Club-Based Sanctioning of Tournaments

[oiuyt]

Note that the operations manual currently specifies minimums for local tournaments and for qualifiers that are lower than the minimums for national events.

I think that all competitions should be conducted on regulation-dimension strips, but that's not what US Fencing requires.

-B

[teacup]

There are no national standards in regard to the reasons for which divisions can deny sanctioning.

Personally, I have heard of the following reasons for events to be denied sanctioning.
Clubs can only host one event per season.
Divisions will only sanction events for the current season. (Thus organizers of events in the future must wait for approval.)
Events won't be sanctioned until qualifier dates have been set.
Scoring boxes aren't in the middle of the strip.
Prior results from tournaments run by the organizer weren't submitted to the division in a timely manner.
RYC's are sanctioned by the USFA, but other added events must be sanctioned by the division which may or may not be granted
Etc., etc.

[jjefferies]

I think that all competitions should be conducted on regulation-dimension strips, ..
-B

I would guess then that you're not one that has to worry about making the rent and the relationship between charges to the fencers and how much buildings cost per square foot.

But perhaps you or Greg would address a concern that was raised this evening. What happens if you attend a tournament and win a classification change. The following weekend or next month you fence another tournament with your new classification and your attendance is what makes the 2nd tournament an A or B or whatever. Then the following week the tournament that you won your classification at is protested. The challenge is accepted and that tournament loses its sanction. What happens to the second tournament?? It goes down a grade in classification, people who legitimately won a classification there now lose it? Or are classifications only going to be confirmed after the window for protests is over?

This could get very messy very quickly.

The most interesting coment of the evening was "the USFA which can't handle what's already on its plate is going to take over sanctioning as well?" eyes rolling.

[oiuyt]

I would guess then that you're not one that has to worry about making the rent and the relationship between charges to the fencers and how much buildings cost per square foot.

No, I don't run a club and rarely run tournaments.

I understand why, for practical-world considerations, we've chosen to allow smaller-than-regulation strips to be used, I just don't think they should be. As a competitor I'm okay, although not overly happy, with narrow strips. Twelve meter strips I feel materially change the game and would be very unhappy to compete on, to the point where if I knew about them in advance I probably would not attend a tournament in such a location.

What happens to the second tournament??

The details of the appeals process, how it is handled, and how the results of it are handled is part of what needs to be fleshed out over the next five months and part of why public feedback, comments, and suggestions have been actively solicited.

Drop Greg a note with the problem (he still lurks here, even though he rarely posts, and is extraordinarily likely to be following this thread, so a direct note may not be necessary). Even better, drop him a note with one or more proposed solutions/answers.

-B

[MyrddinsPrecint]

But perhaps you or Greg would address a concern that was raised this evening. What happens if you attend a tournament and win a classification change. The following weekend or next month you fence another tournament with your new classification and your attendance is what makes the 2nd tournament an A or B or whatever. Then the following week the tournament that you won your classification at is protested. The challenge is accepted and that tournament loses its sanction. What happens to the second tournament?? It goes down a grade in classification, people who legitimately won a classification there now lose it? Or are classifications only going to be confirmed after the window for protests is over?

This is a problem already. I agree that it could easily become a larger problem under this proposal, but it's ALREADY a problem to be solved.

If there are explicit criteria for what is allowed/not allowed at santionable tournaments, there very well may be a number of tournaments in the short term that are desanctioned and have ratings taken away (and that may cause the kind of mess you describe). I think that longer term, people will be on the lookout for desanctionable behavior and try to avoid it in tournaments they attend. At least in the sane places. Elsewhere there may even be sabotaging... (ie, I will bring my 11 year old daughter, and lie about when she was born, and then anonymously tip off the national office! muahahaha! ) although that could just as easily happen now, I suppose.

[flechewounds]

Note that the operations manual currently specifies minimums for local tournaments and for qualifiers that are lower than the minimums for national events.

I think that all competitions should be conducted on regulation-dimension strips, but that's not what US Fencing requires.

-B

Brad -

With regard to dimensions, this is the case because of space availability in the stronger, more urban divisions (NYC, SF). At the old NYFC, they used half-strips... at the SYC a few years ago, they used running track lanes - these were the spaces that were available.

That being said, Teacup's post also points out how arbitrary this can become - which is to say - how it has been used politically...

Gary.

[Wafath]

Perhaps I am reading too much into this, but....

I have been chewing this over for a while, in conjunction with some of the other threads, and I have been thinking "How will this benefit fencing?"

One benefit may be the end of schedule squabbling. Sure, there will be issues, but ultimately the USFA will ask "Did they break the rules?", and if yes, bad club, no biscuit for you, if no, then why are you complaining?

(Side note: A lot of this seems silly to me. There is *nothing* that prevents clubs from running non-sanctioned events right now, completely ignoring the division, the section, and the USFA. As a college club coach, we have a lot of fun going to exactly this sort of competition. Sure, we also sometimes go to USFA events, but perhaps if you really can't work with your division, stop being so worried about USFA rankings might help you.)

But is that it?

One possible "benefit" may be the end of divisions. If this rule is in place, the only thing that divisions are needed for are qualifiers. Couple this with the changes in the national schedule (which are billed as an intermediate step; towards what isn't entirely clear), we could see qualifiers move to the sections and/or the various circuit events active or planned.

(As I said, am I reading too much into this?)

In some cases, ending divisions could be a good thing. They represent a lot of effort for relatively little gain. In other places they are a mildly good thing; something that forces clubs to cooperate with net positive results.

Are they perceived as a bad thing? Too small, too petty, and to numerous to suit the needs of 21st century fencing? A step between the club and the regional/sectional divisions that represents 1950s thinking of the sport?

I don't know. But ending divisions, if this happens, is not going to be trivial. Most divisions have assets. In some cases this is trivial; an out of date scoring box and loose change. In others, the liquid assets can exceed $10,000 before you start looking at the equipment. The dispersal of these assets (even if dispersal means USFA takes all) is going to cause a lot of arguments (read: lawsuits).

In many cases, the division and section lines may need to be redrawn. The nature of sections and divisions may require a re-evaluation. But I am not sure that the plug should be pulled on them.

W

[jjefferies]

Perhaps I am reading too much into this, but....
:::::::::::::::::::
One possible "benefit" may be the end of divisions. If this rule is in place, the only thing that divisions are needed for are qualifiers. Couple this with the changes in the national schedule (which are billed as an intermediate step; towards what isn't entirely clear), we could see qualifiers move to the sections and/or the various circuit events active or planned.

(As I said, am I reading too much into this?)
W

I have been wondering about this as well. Several years ago during a conversation with Michael Massik, then the USFA Exec. Director, he made the comment that he would like to be rid of the Divisions. Since then I've heard similar comments made about the Sections etc. This seems to be a recurring thought of those at the national level. Which is interesting from several POV. My understanding is that the Divisions predate the national by some years. And arguably the Divisions are the face of the USFA to local fencers. My understanding is that the national has the responsibility for the development of the elite international fencer programs and selecting the contenders. While the Divisions are responsible for the local fencer development and act as feeders to the higher level elite programs through the qualifiers. One might wonder if the national is developing an interest in taking over the whole system. Not sure what that might mean for local clubs and independent coaches. And IMHO the national has not shown itself to be particularly competent or open in its policies. My oft repeated favorite quote from a favorite coach was that if the USFA were in charge of "SEX" as a sport not only would they not pull in spectators they'd be hard pressed to find participants.

So my question is why is this change desired or needed? To keep the National officers from having to involve themselves at the local level? Somebody's really jerking hard to try and sell that. Further most of the controversy that I'm aware of came about by at least open disagreements. We're going to replace that with appointed committees which will adjudicate without the benefit of counsel or public oversight? I'm basing my comments on how the USFA currently handles complaints. One of my biggest concerns with the National is how opaque it is in its decision making. You have to be a friend of someone to know what's going on and gossip is how one learns of much that occurs. That's one reason f.net is referred to as "that website" in National meetings giving the the impression that it is resented for being a sounding board about National activities. Just perhaps, some individuals are seeing this as a good thing as in posting this proposal.

In some cases, ending divisions could be a good thing. They represent a lot of effort for relatively little gain. In other places they are a mildly good thing; something that forces clubs to cooperate with net positive results.

Are they perceived as a bad thing? Too small, too petty, and to numerous to suit the needs of 21st century fencing? A step between the club and the regional/sectional divisions that represents 1950s thinking of the sport?

I don't know. But ending divisions, if this happens, is not going to be trivial. Most divisions have assets. In some cases this is trivial; an out of date scoring box and loose change. In others, the liquid assets can exceed $10,000 before you start looking at the equipment. The dispersal of these assets (even if dispersal means USFA takes all) is going to cause a lot of arguments (read: lawsuits).W

This is an argument that I will be presenting when making proposals to spend down our treasury on local programs. We're looking at director developement in the present season. Besides no reason to leave the money for the national

In many cases, the division and section lines may need to be redrawn. The nature of sections and divisions may require a re-evaluation. But I am not sure that the plug should be pulled on them.
W

If the Divisions are removed, I really can't see the national being able to handle the results.

[teacup]

So my question is why is this change desired or needed?

One reason is that due to the amount of work involved to run all of the qualifiers, some divisions are finding it difficult or unable to recruit volunteers to be officers.

There are many different variations amongst the divisions,

- large geographic area/small membership
- small geographic area/large membership
- small geographic area/small membership
- large geographic area/large membership

- some with permanent venues, others without venues
- Qualifiers can take 1-2 days total vs 6-8 days total
etc. etc.

[Wafath]

If the Divisions are removed, I really can't see the national being able to handle the results.

I wonder if part of the thinking behind the proposal is the belief that USFA National is already involved in some/most/all disputes on some level.

I, for one, hope that the eventual semi-automation of membership & ratings changes will help alleviate some of this.

W

[Wafath]

One reason is that due to the amount of work involved to run all of the qualifiers, some divisions are finding it difficult or unable to recruit volunteers to be officers.

If this is the concern, maybe instead of taking away sanctioning authority from divisions, we should be looking at removing qualifiers from divisions?

There are many ways to do this... there is nothing sacred about the way things are done now.

W

[teacup]

If this is the concern, maybe instead of taking away sanctioning authority from divisions, we should be looking at removing qualifiers from divisions?

There are many ways to do this... there is nothing sacred about the way things are done now.

W

That would also help address the disparities between qualifying at large vs small divisions.

[Morale Officer]

That would also help address the disparities between qualifying at large vs small divisions.

I'm just curious...how so?

[teacup]

I'm just curious...how so?

Currently, if you are at a small division with few fencers, three or fewer fencers just have to show up to qualify for JO's or SN events. In a large division fencers must fence and if events are fewer than 15, fencers must fence off for third. (This happens most often for women's events.)

If divisions no longer host qualifiers or they are "redistributed", then this may no longer occur.

[keith]

Currently, if you are at a small division with few fencers, three or fewer fencers just have to show up to qualify for JO's or SN events. In a large division fencers must fence and if events are fewer than 15, fencers must fence off for third. (This happens most often for women's events.)

If divisions no longer host qualifiers or they are "redistributed", then this may no longer occur.

So running with observations made in the competition schedule thread.

How does regionalisation work without this kind of disparity?

Working on the principle that regional means fencing in your region rather than flying all over the country to attend regional tournaments.

Some sort of qualification discrepancy is probably inevitable for fencing. Unlike athletics or swimming where numerical cutoffs can be made based on times or in the case of tennis where there is probably sufficient depth across regions to limit the problem..

[Morale Officer]

Currently, if you are at a small division with few fencers, three or fewer fencers just have to show up to qualify for JO's or SN events. In a large division fencers must fence and if events are fewer than 15, fencers must fence off for third. (This happens most often for women's events.)

If divisions no longer host qualifiers or they are "redistributed", then this may no longer occur.

At least to me, this would be a bad thing as there wouldn't be a distribution of all divisions in JO's or Nationals (provided Divisions were left as they are - talking hypothetical here). Now I'm sure to some, it wouldn't be an issue as there would be less competition and less possibility of the "best fencer in the division" not being up to the standards of some others. This is just my opinion, though. And not only equal distribution, but it would increase the distance some people would need to travel to get to an event. Of course, this is coming from one of the very few (if not the only one) females who primarily fence sabre in my div.

Coming back to the main topic: I'm one that would be in favor of allowing the clubs to sanction events themselves PROVIDED that there is a set of guidelines or minimum requirements set down by the USFA for sanctioning. Here's the thing, though, I am in a small division (Harrisburg to be exact). I'm sure that there might be a different effect in larger divisions though. Keep the divisions and sections in place for things like qualifiers, aiding with tournament dates, qualifier locations, and (if the case may be) the sharing of equipment owned by the division between clubs for tournaments. I also agree that there should be some type of appeals process for tournament disputes, but should it go directly to the USFA? Probably not first. I would say go to the sections first (this should help to eliminate small and petty disputes between clubs in a division - aka the "I don't like you and think you are beneath me, so I'm going to dispute this just because" kind of thing). Now, in the case of going to the sections, I would say that there should be some sort of "Tournament Dispute Committee" in the section composed of members representing each division in the section. Yes, I understand that could be quite an undertaking in larger sections, but it would be something that could be made to work (even at a distance) utilizing email, phone, etc. Basically it would come down to (what someone else said), "Did this club meet X, Y, and Z requirements?" If Yes, then there is no cause for dispute. If No, well, then the there should be a set of consequences much like getting carded. First offense, say a slap on the wrist. Second offense, say withdraw a club's sanctioning ability for X amount of time. Third offense, well, sorry, you're done "self sanctioning" until you can meet X, Y, and Z requirements and if you want to have a sanctioned event, a member of the Division or Section should be present to enforce X, Y, and Z requirements until further notice. Should there be further appeal option to the USFA? Probably, but not before going to the lowest link on the chain available. This, once again, is just my opinion and I think it could be made to work, but so could any number of different ideas.

[KD5MDK]

PROVIDED that there is a set of guidelines or minimum requirements set down by the USFA for sanctioning.

It's called the Operations Manual, and covers most of the topics available. Unfortunately, most tournament organizers have not read it. Of course, there are a number of things not covered in there, but it's extremely difficult to cover everything, and I'm sure it will be revised to add requirements for a number of details. A number of items will be discovered later, as various topics come up through the appeals process, and will be incorporated into the sanctioning guidelines explicitly and implicitly just like precedents and laws are amended in the common law tradition.


My expectation is that regional (probably not Division level, that's too close to the involved parties) bodies will be created to arbitrate the appeals and a national commission will handle the appeals of their decisions.

[KD5MDK]

This is my expectation of what will happen to Divisions and Sections

- Most of the ones I am familiar with are incorporated, and there is nothing that will dissolve them even if the USFA decided to remove them from the bylaws entirely. They are perfectly welcome to remain as non-profit organizations dedicated to promoting the sport in their area just like any other local non-profit. The Pacific Coast Section could continue the PCCs, and even include the presently excluded but historic fencers from Oregon and Washington, even Alaska. There'd still be the bragging rights and trophies, just no qualifier spots.

- The Divisions that loan out scoring equipment to local events could continue to do so as part of their charitable mission. They can publish newsletters, host tournaments as fundraisers, put on referee clinics or coaching clinics or whatever they want to do to promote fencing. They just won't have a local monopoly on making decisions about the tournament business anymore.

[Morale Officer]

It's called the Operations Manual, and covers most of the topics available. Unfortunately, most tournament organizers have not read it. Of course, there are a number of things not covered in there, but it's extremely difficult to cover everything, and I'm sure it will be revised to add requirements for a number of details. A number of items will be discovered later, as various topics come up through the appeals process, and will be incorporated into the sanctioning guidelines explicitly and implicitly just like precedents and laws are amended in the common law tradition.

I understand that "it's" in the Operations Manual. Part of what I'm saying is that there should probably be certain additional things spelled out very clearly so as to avoid potential conflicts (and I know there are things spelled out in the manual). And I also understand that not every instance or possible problem can be covered (I'm a Paramedic and there are similar statements in my protocols about not every situation can be covered). This would be where some "advanced brainstorming" (the other part of what I'm saying) would be needed to cover what could be some of the more common disputes. Also things that would need to be spelled out very clearly would be the appeals process as well as the penalties for failing to comply. There are also some things that would need to be clarified in the manual so as to avoid major disputes. A quick example would be the part that states: "There should be a description of the terms, if any, for admission of spectators." I know I have seen disputes on here about that already and have heard opinions about it elsewhere. But these are things that would have to be "ironed out" in whatever final draft/version/etc is decided on.
To put it simply: Spell it out to the letter - exactly. That way the most commonly disputed items can be clear.
I understand that I'm not an expert and don't have everything memorized. I also appreciate being corrected if I'm wrong in anything I've stated above. I'm just trying to give the opinion/view point of one underdog (me...hi! ).

[KD5MDK]

I think that there are many topics where the acceptable answers or results may vary widely depending on conditions or implementation. For example, what are the acceptable range of temperatures for a venue? How much control must the organizer have over them. What counts as an acceptable floor? Do you need to measure the coefficient of friction for it in random locations?

Yes, the Operations Manual will need a lot of revising to fill this role. Probably will require annual updates and even midyear corrections. But this is something that hopefully can be accepted as a given if this proposal is adopted.