Discussion in 'Fencing Discussion' started by Craig, Nov 27, 2013.
We'll still be reading between the lines?
I presume they were excluded from voting as interested parties, or was the vote for Kazan not actually unanimous?
My read between the lines - for now - Russian Govt is obsessed with holding high profile sports events (for variety of reasons) and there was pressure on the FIE to pull the funding. Pure speculation - nothing else, really.
Kazan alone within 6 years will have hosted (that I'm aware of) the Summer Universiade, World FINA Championships ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2kjKBnC0tk the venue at 1.22 looks amazing), World Soccer Championship, Soccer Confederations Cup, World Fencing Championships, European Badminton Championships, and variety of international hockey and soccer matches due to it's local teams successes.
If you've time - watch this excerpt - 20 mins., the interviews are subtitled
You presume wrongly. It is the FIE Congress that votes, i.e., all delegates and those with proxies who were present in Paris last week. 3 or 4 months from now we can all read the minutes of the 2013 FIE Congress, who was there, who said what, and how the votes were cast.
FYI, the minutes of the 2012 Congress in Moscow say under
9. CANDIDATURES FOR THE WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS
- J/C 2014: The oral candidature of Bali (INA) was received.
- SENIOR 2015: The oral candidature of Moscow (RUS) and the oral candidature of the
United States (city to be confirmed) were received.
- VETERAN 2014; The written candidature of Port Louis (MRI) and the oral candidature of
the United States (city to be confirmed) was received.
This was then...
I see 3 possibilities:
1) The USA did not vote for who hosted the 2014 Senior Worlds
2) The USA voted in favor of its own candidacy.
3) The USA voted in favor of the winning candidacy.
One of those three is true, unless there is another one I have overlooked and you can enlighten me to. As for which one occurred, I expect it to come up at the next Board meeting whenever that is.
I am assuming that the term "official" is not limited to a referee. I would hope that an athlete would be awarded a black card for insulting or threatening any official (e.g. an armourer, BC personnel, score keeper, etc.) Politely stating a disagreement with an official is one thing. Insults and threats, however, have no place in any sport (especially fencing.)
It is sad that the FIE feels it is necessary to make this a specific rule. In twenty years of fencing, I have always thought that a threat or insult warranted an immediate black card, without question. The again, I recall some controversy many years ago on rec.sport.fencing (this is my recollection, there may some holes,) A sabreist throws down his weapon in anger. It lands on the blade. The weapon bounces up, and strikes the referee. The referee issues a black card for unsportsmanlike conduct. Many fencers on RSF disagreed with his decision. Perhaps they would have agreed if the ref had been blinded in one eye, or otherwise injured. . .
Assuming that you are talking to me, you apply your own logic and rules to a process that is different from whatever you think the process is.
Major decision in the FIE are voted up or down by the entire Congress of national Federations members, i.e., today the vote involves 140+ members who are either present or represented by proxy at the Congress. The proposals to be voted on go through a preliminary selection process originating from the national federations. The ComEx and other commissions related to the proposals express their opinion in favor or against the original or the modified proposals but the final vote yes or no belongs to the members of the FIE Congress. A simple majority wins.
The award of the world championships, junior, cadet, senior, and veterans follows a well defined procedure and schedule for each championship and the hosting city is voted by the FIE Congress, not ComEx.
The senior world championship is the most visible and important event under the aegis of the FIE (Olympics are under the aegis of the IOC) and has a schedule that is best explained with this example:
1. At the 2012 Moscow FIE Congress:
RUS (Moscow) and USA (city TBN) submitted an oral candidature for senior worlds 2015.
FIE Congress awarded 2014 senior world to BUL (Sofia). (I believe Sofia was the only candidate; had there been other cities willing to host the championships, the Congress would have voted selecting first the top 2 and then a ballot between the top 2).
The problem arose when sometime in summer/fall 2013 Sofia pulled out of its commitment for 2014 worlds due to local government change, and the FIE had to decide which city would host 2014 Senior world. Several discussions took place over the past months but in the end the vote was still in the hands of the 2013 FIE Congress in Paris.
2. At the 2013 Paris FIE Congress:
The USFA had its own reps at the FIE Congress and they may explain what happened since they were there and I have only second hand information. It seems that only Kazan was presented as a candidate for 2014 to be voted and so it got the championships you may say by default. All other national federations thought that to put up a senior worlds in 7 months was "suicidal."
Next on the agenda was the vote for 2015 senior world. Only countries that had made an oral proposal the year before were RUS (Moscow) and USA (city TBN). However, to put up a candidacy for a vote in front of Congress, the national federation must name the hosting city. For whatever reason, the USA could not/did not put forward the name of the hosting city for a valid vote, therefore only Moscow remained as a viable candidate and Congress voted for Moscow 2015 senior worlds.
It is my understanding that the delegates at the 2013 Congress were not at all happy to have one country (RUS) hosting two consec world championships but no other federation came up with a last minute candidate city in either case.
So what you're saying is the USA did not present a bid for the 2014 Worlds, or it was not accepted. We'll find out what it was.
From all of the recent meetings, it doesn't sound like we seriously intended to submit a bid for 2015 as of a few months ago, so that part is expected.
What I said:
At the Paris 2013 FIE Congress:
1. The USA did not put the bid for 2014 Worlds for a vote by the FIE Congress. Only Russia did (Kazan).
2. Since the USA would not/could not name the hosting city for 2015 Worlds, according to the rules, the USA could not put the bid for these championships to be voted by the FIE Congress. Only Russia did (Moscow).
Obviously, there were lots of maneuvers and discussions at all levels but I limited myself to report facts, not speculations.
Stop not reporting speculations - you're wasting our internet!
This fits with my understanding, which is that we did not submit the bid (or rather the required specifics) until after our deadline to do so due to reasons which I'm sure different parties have differing opinions on.
I forgot to ask...but did the bit in foil about a beat on the bottom 3rd not being a valid beat (just as it is in sabre) pass? If so, when's the implementation date? I'd kinda like to tell the foil coaches at SwordPlay so they can make sure their kids beat in the front 2/3rds so they're ready when it DOES his the US.
Also...was there ever a proposal to make the attack end with the front foot landing in foil like it is in sabre?
(on the blade issue...hmmm...might have to find a way to color the bottom 3rd of the blade to make it easier for refs to see, especially if the hit's close to the line. Gunbluing, perhaps, if it retains conductivity)
Wait for the FOC to get the translated rules and update the rulebook - most likely a season.
In the meantime, don't make a fuss over this as it does not come up that often. Just let the foil coaches focus on good fencing.
Waiting for FOC
This weekend a FOC told me they were unsure if they would meet in advance of their regular August one to address the FIE implementations. Then too, as Omar posted, we have to wait for the translations.
They're scheduled to have a meeting at JOs every year.
Why would this need to be addressed in a meeting? What is there to debate? This is the kind of thing the FOC should be able to address on one of their regular conference calls.
It is not "the bid" (singular) but "the bids" (plural, in this case 2 different championships, 2014 and 2015).
2014 worlds was a special situation created by BUL withdrawal.
2015 worlds followed the usual awarding procedure (announcement of intention 3 years prior, voting and awarding of championship 2 years prior).
What happened in Paris last week?
1. USA did not submit a bid for 2014 worlds. No issue of deadline and the FIE congress voted on the only submitted bid (Kazan).
2. Invited at the ComEx meeting before the Congress vote to candidate USA as host of 2015 worlds, USA requested a 2-3 months delay to complete its proposal since at that moment USA was not able to name the hosting city. This made impossible to present a USA bid (2015) for a vote by Congress. Therefore, the only candidate presented to the Congress and voted for was Moscow (2015).
These are the facts.
Had USA submitted a bid (2015), it would have won. This is a widely held opinion among Congress participants.
Why nobody else came up for 2015?
Because since the oral announcement at last year's Congress, most delegates did not want to compete against the USA and RUS for the 2015 championships, so they did not do the necessary homework.
The next one will be...?
I don't hink there is a need for a new thread but it could be helpful to have a summary of the major decisions approved by the 2013 FIE Congress in Paris.
Experiments, modifications, and new rules - The outcomes of Paris 2013 FIE Congress
1. Championships’ Hosting Cities
2014 Senior World, Kazan (RUS)
2014 Veterans World Championships, Gyor (HUN)
2015 Senior World, Moscow (RUS)
2016 Senior World Teams, Bucarest (ROM) for non Olympic specialties - MS & WF
2. Definition of Olympic qualification criteria for Rio 2016
Olympic qualification criteria reflect those used in London 2012. In total 212 fencers can qualify for Rio 2016: 102 men and 102 women, plus 8 Brazilian athletes admitted as hosting nation's representatives.
3. New World Cup Calendar effective from 2015 season
The new World Cup Calendar for the 2014-2015 season will start with competitions in October 2014. The calendar is divided in three phases:
Phase 1, fall: 2 World Cup events and one Grand Prix event for each weapon in October and November.
Phase 2, winter: 2 World Cup events and one Grand Prix event for each weapon in January and February.
Phase 3, spring: 1 World Cup event and 1 Grand Prix event for each weapon in April and May.
Grand Prix events for each of the three weapons to take place in a single location for men and women in the same weapon according to a formula at the discretion of the LOC which may vary depending on specific needs of each weapon. Events locations to be distributed among all Continents.
3. Decisions concerning materials and equipments
(a) Fencing Masks
As of 2013-2014 season fencing masks with transparent visor are forbidden.
(b) Wire less scoring system
Wire less scoring system is optional while waiting for the award of the international public tender offer for a new system.
(c) New saber glove
From April 1, 2014, in all international saber competitions and for all categories a new kind of glove must be used.
(d) Épée blades
As of January 1, 2016 only Maraging blades can be used in épée. Non Maraging blades will be allowed until December 31, 2015.
4. Experiments & Additions
(a) Change in the time periods of a bout
During 2014 Junior World Championships in Plovdiv, bouts will consist of 3 periods of 2 minutes each (instead of the current 3 minutes each).
(b) From 2014-2015 season a team event will be added to the Junior World Cup.
(c) Cadet world championship in Plovdiv 2014 to be used for the qualification to the Youths Olympics scheduled in Nanjing (CHN), August 16-28.
A personal note
FIE Congress voted to add Maestro Giancarlo Toràn to the Working Group for the management of the FIE Museum of Fencing.
The proposal shortening the bouts, as included in the agenda, says 2 periods of 3 minutes each, not the other way around.
Separate names with a comma.