Club-Based Sanctioning of Tournaments

[mtarascio]

Clubs are always free to host events on their own, such as the Fence for Breast Cancer events with their subset of the "Senior" class of attendees (30+ is not a true open, and not a veteran event either, part of the division disinclination to sanction it), or other inhouse events.

Mr Patterson, I'm a little confused, as you are a member of the NEUSFA Executive Committee, please explain further why the NEUSFA Division had a disinclination to sanction the Fence Against Breast Cancer Tournament.

In my post, I stated that the NEUSFA will not sanction any charitable tournaments.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

It seems like some people are happy with the way their divisions are doing things, and some are not.

Would it be possible for to mandate each division hold an election? Either keep sanctioning the way it is, or to change to this policy? That way, for the divisions where things are working, things aren't upset, but the divisions in which the majority of the fencers are not happy can move to something which might work better?

NEUSFA works well because while there are plenty of people who don't get along with other people in other clubs, the vast majority of people are professional enough to work together, and the primary form of "aggression" is trying to run better events. I doubt this can be duplicated elsewhere.

Mr Patterson, I'm a little confused, as you are a member of the NEUSFA Executive Committee, please explain further why the NEUSFA Division had a disinclination to sanction the Fence Against Breast Cancer Tournament.

In my post, I stated that the NEUSFA will not sanction any charitable tournaments.

Look, I haven't been at any Exec Committee meeting in which this has been discussed, but if you aren't aware of the myriad of reasons that people find your Fence Against Breast Cancer events to be awkward, off-putting, and while not bad in themselves would set a bad precedent, then you have no interest in actually listening to people's concerns, and just want to be a whiny *****.

[ysbadadden]

Picking up on points that various people have made already:

1) There should be clearly stated USFA criteria for operating a sanctioned tournament having to do with safety, organization, publicity, reporting, etc.
2) Clubs, divisions, and others should generally be free to offer sanctioned tournaments provided that these meet the criteria. Divisions should be forbidden (by USFA guidelines) to withold sanction from such tournaments, except for conflict with Division-sponsored qualifiers.
3) However, there should be some degree of coordination between tournament sponsors to ensure efficient scheduling (fair access to scheduling opportunities, minimization of conflicting events).

2) and 3) are of course in potential conflict. But most of the difficulties could be obviated by appropriate guidelines from the USFA. For example, there could be a timeline for setting the dates of events with deadlines for the divisions and the club organizers. This would minimize the potential for big Salle Nasty scheduling all its events to strangle those of little Peewee FC. A division-level meeting could be required to iron out any further conflicts. And if big Salle Nasty and little PeeWee FC want to duke it out on a given date, that might not be too much of a problem after all.

[fencerX]

Would it be possible for to mandate each division hold an election?

Uh, yeah, sure. Worked for New Jersey right?

[ysbadadden]

Quote:
Originally Posted by MyrddinsPrecint:
Would it be possible for to mandate each division hold an election?

FencerX responded: Uh, yeah, sure. Worked for New Jersey right?

New Jersey -- at both the division and club level -- is very, very good at putting on excellent competitions. It's just that there are some very competent people who don't play well together, and this has produced an Albany-style (sorry, Trenton!) quagmire at the top. But things work. Well.

[ysbadadden]

Quote:
Originally Posted by MyrddinsPrecint:
Would it be possible for to mandate each division hold an election?

FencerX responded: Uh, yeah, sure. Worked for New Jersey right?

New Jersey -- at both the division and club level -- is very, very good at putting on excellent competitions. It's just that there are some very competent people who don't play well together, and this has produced an Albany-style (sorry, Trenton!) quagmire at the top. But things work. Well.

[mtarascio]

I Clubs are always free to host events on their own, such as the Fence for Breast Cancer events with their subset of the "Senior" class of attendees (30+ is not a true open, and not a veteran event either, part of the division disinclination to sanction it), or other inhouse events.

Keep sanctioning at the division level.
Robert Patterson, NEUSFA Executive Committee member and (small) club owner.

The NEUSFA has sanctioned a Novice Mixed Foil for fencers 15 and older. (15+ is not a true open, and not a veteran event either, but the Division sanctioned the event).

How is a competition like this sanctioned but charitable events will not be sanctioned?

Why should a Division be allowed to decide what type of events are sanctioned?

[oso97]

Mr Patterson, I'm a little confused, as you are a member of the NEUSFA Executive Committee, please explain further why the NEUSFA Division had a disinclination to sanction the Fence Against Breast Cancer Tournament.

In my post, I stated that the NEUSFA will not sanction any charitable tournaments.

Actually, please don't. Take it to another thread. There is some useful discussion here, that would be overshadowed by a rehashing of old fights.

[mtarascio]

Actually, please don't. Take it to another thread. There is some useful discussion here, that would be overshadowed by a rehashing of old fights.

I agree 100% that this thread has very useful discussion. I am not interested in rehashing old fights as you say. I've said I feel the NEUSFA does a good job in scheduling tournaments. At this point, I don't care if my tournament is sanctioned or not. That is not the point.

I am not pro or con yet on clubs vs divisions sanctioning tournaments.

I requested a response as the poster signed off as a member of the Division Executive Committee. I believe we need to hear the logic of why one would sanction some tournaments and not others. If everything was perfect in the USFA the motion would never have been presented at the Board meeting.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

The NEUSFA has sanctioned a Novice Mixed Foil for fencers 15 and older. (15+ is not a true open, and not a veteran event either, but the Division sanctioned the event).

How is a competition like this sanctioned but charitable events will not be sanctioned?

Why should a Division be allowed to decide what type of events are sanctioned?

While many are uncomfortable with your chosen group, it was not listed as a reason to not be sanctioned.

The reason your tournament was not sanctioned is that it's a charitable event, and the division decided sanctioning all charitable events was problematic, and sanctioning SOME charitable events was even more problematic. So they decided to not sanction any.

I think it unlikely there would be a benefit for the KKK, but there could easily be a pro life or pro choice tournament-- Either one might annoy a considerable number of people, and the division might look like they're taking sides, which they do not wish to do.


Are there other divisions that hold sanctioned benefit events? How does their sanctioning process work? What if it was held for a controversial group/cause?

[Point online]

I agree 100% that this thread has very useful discussion. I am not interested in rehashing old fights as you say. I've said I feel the NEUSFA does a good job in scheduling tournaments. At this point, I don't care if my tournament is sanctioned or not. That is not the point.

I am not pro or con yet on clubs vs divisions sanctioning tournaments.

I requested a response as the poster signed off as a member of the Division Executive Committee. I believe we need to hear the logic of why one would sanction some tournaments and not others. If everything was perfect in the USFA the motion would never have been presented at the Board meeting.

The poster was indeed a member of the Division's Executive Committee -- as is a member of your club who was present at the meetings where this was discussed and voted on (so were you, I think, even though you could not vote; NEUSFA's bylaws allow every club to have 1 voting representative. This gives every club equal representation and is a key fact behind the fact that the division runs so well. If you have forgotten why the Division decided not to sanction charitable events, please refer to the old minutes). I think the previous request to take this to another thread was a valid one. You are, in fact, rehashing an old fight. One which I actually think you did have on another thread a while ago. I believe you are the only club (out of 20+) that has ever had an issue with the way NEUSFA schedules/sanctions tournaments. Feel free to have the last word on this thread if you want to. I vote for not responding.

[fdad]

While many are uncomfortable with your chosen group, it was not listed as a reason to not be sanctioned.

The reason your tournament was not sanctioned is that it's a charitable event, and the division decided sanctioning all charitable events was problematic, and sanctioning SOME charitable events was even more problematic. So they decided to not sanction any.

I think it unlikely there would be a benefit for the KKK, but there could easily be a pro life or pro choice tournament-- Either one might annoy a considerable number of people, and the division might look like they're taking sides, which they do not wish to do.

Are there other divisions that hold sanctioned benefit events? How does their sanctioning process work? What if it was held for a controversial group/cause?

I think dwelling on this specific situation is probably not going to be productive. But yes, other divisions do sanction charity events. The ROC to be held this weekend is a charity event. While technically sanctioned by the division, its effectively sanctioned at a national level too.

What this thread has pointed out is that there is currently no national standard for why an event should or should not be sanctioned (or for what it means to be sanctioned). If the proposal is passed, and a national appeals process is put in place, the first thing that would need to happen is for someone to decide on this standard.

Currently, the divisions not only administer the sanctioning of events, but they set local policy on santioning including why/why not and what it means to sanction (club runs event or division runs event, avoid schedule conflicts, etc.)

It seems to me that many of the current set of problems would be resolved if there were a national standard and appeals process, and the divisions were still involved in the administration but less in the setting of policy.

[Point online]

3) However, there should be some degree of coordination between tournament sponsors to ensure efficient scheduling (fair access to scheduling opportunities, minimization of conflicting events).

2) and 3) are of course in potential conflict. But most of the difficulties could be obviated by appropriate guidelines from the USFA. For example, there could be a timeline for setting the dates of events with deadlines for the divisions and the club organizers. This would minimize the potential for big Salle Nasty scheduling all its events to strangle those of little Peewee FC. A division-level meeting could be required to iron out any further conflicts. And if big Salle Nasty and little PeeWee FC want to duke it out on a given date, that might not be too much of a problem after all.

And now back to what this thread was about....

The problem is that if you say "any club can sanction its own event" there is no way to avoid things like conflicting events. If Club A wants to run its event on Popular Date Y, and so does Club B, how does that get resolved? Even if you set up a timeline, how would that force either club to give up its desired date? You'd have to put it up for vote among more clubs than just those two...which is in essence what happens (should happen) now at Division meetings -- BECAUSE the Division decides what to sanction. (The NEUSFA actually has a Tournament Committee, made up of members of the Executive Committee -- meaning more than one club is represented. They take in requests from all clubs as to what tournaments they would like to host and on what weekends; draft an initial schedule, which is then voted on by the entire Executive Committee.)

[cardinalflyer]

Do the divisions with the apparent power struggles Not have a more or less democratic executive committee to over see events? Is that part of the problem, no checks & balances in place? Ours (NEUSFA) seem to work pretty well to keep fees in line with costs so we're not intentionally racking up tons of profit on the backs of our fencers. The hosting clubs do receive a per/fencer compensation for hosting the event, the referees get paid, the medals are paid for and the medal ordering is taken care of seperately. The main burden on the club before the event seems to come down to picking up the division laptop if needed, downloading the askfred info, picking up the medals and hiring the refs.
I have 3 fencers in my family and occasionally fence multiple weapons myself, so I am all for lowered costs. Using askfred for prepaid registration lets us get sort of a handle on how many refs are needed, with any profit usually coming from the folks who walk in and pay a slightly higher fee for regular events (and a lot more for qualifiers, where we support a referee per pool, so we really want to know who is coming beforehand so don't under/over hire). And those profits help cover expenses where we got the ref count wrong or the turnout was lower than expected and an event loses some money. I think its a nice system - with the clubs not responsible for all costs they don't have to worry about losing money and thus not be scared from running an event. The division oversight also helps to keep a nice mix of events out there also so all fencers mostly have reasonable chances to compete.

[Point online]

It seems to me that many of the current set of problems would be resolved if there were a national standard and appeals process, and the divisions were still involved in the administration but less in the setting of policy.

I think having a national standard is a valid suggestion. The USFA could specify a process, ie. one like the one NEUSFA uses, where members from different clubs draft a schedule and that schedule is then voted on... The problem, of course, is: what is the penalty if a Division doesn't comply? (ie. it seems like the New Jersey division can't even get together to elect a Chairman!). How do you enforce this? Do you withhold sanctioning from that Division's tournaments? A lot of fencers would be hurt simply because the ones in control are out of control....I see the problem and the possible reason behind this proposed motion. However, I hate the fact that, if this motion passes, it would hurt divisions where the status quo is working just fine, thank you.

[gatun.czone]

The NEUSFA actually has a Tournament Committee

Our division, Harrisburg, also has a tournament committee. It is chaired by a member at large and has a member from each of the USFA clubs plus a few other division members. If a club wants to have a tournament, they submit the info (date, location, weapons) to the tournament committee. They review it and sanction it. How do other divisions sanction tournaments if they do not have a tournament committee?

Nannette

[fencerX]

Our division, Harrisburg, also has a tournament committee. It is chaired by a member at large and has a member from each of the USFA clubs plus a few other division members. If a club wants to have a tournament, they submit the info (date, location, weapons) to the tournament committee. They review it and sanction it. How do other divisions sanction tournaments if they do not have a tournament committee?

Read post #10 above by Oiuyt in this very same thread

Club-Based Sanctioning of Tournaments

[Wafath]

Very interesting. If this proposal passes, it will certainly change the established dynamic of fencing.

I think there are a lot of unintended consequences of this change that would need to be hashed out.

- Event advertisement: In the old days, one of the responsibilities of divisions was to centralize the publication of sanctioned tournaments. For the cooperative justification was to let athletes find competitions they wanted to attend. The other was to prevent a club from giving out rankings by just having their own members fence each other. Pre-web, this advertisement was done by newsletter. Post-web, most (all?) divisions had web pages, and now Post-AF, most divisions have both a web page and list events on AF.

Q: What will prevent a club from just advertising the event internally? Will the USFA bless AF, or will Hang-a-Star be leveraged to replace AF? (and if so, will Hang-a-Star support all the tournament mangers that AF does?)

- Event standards: In most divisions, the local EC serves to ensure the event is held at a certain quality, prices are kept reasonable, and rules are followed. This works very differently in each division, and a bare minimum of acceptability varies heavily. (EG, I have heard it claimed that boxes with integrated time & score are considered a minimum requirement in the NE, while in DC, they are almost never seen.)

In most cases, the minimum standard we expect is above what is strictly required by the rules. With this rule, expect to see $50/fencer competitions that are self reffed & held in 90 degree venues without AC. Naturally, market forces may help deter such events, but the market is a guiding hand, not a stick.

Q: Will we see changes in the ops manual/athlete handbook to increase the minimum standards for competitions? If so, would this also prevent some clubs that currently host competitions from hosting them?

- Division Cooperation. In my area, many competitions and events (eg, ref seminars) are run by the division, as they either don't serve the business interests of a single club, or are two big for any single club to handle (for example, the Cherry Blossom). By moving sanctioning authority from division to club, you may make it harder for divisions to push these events.

- Tournament Socialism. In my area, smaller & isolated clubs are encouraged to host by the division. The division offers organizational and material support, and ensures a division wide monopoly for that date. Geographically isolated clubs may now find themselves unable to host rank-giving tournaments because they can not secure the support or the monopoly.

- Shenanigans. Divisions (with mixed, but generally positive success) are able to squash unsavory behavior of clubs. This rule change may enable some games:

* club based pricing: Host a $100/fencer competition, but give your fencers $95 back, in either services or cash. This would allow you to inflate the ratings of your fencers.
* predatory tournament scheduling: Every time a club you don't like hosts a tournament, host one the same weekend. It may not make you money, but it will certainly hurt the competition. Depending on your situation, it may cost you close to nothing to do this.

... And a slew of other games that clubs could play that I haven't even considered.

- Weaker Divisions. Sanctioning gave divisions a big stick in order to get the necessary work done. Qualifiers, at least in my area, tend to be unprofitable competitions. In some years, the division has granted a club additional competitions if it agreed to host a qualifier event. Also, by controlling sanctioning, the division could ensure that the qualifier was scheduled before clubs could ask for their events.

If this rule is passed, we could see more divisions unable to run the required qualifier events.

----

None of these are unsolvable problems. If passed, this would certainly shake up the established order of things. In some areas of the country, this rule change could be a very good thing for fencers, but in my area I think it will hurt fencing in the short term.

It would be safe to say that some of my concerns amount to fear of change. But personally, I see the erosion of division authority to be a bad thing.

W

[Philistine]

I'm not sure what all the implications of the change would be--certainly they would vary depending on the division, and possibly even there from year to year.

If the real aim is primarily to address problems in a few divisions, it makes more sense to me to have more limited change.

Would these aims be more appropriately addressed by keeping the divisional sanctioning but putting in place an actual appeals process?

This would probably require (which is probably desirable, anyway, as others have pointed out), the USFA to come up with general bases a division can consider in determining whether or not to sanction.

The appeals process can go a number of ways: Some body in the division itself; the Section (possibly with members from the effected division recusing themselves); or some existing body in the USFA (say the Tournament Committee) or a newly minted body.

Possibly multiple levels of appeal (though that could get unwieldy).

I would hope that this process (appeals of denials of sanctioning) would work better with less acrimony and potential for gamesmansip than the proposed appeals of the sanctioning of tournaments that have actually taken place--though you could get into some of those issues if there are denials based on conflicting tournament times.

The upside is it keeps those divisions that are functioning well in pretty much exactly the same position (e.g., those that require coordination) and gives some relief to those in areas where they feel they are being unjustly shut out.

Just my $.02

--Philistine

[gatun.czone]

Read post #10 above by Oiuyt in this very same thread

Club-Based Sanctioning of Tournaments

Thanks for directing me back to this post. It seems as though it is an all or nothing as far as sanctioning. Is there any division doing something between a tournament committee and the clubs doing their own thing?
Nannette