Discussion in 'Fencing Discussion' started by DLEE, Mar 18, 2019.
I agree that the fencer who yelled at the ref should be held accountable, not the other fencers.
I’ve heard of sore losers in a 15 person A1 trying for the black card to make it go down to an E1. Maybe this is what this fencer was after. The rule really should be changed. No reason to penalize the other fencers. The excluded fencer doesn’t get a rating or points either way. At a minimum that’s how it should be for fencers excluded in the DE around. I’d understand treating a black card in pools same as a DNF.
The problem here is that the point of the excluded fencer not counting towards the final number is for the later rounds of the DE to be considered sufficiently challenging. Presumably, a lower-rated fencer will have gotten through, and the next opponent will have an unexpectedly easy bout.
Now you could make a case that the total N should include the excluded fencer, but that complicates things for BC and also opens the door for someone to recruit fencers to [email protected]$$ it through the pools and bail out of DE to inflate the rating of the tournament.
It doesn't seem fair because it isn't fair. If the fencer completed the pools they should absolutely count towards the necessary number of bodies relevant to the classification. To conclude otherwise is grossly wrong.
In the L4?? I would think that by the time a DE got to the L8 such a worry would not really hold much validity, especially in a national event.
So...you would rather that she be allowed to get away with her bad behavior, because that results in a more favorable outcome for someone else?
Going a step further; what if a fencer had cheated in some way. Should it be ok to allow that cheated result to stand, because in doing so, other fencers get some minor reward?
So, it’s about which bracket now? If it’s a round of 4 or 8, it’s not fair to exclude the excluded fencer? What about the 16s or 32s? Excluding a fencer there could still lower the rating of the event.
The rule is erasing the fencer from the event. Not sure how to erase them for their own stats but leave them in for the purposes of everybody else’s stats so that somebody else can get a rating.
I knew a guy who, not once but at least twice, had the opportunity to get his A but didn't because in order to get it, he had to win the event, but both times he had to take out the only other A to make the final, meaning that the event would no longer be an A1. Catch-22.
I feel like we should be focused on the positive that a non-NAC junior women’s saber event was an A3
but is seems that all the other fencers in the competition were also penalised. It seems that ALL the fencers were held accountable for the action of one fencer.
I guess it comes down to whether or not the black card rules were crafted to have a negative impact on non-offending fencers. I can see how that might be the case with team fencing — where bad conduct by one member of a team could effect the team as a whole — but not individual. In any case, if there’s an unintended consequence that played out in Anaheim it should be addressed.
Can someone explain if a person is DNF'd, would they show at the bottom of the standings regardless of their placement. Example, if they get to the top-4 and DNF'd due to injury or such, would they still be in the top-4 or at the bottom? And will their participation in the top-4 be counted for rating calculations?
*o.79.1.* "At any stage of the competition, if for whatever reason, a fencer does not fence, or is unable to fence, or does not complete his bout, his opponent is declared winner of that bout. A fencer who withdraws does not lose his place in the overall classification of the competition and is recorded in the result list with the information 'Did Not Finish.'
2. A fencer who is excluded is scratched from the direct elimination table and his results are annulled as if he had not taken part. The fencer is recorded without a classification at the end of the final classification list with the information 'Excluded.'"
Then from this thread, 2 can be changed to remove "as if he had not taken part". Consider them for classification purposes based on their placement, but they are skipped over in the standings.
1. Smith, John [A18 -> A19]
2. Bee, Mac [A17 -> A19]
2. Loser, Poor [EXCLUDED]
3. Another Fencer
I don't get how the excluded fencer is getting away with anything. She gets no points. She gets no medal. Her name is stricken from the final record.
The detection of a cheater doesn't make the entire result invalid. I don't know of a single sport in which this is the case.* The cheater is excluded. In sports like track & field, when dopers are excluded after the fact, everyone moves up 1 in the standings. In a direct elimination event, the only person who gets it "easy" is the one benefiting from the walkover. But I think you're really grasping at straws here where you're bringing up cheating black cards when 99.9% of blackcards handed out in the last 2 decades have not been for cheating -- I literally have never heard of one given in the US.
*Cycling didn't reallocate Lance Armstrong's vacated titles due to the widespread doping prevalent at the time.
No one is suggesting that any fencer get away with bad behavior or cheating. As jkormann notes, consider them for classification purposes only based on their placement, but they are skipped over in the standings. No points. No medal. Name stricken. If that's not serious enough, add a suspension. But don't penalize the other competitors.
Rules for Black Card, Medical Withdrawal, or No-Show
If fencer receives a black card at any point during a tournament, the fencer appears in results as “Place-fencer excluded” or “EXC-fencer name”; black carded fencer(s) cannot be used towards competitive field total to determine classification AND/OR qualification to championships.
If the fencer needs to medically withdraw due to injury or illness it must be certified by a certified medical professional or athletic trainer, if available, otherwise by the Bout Committee. If medical withdrawal occurs during pool round (fencer does not complete pool), then fencer has no results to report and cannot be used towards competitive field total to determine classification or qualification to championships. If medical withdrawal occurs after completion of the pool or during DE period – fencer keeps place in table to determine results AND may be used towards competitive field total to determine classification AND/OR qualification to championships. Medical withdrawal should be indicated in results submitted to National Office.
If the fencer fails to appear on the strip, it is treated as an elimination.
First, the fencer gets away with their behavior and sees no obvious incentive to correct said behavior. Obviously losing points, medals, etc is bad, but equally obviously, it is not bad enough for that fencer to learn to act in a courteous manner. Hence why we have a group 4 offense against sportsmanship (which I believe are not enforced often enough and need to be).
So strange, i thought the phrase "going a step further" adequately explained that I was taking the logic of the first argument to a more extreme, yet similar, argument. My bad...I forgot logic doesn't apply to internet debates. It doesn't matter that it hasn't happened. That's not really required to make a corollary argument.
This apparently seems to be the case in our sport, if a cheater is handled in the same manner as any other black card offender, subsequently removed from a tournament, and which causes the tournament to be downgraded in classification. But again, we're not discussing a cheater after all, that was just a corollary argument to bring awareness to a situation with less critical impact.
Stryttlr, I won't respond again until you say why the offending fencer "sees no obvious incentive to correct said behavior." If losing points, medals, and placement isn't good enough incentive, then why would the ratings of my competitors be better incentive? Why should an offending fencer even care about the ratings of others? It actually is a negative incentive! Hate your opponents? Don't want them to succeed? Then get a black card so they don't improve their ratings! At this point I think you're either woefully misunderstanding the conversation or are trolling.
False equivalency....try again.
Separate names with a comma.