|
Post by schlager7 on Jun 19, 2006 14:28:03 GMT -6
oiuyt on Fencing Net has been good enough to post the Agenda for the USFA's Board of Directors Meeting this coming July. He has a pdf file of it here: Agenda
|
|
nemo
Blademaster
mobilis in mobili
Posts: 729
|
Post by nemo on Jun 19, 2006 15:48:46 GMT -6
Fun in the Nevada Division! I guess what happens in Vegas doesn't necessarily stay in Las Vegas, after all!
|
|
|
Post by kd5mdk on Jun 19, 2006 21:23:26 GMT -6
Something like that. A little closer to home, note that the Executive Committee approved holding the Junior Pan Am Champs in San Antonio the last two weeks of August, if the Pan Am body pledges support. Anybody know 1) Why they're setting the location of a hemispherical championship a few months away? 2) Where in San Antonio it would be held and if we know any of the involved fencers, and 3) Who is the local contact for these things?
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Jun 20, 2006 6:27:23 GMT -6
A little closer to home, note that the Executive Committee approved holding the Junior Pan Am Champs in San Antonio the last two weeks of August, if the Pan Am body pledges support. Anybody know 1) Why they're setting the location of a hemispherical championship a few months away? 2) Where in San Antonio it would be held and if we know any of the involved fencers, and 3) Who is the local contact for these things? I saw that, too and wondered why there had been no buzz, locally (Texas, that is) until now. Is it possible they are going through a non-fencing local entity, rather like the NAC and the two NCAAs in Houston going through the Harris County-Houston Sports Authority?
|
|
kb
Squire
Posts: 261
|
Post by kb on Jun 20, 2006 6:49:19 GMT -6
Too bad they didn't contact the HSA-they have experience putting on a large tournament and at least the flights would be direct to Houston.
|
|
|
Post by fox on Jun 20, 2006 10:02:39 GMT -6
Not to agree with nemo,but I confess I was intrigued by the two EC actions of April and May, towit:
Authorized Donald Alperstein to select an investigator to pursue the issue of the alleged election fraud in the Nevada Division and bring the results to the EC for further recommendation.
and
To direct the Nevada Division and officers thereof, not to submit to the division membership for their approval the proposed new bylaws and operations manual until further notice.
Donald paid his visit to our division a year back, then there was the hoo-ha on the west coast and I believe he was involved. I guess the USFA is making the rounds straightening out the divisions?
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Jun 20, 2006 10:21:01 GMT -6
I don't know anything about the Nevada Division, so I cannot comment. I more noticed the Joseph Streb motion (italics are mine):
To compete in USFA nationally sanctioned Div. I, Div. II, Div. III, Junior, and Cadet fencing competitions or any qualifying competitions for said nationally sanctioned competitions, all fencers must be at least 13 years old on January 1 of the competitive season in question; however, this rule shall not be construed to prevent fencers under the age of 13 from competing in divisionally sanctioned fencing competitions, unless otherwise restricted by the sanctioning division.
Rationale: The minimum age rule, as interpreted in a January 24, 2006 national publication, has as its underlying logic "an attempt to give young athletes appropriate competitive bouts as they grow." However, this is a determination best left to coaches and parents. Because in many areas of the country, it is not possible to provide any meaningful fencing competition without operating an "open" event, to deny any young fencer the opportunity to participate is to deny that fencer the right to improve through competitive fencing. The proposed revised rule leaves the decision regarding who is ready to fence in purely local "open" competitions to those best able to judge based upon specific facts and circumstances, but it leaves unaltered the rule with respect to national events and national qualifiers. The Revised Motion is designed to clarify the existing rule regarding age limitations for national sanctioned fencing tournaments and qualifiers and create an exception for divisionally sanctioned fencing tournaments, not otherwise restricted.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This feels like a pandora's box to me.
First, some divisions will no doubt opt to continue to parallel the national regs and others will open the doors to a younger set. I see fencers and parents living close to mulitiple divisions "shopping around" from division to division, whether junior is ready for the upgrade or not.
In general, for competitive purposes, I can't say I favor having the younger fencers operating under one scenario locally, then dealing with a different paradigm at a national event.
Granted, divisions can be unequal enough, even while adjacent, but it seems like it would be harder to judge comparative success or improvement in this area if the cut off ages vary from place to place.
I don't have kids and, Lord knows, I've watched twelve-year-olds who certainly can hold their own in an open event. I just have reservations about this as a policy.
Hopefully I'm wrong.
|
|
|
Post by kd5mdk on Jun 20, 2006 10:50:51 GMT -6
My concern is that Divisions are no more aware of a particular fencer's ability than the National Office is, often enough, so they could find it easy to allow in kids who aren't ready.
The other concern is of course that this wipes out any minimum age for Divisional level events, as far as I can tell, and below a certain point, I don't want to fence kids, as I am uncomfortable with the disparity in size.
|
|
|
Post by phincer on Jun 21, 2006 7:05:38 GMT -6
I don't want to fence kids, as I am uncomfortable with the disparity in size. Yeah, those 6' tall 12 -14 ;)year olds are frightening, aren't they? The GCD has a few....
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Jun 21, 2006 7:44:56 GMT -6
You are right, we do.
My concern is with the majority, however, who are not built like that. I share kd5mdk's concern with fencing someone at that much of a physical disadvantage. I neither wish to injure them nor lose touches because I am fighting my own concerns about injuring them.
|
|
|
Post by kd5mdk on Jun 21, 2006 10:41:21 GMT -6
Maybe instead of ages we should do weight classes...
I have this image of throwing out PiL, and some 12 yr old will rush forward and bounce off it, landing on their back.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Gorman on Jun 21, 2006 19:25:09 GMT -6
And I see that same Y12 fencer getting up and doing it again on the next action. Some of those kids are pretty tough. Not all, but some. And you're probably more likely to hurt them going light on them than just fencing them.
Dan
|
|
|
Post by Prudence on Jun 24, 2006 23:26:17 GMT -6
haha that reminds me of my brother. He's about 6'5'' almost 250 lbs and is about to turn 18. I remember when he was 14 years old he wore a size 14 shoe!! I tried to get him to fence, but all he wanted to do was charge at me with a Sabre. He played Lacrosse competatively in high school and I'm trying really hard to get him to check out the fencing club at A&M. Even when he was younger he could have done some real damage.. you couldn't hurt him.
|
|
|
Post by kd5mdk on Jun 25, 2006 2:30:45 GMT -6
It should also be noted that the motion as formulated doesn't allow fencers under 13 to earn Y14 points, fence Cadet, make Cadet points, fence Juniors, and earn Junior Points, which is currently the way <13 year olds may fence Senior events.
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Jun 28, 2006 12:27:01 GMT -6
APPENDIX F
Legal Resource Group
Donald Alperstein
Since the last meeting of the Board, the LRG has been actively engaged in the following tasks:
1. Advising the IPSC on a number of issues related to the appointment of national coaches and team cadre members, including advice and involvement in the preparation of the National Coach contract;
2. Overseeing the disciplinary process as it relates to two potential disciplinary actions against USFA members;
3. Advising various bodies within the USFA about the implementation and enforcement of disciplinary action taken by the Board against a USFA member;
4. Advising all parties regarding procedural and related issues in connection with amendments to the USFA bylaws that have been proposed by a member and submitted to the membership for a vote;
5. Providing ongoing and special attention to the continuing problems of the Pennsylvania and Nevada Divisions in particular and other divisions generally;
6. Working with staff in mediating a dispute between two corporate members of the USFA regarding the rights to the USFA Fencing Team insignia; and
7. Assisting in revisions to the USFA Operations Manual.
At present, there is no litigation pending against the USFA and no unprocessed insurance claims. There are a few open insurance cases that have been adjusted and resolved, but for which medical treatment is ongoing, and associated insurance settlements are not yet closed. To the best of counsel’s knowledge, there are no serious threats of litigation against the organization, except that one member has at least impliedly threatened to sue the USFA over the handling of proxies for the Annual Membership Meeting, and the bylaw amendment issue in particular.
The LRG is within its budget, and plans to complete the year without needing a variance. As General Counsel and Chair of the LRG, I would once again like to express special appreciation to LRG members Steve Sobel and John Springate for their willing and excellent assistance and their generous donations of time, without which the legal needs of the USFA would likely not have been met on a pro bono basis, and to Russell Wilson who, though not a member of the LRG has provided countless hours of investigative and administrative assistance to the Legal Resources Group.
|
|
|
Post by kd5mdk on Jun 29, 2006 16:18:00 GMT -6
Good news for the Beijng Olympics, if this pans out:
|
|