|
Post by LongBlade on Mar 4, 2006 20:13:43 GMT -6
Here's the results from SWIFA #3:
Epee (9 Teams): 1) TAMU - A 2) UH 3) Texas State 3) UTSA - A
Foil (12 Teams): 1) TAMU - A 2) UH - A 3) UTSA - A 3) UNT - A
Sabre (5 Teams): 1) TAMU - A 2) Texas State 3) UTSA 3) UTFC
|
|
|
Post by kd5mdk on Mar 4, 2006 20:22:45 GMT -6
Are the fencers from A&M's teams going to the USACFC Nationals at Clemson?
|
|
|
Post by Aaron Clements on Mar 4, 2006 22:42:56 GMT -6
Having spoken to our epee squad who made the 400 mile trek to Waco for this, I can assure you that they are not pleased with how the tournament was run.
It's my understanding that the tournament was very unorganized, and that Texas Tech was mistakenly told that they were eliminated before DE rounds, and were only informed otherwise after they were already on the road home. That's certainly not the treatment that we expect for our $50, our gas, and our time.
While I know that SWIFA has become a loosely-organized association, errors of this sheer magnitude are not acceptable if y'all want our continued participation.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Gorman on Mar 4, 2006 22:53:03 GMT -6
A&M is traveling to Club Nationals.
Dan
|
|
Katman
Squire
[ss:Default]
Posts: 269
|
Post by Katman on Mar 4, 2006 23:22:39 GMT -6
Yay second place. I was truckin' along OK until the gold medal encounter. d**n epee. Here's what I heard about the epee thing: Initally, Baylor intended to take the top 2 schools from each pool. Someone protested and said that we should go based on overall indicators or results or whatever, instead of letting the pools stand alone. Going by top 2 from each pool would have had UH, TAMU A, UTSA, and TSU. Going by indicators or overall results or whatever would have had UH, TAMU A, someone else and Texas Tech. There was bickering. I dunno, I was watching foil. At some point I saw Texas Tech walk out the door. Later I hear them calling the epee guys and asking us to vote on which way we should do it. The vote swung for the other, not-originally-planned way of of going by overall results intead of just the top two from each pool. I asked a Baylor guy why we were even voting then told him we should have stuck with the original plan. I asked who the teams in DEs were. He said they were UH, TAMU, some other team, and Texas Tech. "Um, Texas Tech is gone," I said. They tried calling them but Tech was already on the road. They wound up sticking with the original plan anyway. I have no idea how they determined who went to DEs for the rest of the events.
|
|
|
Post by jazz007 on Mar 5, 2006 0:43:52 GMT -6
Interesting. My last few rounds with SWIFA haven't had much like that happen, but somehow it's not a surprise.
I wish I could have been there to help out, but by the time the UTFC team made its travel arrangements, I had already made other plans.
One thing I would like the host clubs for SWIFA to consider, for future events, is a thorough reading of the USFA rulebook on how team competitions are supposed to be run. Surely the club president can come up with a laptop, printer, and *.pdf of the rulebook. XSeed is available for free, and can run team events (although I'd have to play with it to figure it out exactly). I feel that just an adherence to the rules would do such a HUGE amount for SWIFA. I know there are difficulties with equipment, since clubs are sending the best they have and sometimes that wouldn't pass at tournaments, but format, structure, everything else would benefit from someone who knows the rules, or someone who is willing to look them up.
I also know that SWIFA doesn't really exist as an organization, so this might not be possible. Thoughts?
|
|
Katman
Squire
[ss:Default]
Posts: 269
|
Post by Katman on Mar 5, 2006 9:08:48 GMT -6
From what I understand, tournament format at SWIFA usually follows something other than what the USFA perscribes.
Pools are fenced as 3 bouts between A, B, and C fencers.
DEs are not 45-touch relays, but best 5 out of 9 bouts to 5 touches.
You are allowed one "time out" minute after a halt during each bout should you or someone from your team choose to call it.
People fence in sweatpants or jeans with pockets taped.
I have no idea where they got this format. It was mostly that way when I started fencing at UH.
But Baylor had a game plan for how they were going to take teams from pools and stick them into DEs. I think they should have stuck to it and not allowed themselves to be convinced otherwise.
I don't remember them publishing their game plan before the tournament. Maaaaaybe they did. If they didn't then I think that might have helped matters.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Gorman on Mar 5, 2006 10:33:40 GMT -6
The 3 bouts between A, B, and C fencers with a time out follows NCAA fencing. The pools part was added so that people would get home before 3 am with a DE to name a winner in each squad. The permissiveness in clothing was agreed on because SWIFA's mission is to promote fencing among beginner without the cost of complete compliance with USFA rules.
Dan
|
|
Katman
Squire
[ss:Default]
Posts: 269
|
Post by Katman on Mar 5, 2006 10:47:00 GMT -6
NCAA? Groovy. I knew saving time was an issue as was promoting the growth of fencing to beginners, but thanks for mentioning it. My point was that the tournament format and the rule book weren't really the issue. It was really a matter of "sticking to your guns" during the tournament and announcing the format beforehand so you don't have a crowd of epeeists standing around you after pools suggesting that DEs be constructed on way or another.
|
|
|
Post by LongBlade on Mar 5, 2006 14:00:22 GMT -6
My point was that the tournament format and the rule book weren't really the issue. It was really a matter of "sticking to your guns" during the tournament and announcing the format beforehand so you don't have a crowd of epeeists standing around you after pools suggesting that DEs be constructed on way or another. I thought everything was going quite well (the NCAA format works very well and is a LOT quicker). I was paid to be there to referee epee, and was fully prepared to be there all day and well into the night to referee for the 45 touch matches. As it was, I was back at home right at dark.
The preliminary rounds were over when the Baylor LOC announced they wanted to have a meeting of the epee Squad Captains.
Texas Tech was already told they were out, so they had packed up and left for that long drive back to Lubbock. (It appears that by win-loss record they were out, but if you go by indicators, they had made it into the next round).
I don't have any idea of why the issue came up or from whom, but there should have been a format set before the tournament, they should to announce it, and then stick to it come Hell or high water!
I feel very badly for the Texas Tech squad!
|
|
Katman
Squire
[ss:Default]
Posts: 269
|
Post by Katman on Mar 5, 2006 19:25:02 GMT -6
Yah, we were out of there by 4:30 or so. Everything was smooth sailing except for the epee thing.
|
|
|
Post by Parry Nine on Mar 5, 2006 23:05:12 GMT -6
So, where's the next SWIFA tourney going to be? Has anyone stepped up to host it?
|
|
|
Post by LongBlade on Mar 5, 2006 23:09:25 GMT -6
UTSA has agreed to hold SWIFA #4.
|
|
|
Post by jazz007 on Mar 5, 2006 23:20:01 GMT -6
Okay. My comment about "using the rule book" didn't really convey my meaning. My apologies.
I suggest more that SWIFA find a standard and apply it across all 4 SWIFA events, regardless of the host, for most if not all aspects. If it's using the NCAA rulebook to determine formats, or the USFA one, or the FIE one, doesn't really matter. I really enjoy the format posted above, so if that's NCAA, more power to them:
"Pools are fenced as 3 bouts between A, B, and C fencers.
DEs are not 45-touch relays, but best 5 out of 9 bouts to 5 touches."
I'll guarantee that there would be no question of "who advances" using a standard set forth in one of the three rulebooks cited above, even though the three may/may not differ on format. That was most of my point.
The rest of my feelings on the matter are more geared toward increasing the quality of SWIFA competition. Consistency, adherence to what can be expected in NCAA or USFA team competition. Disagreements over the rules have been a problem in the past - I'm thinking of more than just this SWIFA (I have to, since I didn't make it to this one), but as far back as SWIFA #2 2004, my first. Dan, I very much agree with you about the cost of compliance with USFA guidelines, although I hold that clubs should try to get as close as possible to those, for safety and quality reasons.
I really love knowing that there were referees there, especially! I feel, as a graduate of collegiate fencing, that that's a huge step in the right direction, and I will make the effort to be at SWIFA #4 if I can help!
|
|
|
Post by gorgie101 on Mar 5, 2006 23:39:37 GMT -6
Me again. I really wish I had been able to go this weekend but alas school prevented it. I feel that over all intentions where good just things got out of hand. Everyone has made good points. I feel that in the future tournaments need to be announced with format and location info on an easy to access location such as Ask Fred or at the least here. Fred allows you to set up team events and it's free. It might even give the hosting school a general idea of how many teams to expect, thus making planing easier. These are just my thoughts. As soon as SWIFA # 4 is lined up please let us know my email is above.
Thanks
Julie Hunt-Clements
|
|
|
Post by jazz007 on Mar 6, 2006 0:03:40 GMT -6
Off topic:
Julie, I love your user picture! Go Gargoyles!
|
|
|
Post by Aaron Clements on Mar 6, 2006 0:43:59 GMT -6
My point was that the tournament format and the rule book weren't really the issue. It was really a matter of "sticking to your guns" during the tournament and announcing the format beforehand so you don't have a crowd of epeeists standing around you after pools suggesting that DEs be constructed on way or another. I thought everything was going quite well (the NCAA format works very well and is a LOT quicker). I was paid to be there to referee epee, and was fully prepared to be there all day and well into the night to referee for the 45 touch matches. As it was, I was back at home right at dark.
The preliminary rounds were over when the Baylor LOC announced they wanted to have a meeting of the epee Squad Captains.
Texas Tech was already told they were out, so they had packed up and left for that long drive back to Lubbock. (It appears that by win-loss record they were out, but if you go by indicators, they had made it into the next round).
I don't have any idea of why the issue came up or from whom, but there should have been a format set before the tournament, they should to announce it, and then stick to it come Hell or high water!
I feel very badly for the Texas Tech squad!Thank you for that, Kyle. And thanks to everyone for listening to me vent on behalf of our squad (who were very, very vexed by what went on) and calmly explaining more of what happened that our folks didn't see. For reference, my fencing experience started in NCAA on Caltech's team, and my SWIFA experience started in 1993-94, on Tech's epee squad (taking 3rd in SWIFA that season). At that time, SWIFA was somewhat more organized, although relaxed as well. The problems that I see with SWIFA are the same that others have pointed out, but they are symptoms of a more endemic problem, which is a lack of effective communication, especially with the outside world (it is next to impossible to get information on SWIFA if you're not part of the group & don't know who to talk to). For future reference, when y'all are sending out communications, feel free to include Tech in those, including requests for referees, as we have a plethora of rated refs up here.
|
|