ROC in NJ

[500gms]

Is a foreign national, a member of the FIE, eligible to fence in a USFA ROC?
Should a ROC bout committee know the correct answer?

[rsy]

George, give it a rest.

You questioned whether or not your foreign fencers could compete in the ROC and you knew that if the ROC was a qualifier, they couldn't. Rather than argue with you, the ROC committee contacted Bill Oliver and Kalie Weeks directly and you know that the bout committee received the ruling from them that the ROC was a qualifier and that your fencers were ineligible to compete.

All the bout committee did was convey that ruling to you and follow it themselves, If you have a problem with that interpretation, take it up with Bill Oliver and Kalie Weeks, because it was their decision, but leave the ROC bout committee out of it.

-r

[njconcerned]

on the askfred ROC info page it clearly states that foreign fencers are eligible. why did the new jersey BC not know this?

[pillow]

on the askfred ROC info page it clearly states that foreign fencers are eligible. why did the new jersey BC not know this?

This is an interesting point. It would seem to me that for example, a Junior NAC is a qualifier for the Summer National Junior Championships, and a Div I NAC is a qualifier for the Div I Nat Champs, if in both cases the fencer gets points. We have many foreign (eg Canada, Mexico) fencers at these events. This is exactly the same as a ROC being a qualie for Div IA--you qualify if you finish in the top 10%. So it would seem that foreign fencers should be allowed to fence.

This is not the same situation as a qualifier at the Divisional or Sectional level, where foreign fencers cannot fence. So why not have foreign fencers at a ROC; they cannot qualify for Div IA any more than they could by qualifying for the Div Nat Champs by winning a Div I NAC--but they get to fence the NACs, right?

[fdad]

George, give it a rest.

You questioned whether or not your foreign fencers could compete in the ROC and you knew that if the ROC was a qualifier, they couldn't. Rather than argue with you, the ROC committee contacted Bill Oliver and Kalie Weeks directly and you know that the bout committee received the ruling from them that the ROC was a qualifier and that your fencers were ineligible to compete.

All the bout committee did was convey that ruling to you and follow it themselves, If you have a problem with that interpretation, take it up with Bill Oliver and Kalie Weeks, because it was their decision, but leave the ROC bout committee out of it.

-r

Fencing in an RYC qualifies a youth fencer to fence in a NAC, but its not a national qualifier.
Fencing in, and getting points at, an SYC or NAC qualifies a fencer to fence at SN (and JO), but its not a national qualifier.
Fencing in a ROC and finishing top 10% qualifies a fencer for SN Div 1A, but its not a national qualifier (if it were then the top 10% should pass over any previously qualified fencers but it does not).
Anyone that reads the athlete handbook should know that without calling Kalle Weeks or Bill Oliver.

Just to bring you up to speed rsy, they realized their mistake and allowed one of the fencers to compete (for one it was too late to fix their error). The fencer in question had earned a C09 at a previous event in September, but she was added to an in progress pool causing it to be out of balance.

[fencinginNJ]

The USFA ROC website clearly states that foreign fencers can participate:

"Regional Open Circuit tournaments are open to current USFA competitive members eligible to fence in Open competitions and to foreign fencers with current FIE licenses. The top 10% (with a minimum of 4) finishers in each Regional Open Circuit event earn qualification to the Division I-A Championship at Summer Nationals. However, since foreign fencers are not eligible to compete in USFA national championship events, they will not be counted as part of the field in calculating the 10%. For qualification purposes, any foreign fencer who finishes within the qualifying group will be skipped over, and the next highest-finishing eligible domestic fencer will qualify."

What happened today has already happened; it is better to learn and improve. Afterall, this is a new type of tournament, and confusion can occur. The Sobel ROC has one more day of competition and the posted guidelines can be followed on Sunday.

[DonnaP]

Not at all happy with this event.

Positives: There seemed to be a reasonable number of strips and directors. There was food available. Floors were clean and not slippery.

Negatives: Our event was over 2 hours late. Not enough room period! No space for fencers to warm up, stretch out, not enough room for bags, families, etc. One bout committee official was vocally complaining that he had asked fencers to move their bags away from an open area of floor space -though there was absolutely no where else to put them. No PA system so no way of knowing when things were posted. Initial seeding was not posted for our event prior to pools. Seedings and tableaus were posted behind two doors - literally - you had to move the door to see the lists that were hung. Fencers fencing without long socks. I sent emails to the contact with questions regarding the event registration and never received feedback.

Honestly, it felt out of control. If ROC's are supposed to be filling the gaps for NAC's - this was not a great start. Hopefully they will have a better day for the fencers tomorrow. Sorry

[BrodeurNJD30]

Not at all happy with this event.

Positives: There seemed to be a reasonable number of strips and directors. There was food available. Floors were clean and not slippery.

Negatives: Our event was over 2 hours late. Not enough room period! No space for fencers to warm up, stretch out, not enough room for bags, families, etc. One bout committee official was vocally complaining that he had asked fencers to move their bags away from an open area of floor space -though there was absolutely no where else to put them. No PA system so no way of knowing when things were posted. Initial seeding was not posted for our event prior to pools. Seedings and tableaus were posted behind two doors - literally - you had to move the door to see the lists that were hung. Fencers fencing without long socks. I sent emails to the contact with questions regarding the event registration and never received feedback.

Honestly, it felt out of control. If ROC's are supposed to be filling the gaps for NAC's - this was not a great start. Hopefully they will have a better day for the fencers tomorrow. Sorry

Donna,

Try this one: http://askfred.net/Events/whoIsComin...nament_id=9036

I am positive you will have a good experience.

[eac]

Say, who won MF?

[fdad]

I wonder how ROCs can grow to fill the role they are expected to fill. The venue for this event was relatively large (bigger than the typical gym or fencing club), but not nearly large enough (events started 2 hours late with very long wait between pools and DEs). Not large enough even though a few weapons, notably Sabre and Epee, were relatively small due in part to strong competing events held nearby. Getting a venue with capacity to hold a large 6 weapon (even without vets!) event will require a significant up front investment and local organizers will not be able to assume that risk.

[sabermom]

I agree that the delayed starts were very frustrating. But I thought that the tournament was run pretty well overall. There were over 20 strips, there was enough room for walking around, the bleachers provided a good perch for watching the action, and strips were roped off so that fencers were not crowded by spectators.

One thing that I noticed: a week before the event, there were still low numbers for some of the events. I was pleasantly surprised to see the registration double for some events (it seemed) by the deadline. I imagine that it is difficult for a tournament organizer to plan for this (especially when scheduling refs, etc.) when fencers wait until the last minute to register. This last-minute registration seems to be part of our "fencing tournament culture" generally, and so I've been really pleased to see NAC deadlines move up. I think it would help make all tournaments run more smoothly if we could get into the habit of registering early when possible (fully, not "Incomplete")!

[Faire]

[/QUOTE]
Honestly, it felt out of control. If ROC's are supposed to be filling the gaps for NAC's - this was not a great start. Hopefully they will have a better day for the fencers tomorrow. Sorry [/QUOTE]

This ROC was a disappointment. 100 fencers waited in lines for equipment checks, delaying the opening events by over an hour. This delayed every event of the day and could have been anticipated. Our metal strip was not fastened to the floor and moved freely in a wave-like manner as fencers bouted, until a couple of exasperated onlookers remedied the problem.
The fencing room was overly hot, but improved as people took it upon themselves to open doors and got the ventilation system turned on.

Not only did fencers wait a long time for pools to start, there were over 2 hours between the pools and direct eliminations. There was no loudspeaker to announce reasons for delays or which room fencers would be expected to use, yet the bout committee was surly when asked questions.

Directing ranged from excellent to problematic depending upon the luck of the draw. One fencer left complaining loudly that she drove 4 hours to get to the event and endured six hours of waiting only to be misdirected by a director listening to an ipod. Directing was disappointing, exasperating and sometimes just biased, but that can happen when local clubs run such tournaments. It's one of the primary reasons the NAC circuit was created.
At a NAC, just as at a World Cup, biased directing can result in retaliation at the same tournament, which is a restraint. There's no such restraint at a local event.

How can local tournament committees, which hire local directors, expect them not to be biased against non-local fencers? At NACs directors are restricted from directing bouts where there might be a conflict of interest; they are not allowed to direct when either fencer is from their division. ROC organizers can't usually come up with enough directors without such conflicts, and/or the bout committee finds it difficult to control who directs which bouts.

Qualifiers like ROCs are high-stakes events for many of the cadet and junior fencers (who are typically the best fencers at these events), since college acceptance and scholarship money can ride on the cumulative outcomes. I think it was a serious mistake on the part of the USFA to hand over ROCs to individual clubs; they should be run by Sectional organizations in order to minimize bias.

I would not recommend that anyone travel a significant distance to any ROC unless they know in advance the reputation of the club running the event. Some clubs do a commendable job despite the inherent problems; others don't or can't.

[usafencer]

When the USFA released the new proposed schedule, with much added significance to ROCs, I was slightly skeptical, but as a whole open to the concept. However, after attending this ROC, I'm very concerned. I hope that, as this was the first time the event has taken place, it will improve over the future. If not, we should all be worried.

The disorganization began the second that check-in opened for the first event. As others have said, there were too few armorers for the amount of fencers, which delayed the start of the first event a couple hours, and each subsequent event as a result. Aside from the early errors in incorrectly not letting international fencers fence (corrected later, for one of them), in at least one event the seedings and pools were revised multiple times, leading to more delays. The power outage mid-day Saturday didn't help, but that wasn't the organizer's fault.

Space was pretty tight in the gym, although it was a bit more open in the second room. Bags were crammed wherever they could fit, people stood where they found space, and fencers warmed up in whatever space wasn't occupied by the people and bags. On the bright side, the strips were adequately spaced, so the directors had a good amount of room to stand, and they were roped off, so it was more open inside the fencing areas. It was hot at points, but by the afternoon the heat had tapered off substantially.

The refereeing was +/-. On one hand, you had a fair amount of very good, experienced directors (Everson, Baker, Astudillo, Lee, come to mind, there were more I can't remember). On the other hand, you had more than a fair amount of inexperienced, sometimes bordering on incompetent referees. I understand and support the need to develop referees, but I observed multiple situations where ref's were in way over their heads, and because they weren't paired up with anyone, the situation only got worse as more and more fencers would question their calls.

Although flawed space-wise, the venue had a few benefits. The food stand (not the healthiest options, but at least there were options) was nice, and having a vendor there was useful. Really though, the fact that it was so wonderful to have a vendor there is concerning in itself; if ROCs are to become such an essential part of the schedule, especially for veterans, shouldn't we be able to take for granted that they'll provide at least some of the extra services that NACs do?

Overall, for me personally, I don't think I'll be attending the event again unless the quality increases, particularly from an organization standpoint. While the fencing was good, especially in the foil events, if given the choice between driving to this ROC and driving the additional 4 hours North to the Pomme, I'd choose the Pomme 10/10 times. Same with the Mr. Ma Cup or the Cherry Blossom (switch North for South). They're not ROCs, so they lose some of the benefits, but the fencing is equal or stronger and it's so much of a less painful experience. That's not to say I won't attend any more ROCs, I just hope that they do not make the same mistakes at this one.

[telkanuru]

This thread requires popcorn.

[catwood1]

Directing ranged from excellent to problematic depending upon the luck of the draw.

This is common practice at NACs.

One fencer left complaining loudly that she drove 4 hours to get to the event and endured six hours of waiting only to be misdirected by a director.

Again, have you been to a NAC? Someone complained about bad refereeing, sound familiar?

Directing was disappointing, exasperating and sometimes just biased, but that can happen when local clubs run such tournaments. It's one of the primary reasons the NAC circuit was created.

I'm pretty sure thats not true at all... And biased refereeing rarily happens when clubs run events, at least to ANY event I've been to in NJ, I am yet to see a biased referee.

At a NAC, just as at a World Cup, biased directing can result in retaliation at the same tournament, which is a restraint. There's no such restraint at a local event.

um wut? You're saying the reason refs aren't biased at NACs is because of a threat of retaliation? Are you serious? Like... fur reel... seriously?

How can local tournament committees, which hire local directors, expect them not to be biased against non-local fencers? At NACs directors are restricted from directing bouts where there might be a conflict of interest; they are not allowed to direct when either fencer is from their division. ROC organizers can't usually come up with enough directors without such conflicts, and/or the bout committee finds it difficult to control who directs which bouts.

This is somewhere in a gray area between just wrong and very offensive. First off, at NACs, refs don't NOT ref people from their division because they are by default a conflict, they are assigned to people not from their division because thats the easiest way to avoid conflicts. I have reffed fencers from my division at NACs a number of times without complaint, and with the full knowledge and approval of the head referee.

The idea that all referees are biased in favor of fencers they see more often is fantastically stupid.

Qualifiers like ROCs are high-stakes events for many of the cadet and junior fencers

This is, at best, marginally true for a FEW of the cadet and junior fencers.

Since college acceptance and scholarship money can ride on the cumulative outcomes.

This is fantastically wrong.

(Changed wording)
A referee was working while listening to an iPod.

I this is true, its the only legitimate problem that you've mentioned. This should never happen, and if the head referee was notified, I'm sure he/she would have immediately remedied the problem behavior.

And for the love of god, they're called referees...

[/end rant]

[catwood1]

Words

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ky2fbcBKJG4&NR=1

[erooMynohtnA]

So let's see. Foreign fencers are allowed to compete in ROCs, but someone made a mistake higher up. Oops. Also, ROCs have the same benefits and problems as every other fencing tournament.

Turn that into 35,000 characters of pure boredom and you have this thread.

[catwood1]

So let's see. Foreign fencers are allowed to compete in ROCs, but someone made a mistake higher up. Oops. Also, ROCs have the same benefits and problems as every other fencing tournament.

Turn that into 35,000 characters of pure boredom and you have this thread.

word...

[Inquartata]

"What did you expect, it involves New Jerseeeey..."

[Faire]

This is common practice at NACs.

I'm pretty sure thats not true at all... And biased refereeing rarily happens when clubs run events, at least to ANY event I've been to in NJ, I am yet to see a biased referee.

[/end rant]

This is an amazing statement. Wow.