splitting events to get more ratings?

[theeyes]

is this practice contrary to the USFA ops manual, and is it a common occurence at unrated tournaments? A club in NJ this weekend seems to have split the field into two events in order to hand out more ratings. - is this allowed?

From USFA Ops-Man pg. 3-2: "Sanctioned tournaments or competitions are those published by an acceptable USFA official (Division, Section, Regional Youth Circuit or National USFA)means of communication – in print, electronic media via email and/or official web site. Any deviation from published information about the sanctioned competitions– either in manner of operation or splitting or combining to increase the number of classifications to be earned can be the basis for withdrawal of the sanction and thus nullify award of classifications."

[telkanuru]

Looks like NJ screwed the pooch again. Who wants to sue?

[AndrewH]

Honestly, does anyone really care if there's an extra D and a couple of E's handed out?

[catwood1]

I was reffing this event, and I didn't even realize it was split in half until I looked at the results the next day. Granted, I left after the L8, so I'd like to think I would have noticed 2 gold medal bouts, but wow am I still pretty oblivious...

[MyrddinsPrecint]

To answer the original question--- you already have the answer. There isn't a secret extra rule that allows NJ to break that rule. Will the National Office notice and yank the ratings? Fairly likely.

Honestly, does anyone really care if there's an extra D and a couple of E's handed out?

I assume whoever wrote the rule cares.

[AndrewH]

I assume whoever wrote the rule cares.

I'm just saying I don't think it's an issue of great importance. There's serious cases of tournament fraud (South Jersey, North Carolina) and then there's stuff like this which, while somewhat contrary to the spirit of the classification system, seems to make people happy. I mean, if some kid gets a "bonus" E09, will that have any kind of serious or long term effect? I really don't think so.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

I'm just saying I don't think it's an issue of great importance. There's serious cases of tournament fraud (South Jersey, North Carolina) and then there's stuff like this which, while somewhat contrary to the spirit of the classification system, seems to make people happy. I mean, if some kid gets a "bonus" E09, will that have any kind of serious or long term effect? I really don't think so.

Hosting a secret tournament where kids at your club get to get ratings but others don't is contrary to the spirit of the classification system, but seems to make people happy. How is the long term effect different?

If the tournament is advertised as one thing, and is, instead, another, that's not fair to both the people who decided to go and those who decided not to.

[AndrewH]

Well in this case, the kids who got classifications actually earned them. They fenced in a tournament with all the prerequisites in place, and finished where they needed to. The tournament was advertised ahead of time, open to anyone, and I'm assuming followed USFA rules (except for splitting the event, apparently).

I'd even argue that although the tournament wasn't what was advertised, it was more advantageous to the fencers to split it. A 30 person U tournament is no different from a 15 person, as far as classifications are concerned. Considering how new fencers seem to hold classifications in such high regard, I'd say they got a better deal.

Really, I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm not associated with the club in question. I just think that this is one of those cases where a little discretion can be applied in the interests of the fencers.

[fencerX]

The organizer and division secretary should be asked which of the two events run was the one advertised on the schedule with the USFA only accepting classification changes from that event alone.

The resulting uproar would be well deserved and might convince the club and the division to pay attention to proper procedures.

[AndrewH]

The organizer and division secretary should be asked which of the two events run was the one advertised on the schedule with the USFA only accepting classification changes from that event alone.

The resulting uproar would be well deserved and might convince the club and the division to pay attention to proper procedures.

But you know it's not even like they held one tournament early, as to only include club kids. I've seen how these work before. Everyone shows up, you gather everyone together and say that you have enough people to run two D1 events. 4 extra people get classifications and are happy.

Who exactly is it that's being harmed by this?

[Coldfire]

Who exactly is it that's being harmed by this?

Probably the same rules sticklers that get all bent out of shape about socks

[KShan5[PrFC]]

I'd even argue that although the tournament wasn't what was advertised, it was more advantageous to the fencers to split it. A 30 person U tournament is no different from a 15 person, as far as classifications are concerned. Considering how new fencers seem to hold classifications in such high regard, I'd say they got a better deal.

What about the extra bouts the fencers didn't get?

There are rules and procedures that should be followed, so I fall on the other side of the argument; however, I probably care as little as you do.

[catwood1]

What about the extra bouts the fencers didn't get?

Bouts? Plural? There is exactly 1 bout that didn't happen that would have if it had been combined.

Really, I don't think it matters much. a 30 person U or 2 15 person Us. Not a huge difference. I've seen 30 person events split, and I competed in a 66 person E and under.

[fencerX]

But you know it's not even like they held one tournament early, as to only include club kids. I've seen how these work before. Everyone shows up, you gather everyone together and say that you have enough people to run two D1 events. 4 extra people get classifications and are happy.

Who exactly is it that's being harmed by this?

The fencers from both events who won't have classification changes accepted by the USFA because of the clear violation of the rule.

[AndrewH]

The fencers from both events who won't have classification changes accepted by the USFA because of the clear violation of the rule.

So what you're saying is that it's a victimless crime. I'm sorry, but I just don't believe in victimless crimes.

[The Jersey Devil]

A unrated mens foil event was advertised but 2 unrated mens foil events took place, one with 17 fencers and the other with 18. None of the ratings earned were by members of the club that hosted the competitions. Where is the problem?

[catwood1]

Yea, I think the 1 rating earned that day by a fencer from the club in question was in the girls event, which was not split.

[fencerX]

A unrated mens foil event was advertised but 2 unrated mens foil events took place, one with 17 fencers and the other with 18. None of the ratings earned were by members of the club that hosted the competitions. Where is the problem?

New Jersey.

Reading comprehension in New Jersey specifically.

[catwood1]

New Jersey.

Reading comprehension in New Jersey specifically.

LOL!!!!

Rep given. (And I'm even an NJ guy...)

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Look, if it's okay to split events, it will be fairly straightforward to tweak that for someone's gain. The rule says you can't do it. If the rule was changed to specify when and how it could be done to make it harder to do the potential bad things (ie, if all competitors agree to it, if the separation is done equally by club/rating but otherwise randomly, and each split event starts at the same time), I don't have a problem with it.

In this case, breaking the rule potentially screwed all of the fencers. Working to change the rule to allow this scenario under controlled circumstances might be a good idea. The good of separating it creates more people with ratings, but the act of separating puts all of the rankings at risk, which doesn't actually help people.