|
Post by bonemeister on Apr 3, 2007 1:40:03 GMT -6
As many of you know my name is chris boney. i started my fencing career in texas and that is where i grew my deep passion for the sport. well, i recently moved away because of the air force and one of the places i had to do training was in alabama. while there i went to a few tournaments in the area. one of which i earned my B2007 in foil back in feb. now when i check to see when my rating will be updated through USFA they tell me that the epee and saber event rating changes will be submitted but not foil. i am going to copy and paste the reply i recieved and if anyone here can help me find out the legality of this move i would greatly appreciate it. i plan on fighting this decision because i have never in my life heard of anything like this and i fought hard for my B d**n IT! thanks again. here is the response:
I asked Bill Becker (Section Chairman) to review the results of the Wright Memorial in order to determine whether the ratings earned should be submitted to the USFA. He has informed me that the ratings will be submitted, EXCEPT for the rating earned in Open Foil (results for the other events, specifically Open Sabre, will be submitted). The reason was that he felt there was not sufficient independence with respect to referees used in the Direct Eliminations. I regret that this will prevent four ratings, from four exceptional fencers, from being made official.
|
|
kb
Squire
Posts: 261
|
Post by kb on Apr 3, 2007 6:12:29 GMT -6
HUH???
This smells wrong on several different levels.
So the Section guy said he didn't like the refereeing and decided to throw out the event? If the fencers signed the pool sheets, the refs signed the pool sheets, then this guy has no say in the matter.
Email Matt D, and Jerry Benson in OK. They know the rules!
Good luck and keep us posted.
|
|
|
Post by bonemeister on Apr 3, 2007 7:10:22 GMT -6
do you know their email addresses?
|
|
|
Post by JEC on Apr 3, 2007 7:25:11 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by DavidSierra on Apr 3, 2007 7:35:25 GMT -6
HUH??? This smells wrong on several different levels. So the Section guy said he didn't like the refereeing and decided to throw out the event? If the fencers signed the pool sheets, the refs signed the pool sheets, then this guy has no say in the matter. It does indeed smell wrong, but not quite for the reason you cite. The >Section< doesn't have any say in this matter - the Division does. Even if the fencers signed the pool sheets and DE slips and the referees signed the pool sheets and DE slips, the (and I emphasize here) DIVISION could refuse to certify the event, for a number of reasons. Reasons include: improper seeding, low level referees used to referee a high level event, evidence of impropriety on the part of referees, fencers or bout committee, or any other reason the Division chair and/or executive committee (or whatever the management structure of the particular Division in question happens to be). I've heard of a couple of cases of such things happening, but they're pretty rare and few. But again, its the Division that certifies such things, not the Section. So check with the Division, and ask them to certify the results as is proper. Edit: I suppose the Division chair could ask for the opinion of various outside sources before making a decision, which appears to be what happened. But its the responsibility of the Division chair still to take the heat for the decision, not to lean on the opinions of others.
|
|
|
Post by Aldo N on Apr 5, 2007 17:58:12 GMT -6
I asked Bill Becker (Section Chairman) to review the results of the Wright Memorial in order to determine whether the ratings earned should be submitted to the USFA. He has informed me that the ratings will be submitted, EXCEPT for the rating earned in Open Foil (results for the other events, specifically Open Sabre, will be submitted). The reason was that he felt there was not sufficient independence with respect to referees used in the Direct Eliminations. I regret that this will prevent four ratings, from four exceptional fencers, from being made official. I echo David Sierra on this. Unless it was the sectional qualifier, the section chairman should not have a say. Certainly, they could not override the division if they give the event full sanction.
|
|
|
Post by katyblades on Apr 5, 2007 21:45:18 GMT -6
"here) DIVISION could refuse to certify the event, for a number of reasons. Reasons include: improper seeding, low level referees used to referee a high level event, evidence of impropriety on the part of referees, fencers or bout committee, or any other reason the Division chair and/or executive committee (or whatever the management structure of the particular Division in question happens to be). I've heard of a couple of cases of such things happening, but they're pretty rare and few. But again, its the Division that certifies such things, not the Section. So check with the Division, and ask them to certify the results as is proper."
I have seen the GCD do this in the current season, and it happened at least 4 times in the 2005-2006 season. I just get to see Haley's comet more often. The reasons most often cited is that the tournaments were not properly advertised even though they were attended often by 6 different clubs and 30+ competitors and a month in advance on askfred. One time it was stated that Katrina victims in the evacuation mode may miss out on the tournament so the host was trying to discriminate against them.
The current GCD qualifiers did not have sufficient advertising using last year's standards, and I am waiting to get evidence of my C07 in foil. I was just going to wait for a better event to get rated if they do not get the rating in. It would have been a shame to not have the GCD qualifiers sanctioned by the GCD for ratings.
Until you live it, you would not believe it.
|
|
|
Post by bonemeister on Apr 5, 2007 22:28:33 GMT -6
Amen brother
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Apr 6, 2007 6:42:17 GMT -6
I have seen the GCD do this in the current season, and it happened at least 4 times in the 2005-2006 season. Just curious, what four tournaments were denied sanction in 2005/06?
|
|
|
Post by DavidSierra on Apr 6, 2007 8:31:45 GMT -6
"here) I have seen the GCD do this in the current season, and it happened at least 4 times in the 2005-2006 season. I just get to see Haley's comet more often. The reasons most often cited is that the tournaments were not properly advertised even though they were attended often by 6 different clubs and 30+ competitors and a month in advance on askfred. One time it was stated that Katrina victims in the evacuation mode may miss out on the tournament so the host was trying to discriminate against them. Augie, with all due respect, there is a _world_ of difference between refusing to sanction an event that did not meet pre-stated event requirements for publicity (which is, I presume what the issue is in Gulf Coast) and similar situations of that nature where the requirements are laid out beforehand, and the situation which Chris is describing. Its the latter case to which I was referring happens extremely infrequently. Surely you'll agree?
|
|
nemo
Blademaster
mobilis in mobili
Posts: 729
|
Post by nemo on Apr 6, 2007 19:20:11 GMT -6
Chris, at the risk of dragging this thread back onto topic, could you (as you mentioned in the first post) give us a direct copy/paste excerpt of the response you recieved.
I think you've been seriously wronged, my man, but I also want to read exactly what they wrote.
Given how NEW you are to the division, I doubt the referees could have been a lot more independent iin your case unless they were shipped in from another country...
|
|
|
Post by MTD on Apr 6, 2007 22:14:06 GMT -6
The story I hear is that the tournament organizers broke an Alabama Division rule against coaches refereeing bouts with one of the fencers being a student of theirs, particularly in the round of eight onward where it made the most difference. It is certainly legal for any division to declare that something intended to be one of its own division-sanctioned competitions isn't one of its own division-sanctioned competitions, and it is certainly ethical to do so for violation of previously-understood requirements for division-sanctioned tournaments.
I see that in the foil competition, four people "earned" classifications. Two of them were from the organizing club. While they may very well have deserved the classifications, it does give cause for concern if the referees were from the organizing club, and were prohibited from being so.
And, it also means that, if anything really was refereed in an impermissibly biased fashion, then Chris Boney's B-quality performance was probably very real, since he would have been on the losing end of the problem. It's a pity that there's no practical way to invalidate only portions of a competition.
|
|
|
Post by bonemeister on Apr 6, 2007 23:42:42 GMT -6
that is the response i recieved. i copied and pasted from the email exactly. i appreciate the support and i am going to talk to Mr. Becker in Tucson and see if there is anything we can work out.
|
|
|
Post by DavidSierra on Apr 9, 2007 7:50:20 GMT -6
While you're at it you might also inquire of Mr. Becker what he is doing involved in this process, as he's the >Section< chair not the >Division< chair.
|
|
|
Post by archangel on Apr 25, 2007 14:43:23 GMT -6
you got hosed.... i am sorry slick.
|
|
|
Post by bonemeister on Nov 12, 2007 12:31:57 GMT -6
so, i finally (re) Earned my B2007 out here in california by winning a B2 event!! just sendin out an update of how life is on this end. i'll be actually moving to north dakota in a couple of weeks so yesterday was my last tournament for months probably if not longer..... hope everyone is doing well. i see there a couple of new A's and a few new B's in texas!!! congrats to all and i cant wait to come back and fence in a tournament at home!
|
|
|
Post by Aldo N on Nov 12, 2007 23:08:15 GMT -6
Ah, good luck on America's "frozen tundra." We'll burn a candle for you...
|
|