|
Post by JEC on May 8, 2007 13:46:42 GMT -6
This is from a discussion at a FNet thread that is more appropriate for this forum. The original thread is an interesting read about the level of the "playing field": www.fencing.net/forums/thread30407.html DATA:
SW Sectionals--Div IA-- ME - MF - MS - WE - WF - WS 2007 ---- 40 -- 16 -- 15 -- 8 -- 12 -- 8 2006 ---- 34 -- 23 -- 19 -- 18 - 6 --- 7 2005 ---- 39 -- 18 -- 11 -- 12 - 8 --- 8 ---U19--- ME - MF - MS - WE - WF - WS 2007 ---- 24 -- 11 -- 16 -- 5 -- 12 -- 7 2006 ---- 29 -- 12 -- 10 -- 8 -- 7 --- 5 2005 ---- 25 -- 16 -- 7 --- 7 -- 10 -- 3 2007 - askfred.net/Results/results.php?tournament_id=3531 2006 - askfred.net/Results/results.php?tournament_id=1936 2005 - askfred.net/Results/results.php?tournament_id=622 LOCATION:That might have ameliorated the expected difference due to the rule. However, the mean/median/mode center for the SWS fencers is quite a bit southern than Dallas, probably closer to College Station, which was the location of the 2003 Sectionals and probably the largest sectional ever due to location and having SN in Austin. For definitions, see: www.census.gov/population/censusdata/popctr.pdfSWS - Currently 1787 USFA members (5/2/07 SWS website) ALM -152 Border - 64 GC - 560 LA - 115 NTX - 451 OK - 96 STX - 348 You could do vector analysis for an approximation
|
|
|
Post by katyblades on May 8, 2007 21:54:14 GMT -6
Jose,
That is good information, but the question is who has the rotation? If we break the rules of the rotation, then why use referees and just choose who we think the best fencers are and send them.
(This was attempted in a Pan American Games with Vincent Bradford and Tim Glass, even though Tim and Vinny had earned their place on the squads. The answer was that the coach felt that their replacements had better chances to medal. Vinny and Tim appealed and Tim earned a bronze medal.)
We have rules on the rotation in the section, and these rules should be followed. Otherwise the GCD and SoTx should take turns hosting sectionals since they are the largest divisions. Any variance from the rotation should have sectional vote, otherwise we leave ourselves open to monarchy.
|
|
|
Post by JEC on May 8, 2007 22:15:09 GMT -6
Actually, the NTX is 2nd while STX is 3rd. However, the point is that the 3 neighboring TX divisions have 76% of fencers. One alternative would be to have qualifiers rotating through the largest 3 divisions having 1 slot every 4 years for the other 24%. Truly, it is easier to drive to the geographical center (Austin, Waco and College Station being closest)
|
|
|
Post by DavidSierra on May 9, 2007 8:14:47 GMT -6
Actually, the NTX is 2nd while STX is 3rd. However, the point is that the 3 neighboring TX divisions have 76% of fencers. One alternative would be to have qualifiers rotating through the largest 3 divisions having 1 slot every 4 years for the other 24%. Truly, it is easier to drive to the geographical center (Austin, Waco and College Station being closest) JEC, if you're interested in a new rotation scheme, then you need to bring a bylaw amendment to the Section meeting, as the rotation scheme is codified in the Section bylaws. It will have to be submitted to the Section Chair in time for her to publicize it as part of the publicity for the Sectional meeting next year. If you think this is worth doing, then you'll have to convince enough people to vote with you on the bylaw amendment. In other words, its not impossible, but you'll have to take an active role in promoting it, not just online, but in person, and get them to vote at the Section meeting, either in person or by proxy. For reference, when I started fencing back in the early 90's, Sectionals rotated between Waco and College Station. In the mid-90's at some point, the current rotation and hosting scheme was put into place (http://www.southwestfencing.org/Archive/sectionBylaws.html - Article VII, Section I). Actually, I take the position that the entire Section Bylaws need reworking - see the USFA Operations Manual for why.
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on May 10, 2007 8:04:42 GMT -6
Truly, it is easier to drive to the geographical center (Austin, Waco and College Station being closest) Augie, is Jose arguing for a return to Calvert, Texas as a tournament site? (a la the Bragging Rights?)
|
|
|
Post by katyblades on May 10, 2007 14:09:18 GMT -6
The central of the section argument has been in place as long as there was the USFA in place. I was at a meeting in my first sectionals in 1981 and the idea came up in Austin with Nancy Sebastiani, both Towrys and others. It was proposed by membership that Dallas be a permanent location because of its facilities in place. It was not deemed as the fair system on one that is conducive to growing fencing as a sport. I agree with that position. There needs to be tournaments of all levels in each division, much less club, for the sport to grow. The current membership would see a very able venue in Houston, but the same arguments hold.
I unfortunately left the meeting early, and the next morning I was informed that I was the LOC for next year's sectionals at College Station. That is what you get for leaving the meeting early. I did get my director's rating and met George K. from it.
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on May 10, 2007 15:05:10 GMT -6
I have an affinity for inclusion.
Granted 3/4 of the active competitive fencers in the Southwest Section are in NTX, STX & GC. Yet I constantly hear people sing the praises of the traditional SSCCs of the Oklahoma and Ark-La-Miss Divisions. Obviously they know how to mount a tournament.
I, for one, prefer having sectionals rotate within the section. If we restrict it to the region of maximum fencer-population density, we risk the creation or maintenance of a fencing "hinterlands" on the outskirts.
I can not help but feel that major events like SSCCs and sectionals in regions with fewer fencers somehow helps fencing grow in those areas.
|
|
|
Post by katyblades on May 10, 2007 21:35:59 GMT -6
Now that we have a consensus, who has sectionals next year?
I agree John that every time the sectionals goes to a different region of the country is strengthens fencing there. That is the same argument as the local tournaments and has been proven over time.
|
|
|
Post by DavidSierra on May 11, 2007 7:44:33 GMT -6
Now that we have a consensus, who has sectionals next year? I agree John that every time the sectionals goes to a different region of the country is strengthens fencing there. That is the same argument as the local tournaments and has been proven over time. Border is on the rotation, and expressed a willingness to host at the meeting. Start preparing for El-Paso!
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on May 11, 2007 8:16:53 GMT -6
Recognizing that Beaumont and El Paso are farther apart than New York and Chicago, I think it might be a bit of a drive for our Louisiana, Arkansas and Oklahoma colleagues.
(Not a short jaunt for this Houston-Galveston boy!)
Still, it is good to see them accepting a larger partnership in the Section.
|
|
|
Post by JEC on May 11, 2007 11:44:13 GMT -6
I do not agree with this argument. It is more important to have frequent events in the area than one single large event in the location. We already have Sectional Circuit events in those locations. Having SW Sectionals in those (more remote) locations for the majority of SW fencers might not be the best choice.
Divisional growth has more to do with coaching, availability of locations convenient to the fencers, and local competitions than with holding SW Sectionals in your own backyard. A business plan with advertisement of local clubs is what drives people to fence in the clubs and eventually grow their own division. I am strongly in favor of fencing growth everywhere. The more competitors, the better. Here is a bit of USFA data that I got from a BOD meeting attachment. While some locations duplicate (STX, LA, NTX) or sextuplicate (GCTX) their membership, others have neglible growth (OK, BTX, ALM). For the SW section and division leadership, the data is food for thought (not for bragging). Nevertheless, there is impressive growth in the GCTX (a "dysfunctional" division at level of leadership sometimes during the span of time). This is a time of taking lessons from that division...
USFA Membership Data (1992-2005)
Division -----2005 -2004 -2003 -2002 -2001 -2000 -1999 -1998 -1997 -1996 -1995 -1994 -1993 -1992 Ark-La-Miss --- 178 - 288 - 180 - 170 - 169 - 167 - 131 - 144 - 130 - 110 - 111 - 129 - 116 - 103 Border TX ----- 104 - 144 - 122 -- 64 -- 62 -- 63 -- 70 -- 79 -- 91 -- 48 --- 61 -- 89 -- 87 -- 76 Gulf Coast TX - 667 - 658 - 376 - 296 - 269 - 280 - 231 - 227 - 208 - 152 - 142 - 114 - 107 - 102 Louisiana ------ 209 - 157 - 150 - 138 - 108 - 106 - 101 - 114 - 80 -- 51 --- 67 -- 95 - 110 -- 83 North TX ------ 449 - 432 - 407 - 380 - 285 - 207 - 158 - 181 - 165 - 133 - 105 - 158 - 157 - 171 Oklahoma ----- 159 - 171 - 145 - 130 - 120 - 124 - 131 - 150 - 157 - 117 - 116 - 185 - 166 - 149 South TX ----- 434 - 526 - 453 - 402 - 436 - 441 - 383 - 376 - 286 - 202 - 200 - 223 - 222 - 210
Keep in mind that in less than a few weeks ago, these were the stats:
SWS - Currently 1786 USFA members (5/2/07 SWS website) ALM -152 Border - 64 GC - 560 LA - 115 NTX - 451 OK - 96 STX - 348
|
|
|
Post by DavidSierra on May 11, 2007 12:25:52 GMT -6
Recognizing that Beaumont and El Paso are farther apart than New York and Chicago, I think it might be a bit of a drive for our Louisiana, Arkansas and Oklahoma colleagues. (Not a short jaunt for this Houston-Galveston boy!) Still, it is good to see them accepting a larger partnership in the Section. I'll be taking Southwest from Dallas, myself .
|
|
|
Post by katyblades on May 13, 2007 16:26:23 GMT -6
Jose,
You just proved a hypothesis I have had for years:
“USFA Gulf Coast Divisional and Sectional policy is hurting the USFA membership growth on a divisional and sectional level.”
In 2003, several new clubs were formed, (Katy Blades, WFCA and BFE), and the tournament schedule was greatly expanded because of pressures brought on by these clubs. Alliance also began approximately the same time. New programs such as Houston Cup, replicating the Bay Cup, and tournaments where one club would hold epee on a Saturday and another club would hold epee on a Sunday on the same weekend were begun. In fact, for the first time in years the GCD began to hold 20+, 40+ and 50+ epee competitions.
Growth of USFA membership grew exponentially. In 2004, policies were put in place to limit the number of tournaments available in the division by both Gulf Coast Division policies in local tournaments and Southwest Section policies in reference to the SSCC. If a local club hosted a Y14, Cadet or any USFA tournament the same weekend as a SSCC, even though the entries would not have attended the other event, then it was banned. That club would be on a do not host list, and the division could also have the SSCC removed from the rotation.
These restrictions severally hurt the number of tournaments available for developing new fencers. When the specific growth in the Gulf Coast Division is examined, these are the membership results: Gulf Coast TX – (2005) 667: (2004) 658: (2003) 376
The number of clubs have remained the same, and the number of coaches have remained stable. The growth or lack of growth is directly related to the policy of the GCD and SW Section.
It is ironic that the local and sectional policies of the USFA governing bodies are directly responsible for restricting the growth of the USFA in those specific areas.
Augie
|
|
|
Post by JEC on May 13, 2007 20:53:34 GMT -6
Augie,
In science, there is a saying that goes like this: "Data is data, is not wrong, it can be misunderstood. The way one interprets the data could be easily flawed."
The numbers for 2006 and 2007 using the same type of inclusion criteria (final forms accounted at the national office) is not available to me. Perhaps, divisional and sectional leadership can request it. Nevertheless, a potential alternative explanation is that in 2003 and prior years, there were fewer tournaments in your location with fewer fencing club locations. 2004 witnessed the birth of your club and Alliance, duplicating the number of large competitive clubs Note: No, I am not ignoring other clubs or think less of them; but week in and week out, there are 4 clubs that are responsible for over 80% of fencers travelling outside of the GCDivision to compete. On the other hand, another GCTX club accounts for more referees/bout committee people than any other one.In my view, the GCTX growth was more due to availability of club locations (perhaps no growth in number of coaches) than with sectional/divisional policies. However, you might have a point that policies might have slowed down the divisional growth. I would need to see 2006 and 2007 data. And, yes, my interpretation could easily be flawed. Data is data, and we need more of it, perhaps by clubs would be helpful.
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on May 14, 2007 14:22:55 GMT -6
JEC noted:
Well, part of our USFA membership growth was a direct result of Andrey Geva leaving Salle Mauro to form the Alliance Fencing Academy. He took some fencers with him, so that, at first, neither club was the size of Salle Mauro prior to his departure.
As Andrey added other coaches to the Alliance staff (notably Sabina Bazarbayeva and Dasha Dashevskaya, also from Salle Mauro) and as Mauro replaced those three, both clubs were able to grow to size on a par with Salle Mauro before Geva's departure.
That is part of the growth. We increased the number of clubs and, ultimately, coaches. The other part is due more to the rivalries between competing power elites in local fencing for control of the Gulf Coast Division. The weapon of choice was the proxy vote. All four of the larger clubs (and some of the smaller clubs) began agressive recruitment. New club members we strongly encouraged to join the USFA and persuaded to give over their proxies.
You can do it in your division, too, but there is a cost.
|
|
|
Post by katyblades on May 14, 2007 14:50:44 GMT -6
John,
You are ignoring the purpose of the USFA on a local level, to conduct USFA tournaments. This is my argument, that we have limited the number of tournaments again and this has lead to a lack of growth recently.
As there are more tournaments there is an incentive for fencers to join the USFA. What we have is a lack of incentive for fencers to join the USFA because there are not enough tournaments to make it worth their time and investment. There will always be people that try fencing and leave the sport for other sports. It is when we don't give an adequate opportunity for those attempting the sport that the USFA loses out, and that is the USFA's responsibility on a local level.
I am now in a unique position to talk to more people about the sport than many other people in the country because of my location. I have personally talked with 40+ adults in the past two weeks that fenced here, (Longblade's team captain at SWTS), France, Europe, Africa, etc that now live reasonably in the area and none of them fence any longer. WHY? They all like the sport but they don't need classes, (a junior national women's competitor from France in foil does not nor a former Venezualan junior women's epee team member), but would like to come out and compete for fun. The USFA could use their knowledge and expertise. The Gulf Coast Division could use more women in its events, and the local women could use a new challenge. (A new woman's epeeist with the Howell ladies size and classic style would be a good experience).
My personal club is growing by leaps and bounds, and I also give this information as a club officer and coach. You are welcome to come to my bouting times on the weekends and observe how many people come in that used to fence and ask them why.
My data is not statistically significant yet, but it will be within 5 or six months. Everything and everyone just confirm exactly what I am expressing here.
Remember the laws of product integration, that for every response you hear from there are 59 that you don't. Every new product derived from 60 ideas.
Again, the question should be how many people fence Olympic style fencing in the area, and how many of them are USFA members? Why is there a difference? What can and should be done about it?
|
|
|
Post by kd5mdk on May 14, 2007 15:50:27 GMT -6
How many tournaments is enough, then?
|
|
|
Post by katyblades on May 14, 2007 17:59:50 GMT -6
I think you should have at least one USFA competition per club location per event per season if the club can support it. There needs to be a minimum of one competition per event per month in the division. (Examples Y14 epee, Cadet Epee, Open foil) Examples: Y14, Cadet, U19, Unrated, Div. II, Div. III and Open Foil, Epee and Saber with Men's and Women's separate if 6 or more in each event. This afternoon I had two more active fencers come in that live in the area, one that fenced at Stanford, that have not fenced in a long time because competitions were not available. If we follow this model the sport will grow. This was what we were trying to do with the Houston Cup and what they do with the Bay Cup.
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on May 14, 2007 22:01:09 GMT -6
John,
You are ignoring the purpose of the USFA on a local level, to conduct USFA tournaments. This is my argument, that we have limited the number of tournaments again and this has lead to a lack of growth recently. Actually, Augie, I am not. The USFA occasionally ignores the purpose of the USFA (for my money). Please recall, at the time, thanks to Grace Atkinson, I came around to endorse the free-market approach to tournaments per weekend and tournament saturation. Just because I make an observation does not mean I agree with those whose action I observe. I am not 100% certain I agree with this arguement, but I do feel we have had way too many tournaments this season restricted to lower-ranked fencers or age-restricted. We really should have had more "open" events Me, too, but for other reasons... Here we are in complete agreement. Your last paragraph is particularly salient...
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on May 14, 2007 22:08:05 GMT -6
I think you should have at least one USFA competition per club location per event per season if the club can support it. An ambitious goal, and one I might support. For myself, I confess I have been busy lately instigating trouble in other quarters... I often think you and I too often disagree when, in fact, we agree (just coming at the same issues from different directions). I also think you and I both want our division to reach as far as it can. Sometimes I think we need three unique division offices: #1 works to push the elites as far as they can be pushed within the division... #2 works to provide as many opportunities as possible for each fencer to advance to the next level (if that is their wish) #3 goes around trying to jump-start fencing in areas that, right now, have no fencing. Note how each of those three feeds into the one before it?
|
|
|
Post by DavidSierra on May 16, 2007 8:47:06 GMT -6
I think you should have at least one USFA competition per club location per event per season if the club can support it. There needs to be a minimum of one competition per event per month in the division. (Examples Y14 epee, Cadet Epee, Open foil) Examples: Y14, Cadet, U19, Unrated, Div. II, Div. III and Open Foil, Epee and Saber with Men's and Women's separate if 6 or more in each event. Okay, I have to admit my first thought here was - thats way to bloody many tournaments! How on earth are you going to properly staff that? How are you going to ensure you have enough equipment, armoury technicians, referees, bout committee, etc. And then... I think to myself, yea, that's not a bad goal to work toward. Even the Gulf Coast though is probably several orders of magnitude away from being able to support such a thought. Some thoughts though, in no particular order. The national governing board is less than enthusiastic (to put it mildly) about events held on the same weekend in the same division in different locations that would be "in conflict." We can all jump and scream and waive our hands and say that this is holding things back and everyone is not benefiting... but the result is still the same. It ain't gonna fly to do that. And I've had some very specific conversations about what a "conflicting" event might consist of, and suffice it to say, that definition is probably leaning towards the broader end of the spectrum than most of us would feel comfortable with. A guideline that has been suggested is that all non-age restricted events within a weapon would be conflicting ("Open," DivII and DivIII would all conflict with each other. DivI and DivIII >might< not), as would overlapping age restricted events within a weapon (Y10 and 12 would overlap, but Y10 and Y14 would not). I know, I know, many people don't like it. But, its one of the realities that we have to deal with, like new timings in foil, and the loss of the forward cross step in sabre. Deal with it, move on, and keep going. All of us have shown the tactical flexibility to deal with those other "innovations" or we wouldn't still be fencing and coaching so, can we deal with this one? We're no where NEAR the number of capable and competent referees, bout committee and armoury techs we need to put on a schedule of events like this. The current schedule strains the ability of our current referee cadre almost to the breaking point. Given a generation of hard and serious work, it could happen. But it takes a lot longer to train a referee than it does a fencer. Attendance at other clubs events in one's local area should be promoted, encouraged and if necessary, beaten into one's students. Actually, GCD does a better job of this than my division in many respects, but its something that bears constant repetition. As a coach, I want two things for the tournaments that my students attend. 1) that they be well attended and well run (and yes, I know that "well run" encompasses a HOST of things, but you get the idea) and 2) that they be spaced appropriately to allow for the planning of training schedules, and to prevent burnout. THERE IS SUCH A THING AS TOO MUCH COMPETITION! Its not good for fencers to be always competing from September to May. They need time off to let their bodies recover, and incorporate new ideas and techniques. Here is an example. Last season, the girls and women who fence Women's Sabre in the Section got together and decided that they were all going to attend as many of the SSCC events as possible this season, along with a select few other events. Basically, it worked out to one event a month from September to May. And I can tell you, by the end of Sectionals two weeks ago, those girls who did it were >exhausted<. They also all made fabulous strides in performance throughout the season. There's like six girls, all very close to each other in skill, any one of whom could beat all the others on a given day. But, to add any more events to their schedule would be detrimental to their development as fencers. As it is, they all need a break before they can start to train up for Nationals, both physically and mentally. Okay, with all that in mind, I think its too much to have one event per type per month within a Division, with current resources. But, that doesn't mean its not a goal to strive forward. I'd start with a more manageable goal. How about one of each from the following categories Y-10 Y-12 Y14 or Cadet or Junior Unrated, DivII or DivIII Senior held at least every other month? Include RYCs, SYCs, and SSCC's held within the Division. Encourage multiple types of events held together. If necessary, spread out the weapons (foil over here, sabre over here, epee over here). But, don't try to do TOO much too soon. And Augie, I might suggest, those DivIII and DivIII events ARE a good place for those specific individuals to start fencing again.
|
|
|
Post by katyblades on May 17, 2007 15:03:18 GMT -6
Well, we have arrived at a compromise and it sounds reasonable. How do we get it started?
I don't see the technical aspects and referees as being a challenge. I had to deal with that in basketball, baseball, soccer, etc. in the eight years I was out. I have a dozen young, responsible adults plus a few seasoned adults that are ready for their directors tests. I also have trained more than one bout committee person in my history, and a few of the people doing the training in this section draw from my lineage. There won't be more people until the need arises.
I will be interested in seeing several of these returning converts in their first Div. II and Div. III events. I have a two-time military champion from one country, and another international fencer that was watching my Olympic tapes from 2004 that knew the fencer and knew his tendencies and weaknesses pretty well. Convincing them to start in a Div. II or III will be a hoot.
Again, how does this process get started since it sounds so reasonable?
|
|
|
Post by DavidSierra on May 18, 2007 8:05:41 GMT -6
Well, we have arrived at a compromise and it sounds reasonable. How do we get it started? I don't see the technical aspects and referees as being a challenge. I had to deal with that in basketball, baseball, soccer, etc. in the eight years I was out. I have a dozen young, responsible adults plus a few seasoned adults that are ready for their directors tests. I also have trained more than one bout committee person in my history, and a few of the people doing the training in this section draw from my lineage. Again, how does this process get started since it sounds so reasonable? I'd suggest contracting with one of the three, soon to be four, FOC instructors in the area (Jerry Benson, Amgad Badawi and Gary Vanderwedge are in the area right now and Justin Meehan will be moving to Shreveport over the summer, I understand), and bring them down to run an FOC clinic. Then find a tournament where Jerry, Gary, Amgad or myself will be the head referee (basically, any of the SSCC's, some of the RYC's and various other events) in order to have additional observations and mentoring. I could go on and on about this, but its important to remember, the development of a referee does not end with taking the test, rather it is just beginning . As far as getting your division to adopt that schedule... well, good luck with that. Maybe if everyone were to bring olive branches and sing psalms?
|
|
|
Post by katyblades on May 20, 2007 10:50:40 GMT -6
David,
That is the wrong order to do things.
1. Schedule the events. 2. Find out the additional needs from the existing cadre. 3. Schedule clinics as needed.
I do not have events in my facility that had complaints about running late or not sufficiently staffed with directors in at least the past two seasons including all the tournaments I have to run that are not USFA because there are sufficient events in the area.
There have been local events this season in the GCD that started 2+ hours after the closing time of registration, and I was told by parents that they would not go back to that facility even though they did for the SYC. I was not at these events, but I received the information from the parents that had to sit there with open strips waiting to start.
That was not a lack of directors in the area, but maybe a lack of directors in the area that were asked to participate. Those are two different things. There were many open and working strips there.
|
|
|
Post by DavidSierra on May 21, 2007 8:32:50 GMT -6
David, That is the wrong order to do things. 1. Schedule the events. 2. Find out the additional needs from the existing cadre. 3. Schedule clinics as needed. Augie, with all due respect, you're wrong in this instance. As I pointed out, it takes a long time to train a referee, and the training does not stop with the clinic and exam - it merely begins. Long term referee development, which is something I've been involved in for half a dozen years, requires a longer view of things. One must project down the line of what one's needs are going to be and take this into account. Simply saying, "oh we've got a tournament coming up in two months and we need some referees, lets hold a clinic," is most assuredly not planning for the future. Additionally, just because the cadre EXISTS is not a guarantee that they'll be able to work a specific tournament. Regional, National, and International events all place a demand, and even the most dedicated and hard working of referees need time off to spend with their families. And, by the way, tell the parents that you've talked to, that it doesn't matter where the facility is located or who the organizing group is that is in charge. If they want to go to a well run event, find out who the 1) Technical Coordinator (sometimes referred to as Bout Committee Chair, but is the person in charge of all the computers, registration and seeding) and 2) Head Referee are. That information is much more likely to be a more accurate measure of the tournament. For example, if you know that the Technical Coordinator is Terry Harkey, backed up by Matt Delevorias and Jaime Ailshire, and the Head Referees are Jerry Benson and/or myself and/or Gary Vanderwedge, you can be pretty well guaranteed as good as an event as we can make it. Why? Because Terry and her crew spend tons of time ahead of the day itself making sure everything conforms to regulation (no missing USFA memberships, all the ratings are verified with USFA, the seeding and pool construction are done strictly according to the letter of the regulations, the DE tables are processed efficiently and smoothly), and Jerry, Gary and myself take responsibility for recruiting our own referee cadres AND we are experienced at working with Terry and her crew. But, make no mistake, its a team operation. And we all travel very well, and will work together anywhere .
|
|