2018 JAN NAC Virginia Beach - Div1 byes

Discussion in 'Fencing Discussion' started by nwtrout, Dec 1, 2017.

  1. Inquartata

    Inquartata Podium

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2001
    Messages:
    36,287
    Likes Received:
    1,203
    Speaking of the ranking archives, anyone know why the Veteran ones are the only ones missing from the 2016-17 files? All other groups are there, even all of the Y-ages. No Vets.
     
  2. jdude97

    jdude97 Podium

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2013
    Messages:
    1,697
    Likes Received:
    160
    Regardless of the pool balancing mechanism used on day 2 of div1 epee NACs, what troubles me is AFAIK, the methodology is not published anywhere. Not in the handbook, athlete's packet, etc.
     
  3. Ancientepee

    Ancientepee DE Bracket

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2010
    Messages:
    972
    Likes Received:
    202
    I'd hate to be the one assigned to come up with a rigid set of rules to handle all of the complexities that could occur in pool balancing. Situations can occur in real life that have not been anticipated by those who develop rules. For example, the rules of fencing do not have any mechanism for declaring more than one fencer the overall champion of an individual event, much less THE World Champion. Nevertheless, there have been three times in the history of the FIE World Championships when the bout committee stopped further fencing, declared that a situation had occurred that had not been anticipated by the rules then in effect, and declared more than one person to be that year's individual World Champion. (In the one case, four fencers were designated co-World Champions for that year.)
     
  4. jdude97

    jdude97 Podium

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2013
    Messages:
    1,697
    Likes Received:
    160
    I don't know what circumstances you're describing (although I'd be very interested to find out), but the fact that there's so much subjectivity in what seems like a pretty objective mechanism is what frustrates me. Is there even a rule that says the bout committee reserves the right to adjust pools as necessary? I believe they're given that ability to adjust pools to resolve conflicts during the initial seeding, but that's different from the day 2 pool issues. I'd like a clear and fair codified rule for balancing pools, but at a minimum I'd like there to at least be some provision that allows for pools to be balanced at all! Otherwise what was done was completely outside of the rules.
     
  5. dberke

    dberke Podium

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2003
    Messages:
    1,527
    Likes Received:
    251
    You might want to familiarize yourself with the organizational rules, as well as the USFA Operations manual, before claiming that things are being done "completely outside of the rules". Both documents describe the duties and powers of the bout committee, and in this case, the process for dealing with pool imbalances is clearly explained in rule o.12.1:

    There's nothing in that rule that states that it only applies to the first round of pools. Of course, the rules don't describe the Div I format at all, since the rules technically are only describing how to run a World Cup, Grand Prix, or Zonal/World Championship event.

    In my opinion, the two-day format has a number of problems, and seeding the pools on day two is not one of them. My biggest complaint is how the top 62 byes are handled. As someone pointed out earlier, if a fencer who would be in the top 62 registers after the regular fee deadline, they will now be seeded 63rd regardless of where they should be seeded based on their ranking and/or classification. I think a more reasonable solution would be to simply give byes to the top 62 fencers on the NRPS. If fewer than 62 of them show up, then there are fewer byes. This way, it doesn't matter when they sign up, and people will know if they have a bye simply based on their position on the point list. Also, this would greatly simplify how the event is setup and run in Fencing Time - right now it is a bit of a mess since they have to create the event in FT after the regular fee deadline and record who the top 62 fencers are based on the seeding at that time. Then, on the day of the event, after they import the registration file with all of the entries (including late entries, and minus any scratches), they need to manually adjust the seeding of the top 62 fencers to match the seeding published after the entry deadline. It's an overly time-consuming and potentially error-prone process.

    Dan
     
    jdude97 likes this.
  6. Inquartata

    Inquartata Podium

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2001
    Messages:
    36,287
    Likes Received:
    1,203
    Wow.

    Were any of those occasions in the last 50 years?
     
  7. mfp

    mfp Podium

    Joined:
    May 10, 2002
    Messages:
    1,861
    Likes Received:
    240
    That didn't happen last December -- something much less desirable happened. When a fencer with a NRPS ranking in the 30s missed the regular registration deadline (and therefore didn't get exempt from the 1st day), he wasn't seeded 63rd, he was seeded 153rd. Looks like his NRPS ranking was just chopped off to get him in the 1st day pools and he was randomly seeded among all A15s without points. So instead of being seeded as the strongest fencer out of all pools, he ended up seeded as the "fourth strongest" fencer in his pool. Quite a difference.
     
  8. dberke

    dberke Podium

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2003
    Messages:
    1,527
    Likes Received:
    251
    This illustrates perfectly the problem with the way the new format is being handled. Because they want to determine the top 62 with byes early (presumably so that they can save those 62 people an extra $150 hotel night), the side effect is that the integrity of the initial seeding is being altered for those who sign up late. So not only does the late fencer get to pay 3x fees, but they get a lousy seeding. But, they get to beat up on the unfortunate other fencers in their pool, so I guess that is an appeal.

    If they want to stick with the top-62 byes as-is, then they shouldn't lock down those 62 at the regular fee deadline. Instead, it should be determined on the day of the event. Make everyone show up on day one and check-in as usual. After that is done (and the no-shows are scratched), the top 62 present are given byes. They can then leave the venue and go back to bed, go sightseeing, or whatever.

    At World Cups where the top 16 get byes, you still see everyone arrive the day before the event. The top 16 with byes are determined when the pools are posted at 3pm the day prior to the event. I think expecting everyone to show up on the first day is not unreasonable - it would make the seeding process easier and more fair. I think that's more important than saving people a bit of money. And realistically, the top 32 fencers (at least) on the NRPS can safely assume they will get a bye. The fencers further down the point list are the ones where it's not certain, so expecting them to be there on day one isn't unreasonable.

    Dan
     
  9. Ancientepee

    Ancientepee DE Bracket

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2010
    Messages:
    972
    Likes Received:
    202
    Just barely "no". The last time was at the Junior Worlds in 1965. The other two were in Senior World Championships before that. While situations similar to that which lead to the four fencers being declared co-champions could theoretically happen again, the other two can't happen under the current rules and competition format for World Championships.
     
  10. jdude97

    jdude97 Podium

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2013
    Messages:
    1,697
    Likes Received:
    160
    I strongly disagree that everyone should be made to show up early. A lot of people competing are students and young adults. Making them miss an extra day of work or school and costing an additional night of hotel and all the additional expenses of being on the road is not membership friendly. You can see from my previous posts that I too am frustrated by the current system from an fairness standpoint, but I doubt I would ever be so frustrated as to inconvenience 124 fencers for what is ultimately a pretty insignificant change in seeing/format at a pretty insignificant tournament.
     
  11. dberke

    dberke Podium

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2003
    Messages:
    1,527
    Likes Received:
    251
    Sounds like a good reason to dump the two-day format and go back to the standard one-day format (without repechage.) Treat epee like the other weapons... why do they get all of this special treatment? As it stands, they are already getting two events for the price of one (day one plus one of the events on day two)...

    Dan
     
  12. SevenDad

    SevenDad DE Bracket

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2013
    Messages:
    510
    Likes Received:
    41
    I thought the two-day format was to better mimic the World Cup format? And to give more people more opportunities to fence quality opponents? As a parent of a WE fencer outside of the 62 cut, I don't mind the two-day format, TBH.

    Do I think the top 62 need to show the first day? No. Do I think there should be some penalty for them not showing up at all? Yes.
     
  13. Inquartata

    Inquartata Podium

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2001
    Messages:
    36,287
    Likes Received:
    1,203
    If this is a valid rationale they should be doing it for all weapons, not just epee.

    But that would probably make for much longer NACs. And ultimately I guess it's whatever the national coach wants.
     
  14. mfp

    mfp Podium

    Joined:
    May 10, 2002
    Messages:
    1,861
    Likes Received:
    240

Share This Page