 to six hrs drive for a local event. This is the reason that Southern Id whats to form its own division next year.

From Moutain Home Id to the Boise Club is a hr drive that the closest club to us.


Tim

[Inquartata]

I too do not believe that my Division has a single 5, at least not in sabre. Nor is my Division large enough to interest someone in coming and giving the instruction and tests ( meaning, there's not enough money in it ).

This is simply a way to increase revenue to the USFA and to those who teach the classes. A case of fixing what wasn't broken ( fixing as in "the fix is in", IMO ).

Of course, one can sometimes get qualified at larger tournaments. But that almost invariably interferes with FENCING in the tournament. Damned if I'll spend that kind of money travelling to a competition and not compete!

[edew]

Originally posted by Inquartata
I too do not believe that my Division has a single 5, at least not in sabre. Nor is my Division large enough to interest someone in coming and giving the instruction and tests ( meaning, there's not enough money in it ).

This is simply a way to increase revenue to the USFA and to those who teach the classes. A case of fixing what wasn't broken ( fixing as in "the fix is in", IMO ).

Of course, one can sometimes get qualified at larger tournaments. But that almost invariably interferes with FENCING in the tournament. Damned if I'll spend that kind of money travelling to a competition and not compete!

Your beliefs on why the FOC instituted the rules are, as usual, wrong. The FOC has no monetary interest in forcing 5's to local competition. Personally, I think the FOC is also wrong, at least in their approach: a person with a 5 basically means he passed the written with flying colors and haven't made enough bad calls in the presence of overseers.

However, the FOC is seeing that given that fencing is growing tremendously, there must be a standard level of refereeing or the smaller groups (you guys) will get hurt more in the long run. The suggestion is that your chip in some bucks and get your best referee tested for a 5 (hopefully in all weapons). Let that guy help the others along in understanding current interpretations and expectations.

Otherwise, you'll never make it out alive in anything by local club tournaments. Once you get to the bigger picture tournaments, your fencers will never see what others are calling. And it's what others are calling that matters, given that your little space is, er, little, as you so readily admit.

[135711]

you are correct, there is no monetary motivation there, all i see is a desire to create an environment in which all fencers will be treated to the fairest in fencing. It may also cause some of the more experienced fencers to dig in to the task of studying to take the exams for level 5. why not see what happens first instead of protesting immediately? It may thin out the pools, but it won't hurt fencing.

[dreadfoil]

As usual wrong. He didn't say that the organization was interested in money, he said he wasn't going to spend his.
-------------------------------------------------------



I too do not believe that my Division has a single 5, at least not in sabre. Nor is my Division large enough to interest someone in coming and giving the instruction and tests ( meaning, there's not enough money in it ).

This is simply a way to increase revenue to the USFA and to those who teach the classes. A case of fixing what wasn't broken ( fixing as in "the fix is in", IMO ).

Of course, one can sometimes get qualified at larger tournaments. But that almost invariably interferes with FENCING in the tournament. Damned if I'll spend that kind of money travelling to a competition and not compete!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Your beliefs on why the FOC instituted the rules are, as usual, wrong. The FOC has no monetary interest in forcing 5's to local competition. Personally, I think the FOC is also wrong, at least in their approach: a person with a 5 basically means he passed the written with flying colors and haven't made enough bad calls in the presence of overseers.

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by edew
Your beliefs on why the FOC instituted the rules are, as usual, wrong. The FOC has no monetary interest in forcing 5's to local competition.

You seriously believe that this is just another case of "we're doing this for your own good"?

The USFA makes no money on teaching, testing and rating officials? They do not therefore benefit by forcing more people to do these things?

I am not interested, normally, in the rationalizations that bureaucracies offer for their self-interested decisions. That these decisions may also prove beneficial to those they serve on occasion, the real driving forces are those which drive EVERY quango: more money, more employees, more jurisdiction. Their behavior can be explained by the injunction to "follow the money" just as can that of just about everyone else.

However, the FOC is seeing that given that fencing is growing tremendously, there must be a standard level of refereeing or the smaller groups (you guys) will get hurt more in the long run. The suggestion is that your chip in some bucks and get your best referee tested for a 5 (hopefully in all weapons). Let that guy help the others along in understanding current interpretations and expectations.

So you contend that it is impossible to "understand the current interpretations and expectations" unless one is annointed by an examiner with a rating that is probably about as meaningful as a fencing rating? Unless in other words one receives the imprimatur of petty officialdom? One cannot possibly do so merely by reading the rules and watching how the calls are made at major competitions?

Otherwise, you'll never make it out alive in anything by local club tournaments.

Meaning that rated REFEREES are the key to success?! Not a good coach, not good fencers, not hard training and conditioning and bouting, but duly tested REFEREES?!


Eric, methinks that maybe you've gotten a bit too closely involved in the official side of things. You're becoming a bureaucrat by association...

[Peach]

I'd rather have a rated referee (and preferably a nationally rated referee) at any qualifier that determines whether I get to go to an important event. I'm not fond of going to a qualifier where they use some local person who has "always done it this way" and whose interpretation of the rules is unfortunately idiosyncratic or antiquated.

I'm not saying I don't adjust to referees--sabre refereeing even at the national level incorporates a good bit of personal perception. I just hate it when a referee is calling it downright wrong. Not just for myself, but because someone like that is misinforming the fencers he or she routinely directs. When they get to a national event or even a different region, they're going to be outraged by what they see as "incorrect" refereeing, and they're going to lose bouts they could win. That's just counter-productive.

In our division, local tournaments that aren't qualifiers are often self-refereed. I don't really mind that, and I sometimes use them as teaching occasions because we need to encourage more people to become referees. I usually find that people are willing to try to improve.

[Crash55]

I don't have a problem with the rule itself. I have a problem with the implementation. Had they given us a year we could have gotten enough people rated to cover the qualifiers.

Since we are a small division so none of our local tournaments are large enough to produce a level 5 rated ref. This year we will have three chances to get level 5 refs without flying someplace: the Youth NAC in Saratoga Springs in Jan, Sectional Champs in CT in May, and possibly the Pomme de Terre in MA in Jun. Only the Youth NAC is early enough to help us with qualifiers this year.

At present we have exactly one level 5 ref in the division and he is rated in only saber and epee. So the division is going to have to pay to bring in refs from outside to cover foil and the saber and epee events that our ref can not make. This will but a financial burden on the division. We have already raised entry fees to qualifiers by $5 to offset this cost but still we will most likely lose money on the qualifiers. As these are the only events the division makes money from this will negatively impact us.

I think the initial impact of this rule will be to keep people from the smaller divisions from attending Nationals. Eventually it will help even out the way the rules are applied across the country but the first year or two will be a mess. A little warning could have avoided this.

[peircer]

Well, I happen to know that the division I'm currently stuck in doesn't have a single rated ref, much less a 5.

[Puppet Master]

Originally posted by Crash55
[ This will but a financial burden on the division. We have already raised entry fees to qualifiers by $5 to offset this cost but still we will most likely lose money on the qualifiers. As these are the only events the division makes money from this will negatively impact us.
[/b]

Don't you get a head tax from club hosted tournaments in your division??

I agree with you, its seems quick to implement this fast. Fencing is the only sport or game where the rules are chenged so much and quickly.

[achilleus]

Originally posted by Puppet Master

I agree with you, its seems quick to implement this fast. Fencing is the only sport or game where the rules are chenged so much and quickly.

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.

[achilleus]

Originally posted by Inquartata
You seriously believe that this is just another case of "we're doing this for your own good"?

The USFA makes no money on teaching, testing and rating officials? They do not therefore benefit by forcing more people to do these things?

I am not interested, normally, in the rationalizations that bureaucracies offer for their self-interested decisions. That these decisions may also prove beneficial to those they serve on occasion, the real driving forces are those which drive EVERY quango: more money, more employees, more jurisdiction. Their behavior can be explained by the injunction to "follow the money" just as can that of just about everyone else.

I don't see it as an either/or proposition, but mutually benefitting all parties involved. Fencer's get a ref who knows what's going on, and the USFA get's more refs it can ask to ref, and they still have the choice of saying no.

Originally posted by Inquartata
So you contend that it is impossible to "understand the current interpretations and expectations" unless one is annointed by an examiner with a rating that is probably about as meaningful as a fencing rating? Unless in other words one receives the imprimatur of petty officialdom? One cannot possibly do so merely by reading the rules and watching how the calls are made at major competitions?

Not impossible, but difficult. All too often a person will watch reffing at higher level events, and think they understand why the action was called that way. Return to their small division and tell everyone that's they way it's called without realizing the small nuances of why that one specific action was called that way.

Look at all the discussions that take place on this site about ROW, and tell me that people wouldn't benefit from learning the current interpretations. Everyone can read the rules easily enough, but seeing the action, and interpreting them correctly is different.

In all other fields of work, people need to be evaluated and qualified to do a job, officiating is no different. It doesn't mean that there all unrated refs are bad, just unrated.

Originally posted by Inquartata
Meaning that rated REFEREES are the key to success?! Not a good coach, not good fencers, not hard training and conditioning and bouting, but duly tested REFEREES?!

Buckie Leach made a plea a while back for US refs to call things as they do at world cups. His theory, if a fencer uses an action that scores repeatedly in the US, gets used to using, then goes to a world cup and tries the same action and loses 2 or 3 points, against an international competitor, it's over. Basically, we need to play by the same rules as the FIE, otherwise we show up with a handicap.

Same thing here. You can win your local tournament going into everyone's preparation, then show up at an NAC, and the ref says you countered, and all this time, you thought(and were practicing) you were attacking into prep.

Why hurt yourself? Or the fencers who spend the time and money to train and travel to tournaments?

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by achilleus
I don't see it as an either/or proposition, but mutually benefitting all parties involved. Fencer's get a ref who knows what's going on, and the USFA get's more refs it can ask to ref, and they still have the choice of saying no.

Hey, I too would love to have refereeing of the first water. But you cannot establish it by fiat. To mandate that a small Division incur a large expense and inconvenience of this nature is not the way to go about it, IMO. ( And after that expense and inconvenience is incurred, and the rated ref's job transfers him across the country, or he dies or loses interest in fencing, or graduates, or whatever, it's to be done all over again. )

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

Not impossible, but difficult. All too often a person will watch reffing at higher level events, and think they understand why the action was called that way. Return to their small division and tell everyone that's they way it's called without realizing the small nuances of why that one specific action was called that way.

I go to NAC's and such, and I stand somewhere behind the ref doing the 16, the 8, the finals. To myself, I call the action and award the touch before he does. Usually one or two times my call will differ from that of the ref. This with nothing more than long experience of fencing, and watching at competitions. But of course, I have no rating, so clearly I'm a blind ignoramus anyway, never mind the results.

Look at all the discussions that take place on this site about ROW, and tell me that people wouldn't benefit from learning the current interpretations. Everyone can read the rules easily enough, but seeing the action, and interpreting them correctly is different.

Agreed, but how does this translate into requiring a rated ref for Qualifiers?

In all other fields of work, people need to be evaluated and qualified to do a job, officiating is no different. It doesn't mean that there all unrated refs are bad, just unrated.

Right...but according to the USFA, they ARE now "unqualified" as well.

You can win your local tournament going into everyone's preparation, then show up at an NAC, and the ref says you countered, and all this time, you thought (and were practicing) you were attacking into prep.

Again, how does the requirement that there be a 5 ref at Qualifiers change anything? Is that one ref going to do every bout? And how does the rating make his understanding any better?

Why hurt yourself? Or the fencers who spend the time and money to train and travel to tournaments? [/b][/quote]

[Peach]

[quote]Originally posted by Inquartata
I go to NAC's and such, and I stand somewhere behind the ref doing the 16, the 8, the finals. To myself, I call the action and award the touch before he does. Usually one or two times my call will differ from that of the ref. This with nothing more than long experience of fencing, and watching at competitions. But of course, I have no rating, so clearly I'm a blind ignoramus anyway, never mind the results.

Hmmm. . . sounds like you ought to take the written & practical. We need more refs who can call it at that level. The way I got my rating was just by volunteering at Summer Nationals when I was in between events. I had already taken and passed the written at another NAC, or maybe it was at Sectionals.

[achilleus]

Originally posted by Inquartata
Hey, I too would love to have refereeing of the first water. But you cannot establish it by fiat. To mandate that a small Division incur a large expense and inconvenience of this nature is not the way to go about it, IMO. ( And after that expense and inconvenience is incurred, and the rated ref's job transfers him across the country, or he dies or loses interest in fencing, or graduates, or whatever, it's to be done all over again. )

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

Sorry, the cost won't fall on the divsion but the individual fencers. In a couple of the divisions I've fenced in, the tournaments with refs cost more to pay for refs. And the refs who want to get tested, pay for it themselves. Very rarely have I seen a division accept costs for this. But hey, if you are trying to qualify for a national event, you gotta be willing to spend some money.

Originally posted by Inquartata
I go to NAC's and such, and I stand somewhere behind the ref doing the 16, the 8, the finals. To myself, I call the action and award the touch before he does. Usually one or two times my call will differ from that of the ref. This with nothing more than long experience of fencing, and watching at competitions.

Great, take the test become a ref and solve your divisions problem.

Originally posted by Inquartata
But of course, I have no rating, so clearly I'm a blind ignoramus anyway, never mind the results.

Obviously you didn't read my post completely before replying.

Originally posted by Inquartata
Agreed, but how does this translate into requiring a rated ref for Qualifiers?

By having someone present who knows how rules are currently interpreted, it will be easier to spread the correct application of the rules.

Originally posted by Inquartata
Right...but according to the USFA, they ARE now "unqualified" as well.

They have always been unqualified at national events, and now they need ONE person to oversee them at qualifying events for said national events.

Originally posted by Inquartata
Again, how does the requirement that there be a 5 ref at Qualifiers change anything? Is that one ref going to do every bout? And how does the rating make his understanding any better?

I hope you realize that a piece of paper, or rating doesn't make anbody understand anything better. To get the rating, one needs to demonstrate their understanding. The rating just proves that they understand and are capable of applying the rules.

That said, one ref obviously can't do every bout, but that ref can do the finals, and see to it that the rules are applied correctly throughout the tournament.