Agenda Special Meeting of the USA Fencing Board of Directors · there should be a waiting period...

USA Fencing Board of Directors February 20, 2018 Meeting Agenda

Agenda

Special Meeting of the

USA Fencing Board of Directors February 20, 2018 in Memphis, TN 10:00 AM CT

Sheraton Memphis Downtown Nashville Room 1-877-885-3221 Passcode: 6869204

I. Call to Order, General Information and Organizational Items

General Announcements

Remarks – Donald Anthony, President

II. Consent Agenda Items (Mr. Anthony)

1. To approve the minutes from the December 5, 2017 meeting.

2. To approve the financial reports for November and December 2017 financialreports.

3. To receive the Division Resource Team, Hall of Fame Committee, NominatingCommittee, Referees’ Commission and Tournament Committee Reports(Appendix A-E).

III. Executive Directors Report (Ms. Ekeren)

IV. Finance Report (Mr. Hayler)

V. 2018-2019 Budget Presentation (Mr. Hayler & Mr. Arias)

Motion (Mr. Arias): To approve the 2018-19 budget.

VI. Operating Reserves (Mr. Hayler & Mr. Arias)

VII. Legal Update (Mr. Neale)

VIII. Tournament Summit Update (Ms. Simmons)

IX. Asia Working Group Update (Ms. Simmons)

X. Coach Education Update (Mr. Callan)


XI. Safe Sport Update

New Business

Motion (Mr. Alperstein): To amend the USA Fencing Committee list to add Katharine Holmes as athlete liaison to the Referees' Commission. The athlete liaison will attend the annual meeting of the Referees' Commission and will be included in proceedings of the Commission that deal directly with athletes, but shall not have a vote. Beginning with the 2018/2019 season, the USA Fencing Athlete Council will annually appoint the athlete liaison to the Referee Commission. The expenses of the athlete liaison shall not be borne by the Referee Commission.

Good and Welfare

Recess to Executive Session

Executive Session

Adjournment


Appendix A

Name: Division Resource Team

Meeting Minutes – January 2018

Board Liaison: Donald Alperstein

Staff Liaison: Christine Strong Simmons

Guest: Bob Bodor

Division Resource Team Report

The Division Resource Team meets monthly on a conference call. The January call highlighted

ongoing efforts to meet with Division Officers at all the monthly National Tournaments. In

addition, various Division issues or questions are submitted to the group, discussed and results

are communicated back to the Division. Other topics from the January conference call were

growing membership, club partnership in accounting for non-competitive members with the

National Office, creating a parent portal on the website and ongoing mentoring/on-boarding

process for new Division Officers.

Division Resource Team

Allan Evans

Linda Merritt

Rich Weiss

Jennifer Nollner

Jerry Benson

Fernando Delgado


Appendix B

USA Fencing Hall of Fame Task Force

Meeting Minutes – January 15, 2018

Members Present: Donald Alperstein, Bill Korbus, Jim Neale, Andy Shaw (Chair), Adam

Watson

Members Absent: Raquel Brown

Staff Liaison: Kris Ekeren

The group reviewed the task force charter and had no feedback or additional items for the

document.

Andy gave a comprehensive review of the Hall of Fame which was helpful for the group

members. To recap:

o The HOF selection and voting procedures have varied over the years depending

on the structure at that time – i.e. # of board members, involvement of

membership, categories for inductees.

o It should be noted that between 1975-1994, there were no inductions to the group.

o Currently, the categories include competitors and non-competitors.

Kris provided the language from the HOF website as well as the outdated information

from the Operations Manual.

Jim discussed the possibility of having eligibility requirements – how much time should

pass before being inducted after the athlete retires or a grace period. Adam agreed that

there should be a waiting period after the athlete’s career is completed.

Donald discussed that the selection should be resume based. He felt that the categories

should include athletes, coaches and other service.

The board should embrace the criteria, selection process and voting method and allow the

committee to complete the work.

There was discussion of the percentage of the committee that should agree before an

individual is nominated for the Hall of Fame. Currently, the group will use a 2/3 majority

to place the individual on the ballot.

All members of the task force agreed that the HOF election should take place during the

USA Fencing general election.

Next steps: staff will provide information on other sport hall of fames; group will try to

meet in person in Memphis.


Appendix C

USA Fencing Nominating Committee

Meeting Minutes – November 30, 2017

Members Present: Jimmy Moody (Chair), Diana Hoadley, Lew Siegel

Members Absent: Dan Kellner, Sean Shumate

Staff Liaison: Kris Ekeren, Nicole Jomantas

Kris thanked the group for serving on the committee.

Jimmy Moody was nominated as the chair and accepted the position.

The group discussed application process and upcoming deadline (Monday, December 4).

Kris gave the group an update on applications. Jimmy requested a list of past candidates

for the group to review.

Nicole provided an update on the promotion efforts for the call for nominations. The

application information will be included in the email blast as well as social media over

the weekend.

Kris informed the committee that the Referee Commission will be conducting their

nominations process for Vice Chair positions within the next few days.

Kris and Nicole will update the group over the weekend on the status of applications and

Jimmy will set the date for the next meeting after the application deadline.


Meeting Minutes – January 3, 2018

Members Present: Jimmy Moody (Chair), Diana Hoadley, Lew Siegel

Members Absent: Dan Kellner, Sean Shumate

Staff Liaison: Kris Ekeren, Nicole Jomantas

The committee discussed progress of the interviews.

The group discussed the process for determining the final slate of nominees and

notification of candidates.

The National Office will post the announcement on January 15, 2018.

Jimmy thanked everyone for their service on the committee.



Final Report

January 15, 2018

1. The Nominating Committee nominates the following persons for the director

positions designated, believing that each possesses experience and knowledge pertinent to the

purposes, interests and needs of USA Fencing.

Parties for each position are listed in alphabetical order

Position - Director At Large (one to be elected)

Lorrie Marcil Holmes

Ro Sobalvarro

2. As a result of the high quality of the parties that submitted applications to the

Committee but who were not nominated this time, the Committee believes that USA Fencing

would be best served by using those applications as a base for a pool of volunteers that may be

available to: serve on committees or commissions: gain broader experience in the workings of

USA Fencing; or who can be mentored; so as to be ready to fill officer or board positions in the

future.

Respectfully submitted,

Nominating Committee Members

Jimmy Moody (Chair), Diana Hoadley, Dan Kellner, Sean Shumate and Lew Siegel


Appendix D

REPORT TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS FROM THE

REFEREES’COMMISSION 2/8/18

The Referees’ Commission (RC) has been very busy since the September Meeting. I have attached the reports of the committees to this summary. As Chair of the RC I have handled various allegations of breaches of the Code of Ethics by referees and was able to resolve a number without the need for a tribunal. In the only case that began the formal process since my September report, Charles Astudillo, a member of the tribunal and I were able to sit down with the two referees and reach an accord. Part of the issue related to the use of social media by one referee to call into question the competence of another referee. The Ombudsman group took up this issue and modified the Code of Ethics to expand the paragraph dealing with the requirement of respect to other referees so that it now states:

Referees are to respect other Referees to the utmost. It is improper to publicly indicate disapproval of the actions of other referees. This includes the use of social media, writing posts disparaging the decisions or character of fellow referees, or liking, or otherwise indicating approval of, posts which do so.

We were also able to secure a $10,000 grant through the assistance of Elvira Orly to be used to further the training of referees. The money is being spent to convert the Referee Assessment program to Dartfish and the purchase of the hardware and software to use the new system. This is scheduled to go into operation in March. Creation of video for training and exams is still a difficult area for the Commission. We have also implemented the National Office’s memo with regard to the appropriate conduct of coaches at competitions. The Domestic Development Committee has established its mission statement and has divided its activities into local, regional and national foci. The Committee is striving to increase the number and quality of referees at each level. The list of initiatives in each area are outlined in Patrick Webster’s report. The CRI materials have been updated and a post CRI seminar survey was launched in January. A seminar was held at the October NAC and another will be held in April. A clinic and lecture series are schedule for the Summer Nationals. A mentor program with 40 mentors is being rolled out in the regions. The Domestic Assignment Committee has begun to track the referee work hours at competitions and is working on trying to level out the work days as much as can be done in an effort to assure the referees are not working in an overtired state when they are handling difficult matches at the


end of each day. Tracking work time also helps us comply with requirements to restrict the work day of underage referees. Mary Frye has also been supervising the hiring of referees to each event and the hiring and training of Referee coordinators and assigners for each of the NACs. Please read her report to see the nature of the difficulties with regard to hiring for certain events and the herculean efforts made by some referees to get to Virginia Beach in spite of flight cancellations and extended days due to delayed starts. For the Rules Committee, Devin Donnelly has secured the assistance of Brad Baker as the new editor of the USA Fencing Rule Book. The Committee has responded to all rules questions from the membership within a three-day window and has approved mask designs that have been submitted. The Rules Blog is on target to double its output from last season and was also used to disseminate the National Office’s memo regarding coach behavior. The Committee is in the process of reviewing the changes to the rules passed by the last FIE Congress and will soon make a recommendation to the Board regarding adoption of rules and timing of their implementation. The development of a new exam is in process. The Ombudsman group is expanding its engagement with the referee cadre, RC members and the National Office. It currently has 721 followers on its Facebook page. It has even developed some international followers, helping set the bar for referee relations for other federations. The Ombudsman has reached an average of 450 people for each post with a high of 1803 and a low of 30. At least two members of the Ombudsman Committee have been present at each national event. The representatives have counseled over 25 referees at these events. The Ombudsman also attended 35 regional events. They are currently looking to add a sabre member and clarify the SafeSport procedures. Sexual harassment will be the biggest issue for the remainder of this season. Respectfully submitted, Sam Cheris Chair, Referees’ Commission

DRD 2017-2018 VisionPatrick Webster

RC – Domestic Referee Development Committee (DRDC)

RegionalizationDRDC Committee members by Region

VC DRDC – Patrick Webster (Region 2)

Region 1Justin Meehan (WA)Tasha Poissant (OR)Kevin Mar (WA)

Region 2Abbas Fadel (WI)Sean Shumate (KY)

Region 3David Sach (MA)Lisa Campi-Saprey (NJ)Bruce Gillman (NY)

Region 4Bill Oliver (CO)Peter Burchard (CA)

Region 5Mark Stasinos (UT)

Region 6Mary Mahon (FL)Rylan Delap (AL)

Mission Statement

The mission of the Domestic Referee Development Committee (DRDC) of the Referee’s Commission (RC) is to build referee cadre that meets the National, Regional and Local level needs the sport of fencing has grown to require. We will create paths of development for referees that include progressing from a local to regional levels, regional to national levels and build a bridge to potential international opportunities. By dividing development activities into National, Regional and Local focus areas, it will be possible to work on referee development at all levels.

Patrick Webster Mission Statement: I plan to drive progress in referee development through leading a disciplined cross functional team representing all regions with members representing all levels of referee development.

Vision of Building Referee DevelopmentN

atio

nal Seminars during National

EventsPartnership with Canadian Fencing FederationAssessment project with DartFishPost CRI Seminar SurveyMentoring ProgramTop Athlete RecruitingUpdate CRI MaterialCRI/CRO Training

Regi

onal

ROC/RJCC/RYC Requirements for developmentAssistance proposal for CRI/CRO needs to ROC/RYC/RJCC Hosting ClubsMFCs/Regional NCAA Referee Development opportunitiesNew CRI/CROs to meet Underserved areas

Loca

l Clinic availability to all DivisionsLists of new referees to Division Officers to aid in updated hiring listsFeedback on SeminarsNCAA/CFC Involvement in Referee Development opportunitiesSYC/RYC Referee DevelopmentHigh level local event development opportunities

2017 – 2018 Season Progress Disciplined approach to Bi-Monthly DRDC Meetings with Agenda and Minutes

Skype Meeting with Meet Me Line (MML)

Who/What/When Approach to project management and accountability

CRI/CRO Projects Material Maintenance – Updated CRI Materials Distributed January 2018

Post CRI Seminar Survey – Launched January 2018

2 New CRIs and 1 New CRO identified based on regional needs – December 2017

Seminars during NAC and Summer National Events Seminar during October NAC

Seminar Series for April

Clinic and lecture series designed for Summer Nationals

2017 – 2018 Season Progress Assessment Process

DartFish Project budgeted and hardware and software procured

Training in process

Tool development to meet USA Fencing needs

Target event April NAC

Partnership with Canadian Federation Proposal from Canadian Federation to be rolled out Target 2018-2019 Season

National Mentoring Process 40 Mentors and approximately 15 Referees currently in the program for regional and

national development

Local to Regional to National Progress Architecture - Target Roll out Summer Nationals

Evaluation Process What to do with evaluations during NACs

PDF Exchange for sharing evaluations and updating ratings

Example DRDCAgenda

Time: 8:00 PM ET

Location: Skype and MML

Time Time Slot Topic/Issue Description Champion Action/Comments/Attachments Discussion Summary / Action Items

8:00 PM 5 IntroductionsPatrick Webster

8:05 PM

8:05 PM 0 National ProjectsDavid Sach

8:05 PM 5 - Referee Assessment ProcessTasha Poissant

DartFish Tool Discussion

Email to Peter and Tasha with contact informationfor Joe IT and Dartfish.

Need time line from Tasha for tool development and training. Need 6

referees identified as test case samples. Need Assessor names for epee

and saber (JOs)

8:10 PM 5 - Seminars During NACJustin Meehan/Lisa Sapery

First Event to target more formal process is going to be April NAC and

need modules defined for Summer Nationals

8:15 PM 5 - National Mentoring ProcessBill Oliver/David Sach

How does this Mentoring opportunity

get rolled out to new referees? Is this

an annual process?

Requested 300 word synopsis of how and who this process is targeting for

development. - Target JOs. Email process to solicit interest. Possible

USA Fencing Mag. Write up.

8:20 PM 5 - Wheelchair DevelopmentSean Shumate/Kavin Mar

How many Wheelchair Referees are

currently active and what should be

our goal for new recuits?

Jon Seidel recently passed the exam. Need to know who can give rating in

Wheelchair? (Who are our CRIs/CROs) Can Kevin become a Wheelchair

CRI easily.

8:25 PM 5 - CRI Seminar Survey MonkeyPatrick Webster

Preliminary Survey Questions and

outline of coordination provided to

team for open feedback at 16Jan2018

Call

Send Survey to the team for review. 2 weeks, Use Russ' seminar as a

beta test group for the survey. Add a question about who the person is and

the why.

8:30 PM 5 - Evaluation Forms Process from NACsPatrick Webster

Review proposal for evlautaion form

usage going forwardSharepoint needs

8:35 PM 5 - Referee Recruitment from National TeamsAbbas Fadel

Looking for Preliminary Roster and

Scheduling Seminar at NACs to

facilitate top fencers into the system

8:40 PM 5 - Proposal to use fencing strips 'after hours' to develop referees at

NACsAbbas Fadel/Patrick Webster

Preliminary proposal to be reviewed

with tournement committee for

feasability during 2018-2019 season

Review with Brandon at Jos

Annual review of CRI MaterialMary Mahon

8:45 PM 0

8:45 PM 0 Regional Projects

8:45 PM 5 - ROC/RJCC/RYC Hire Lists with developing referees Mary Mahon/Lisa Campi-

Sapery

Set-up a call with Sam Callen and the national office. The national

membership database needs to comprehend referee information.

8:50 PM 5 - NCAA Events Included in Referee AssesmentMark Stasinos

Is there an official schedule for

Regionals/Championships and other

templated events For an NCAA Season that

USA Fencing can be on distribution?

Update sent from Mark. Patrick to send out to the committee membership.

8:55 PM 5 - Regional Mentoring Process Bill Oliver/Mary Mahon/David

Sach

How do we develop from Local to Regional? March NAC and Summer

Nationals to be the bridge events from Local to National.

8:55 PM 0

8:55 PM 0 Local Projects

8:55 PM 5 - Divisional Seminar NeedsBill Oliver/Rylan Delap/Kevin

Mar/David Sach/Patrick

Webster

CRI/CRO List Provided to the team

Incentivising referee development from Divisions and National office;

Travel Grant for CRI; Club based on number of referees; Divisional cost

offsets

9:00 PM 5 - Local Mentoring ProcessBill Oliver

40 local level mentors and approximately 15 individuals currently in the

mentoring program.

9:00 PM 0

9:00 PM 5 Feedback Items for the RC

9:05 PM 15 Roundtable

New Project List;

High School and Collee Club Team Referee Practices (Bruce Gillman)

Seminar for summer nationals

Check Ask Fred for additional Seminars coming up next weeknd for

survey.

9:20 PM 0 Set Next Meeting - AdjournProposed February 6, 2018

(First Tuesday of every month)

Domestic Referee Development

Link => Meeting Minute Storage Date: 16January2018

MML: 866-226-3606 pc: 6326301 Facilitator: Patrick Webster

Referee Work Day Length

Tournament Comparisons

2017-2018 Season

1

Oct

ob

er N

AC

-A

nah

eim

2

No

vem

ber

NA

C –

Kan

sas

Cit

y

3

Dec

emb

er N

AC

-Po

rtla

nd

4

Jan

uar

y N

AC

–V

irgi

nia

Bea

ch

5

Oct

ob

er N

AC

-A

nah

eim

6

No

vem

ber

NA

C –

Kan

sas

Cit

y

7

Dec

emb

er N

AC

-Po

rtla

nd

8

Jan

uar

y N

AC

–V

irgi

nia

Bea

ch

9

Referees’ Commission NAC Referee Hiring Statistics

2017-2018

Page 1 of 4 February 1, 2018

NAC Num of Strips

Target Num of

Refs/day @ 1.55/

Strip

Actual Num

in Cadre

Avg/ Day & Min/ Max

Level 1 & 2 Target

%

% Hired

Level 3

Target %

% Hired

Level 4 & 5 Target

%

% Hired

Level 6

Target %

% Hired

DAC Rep

Oct Anaheim

D1/D2/Cadet/CHR

57+ 6 WC

95 96+12 =108

95.0 88/99

45 45 20 19 30 34 5 2 Mahon

Nov Kansas City Jr./Cdt/Y14

57 89 89+22 =111

94.0 84/104

35 39 20 17 37.5 40 7.5 3 Mar

(Frye)

Dec Portland

D1/D2/VET 57 86

88+10 =98

84.75 83/87

45 43 20 16 30 36 5 5 Shumate

Jan Columbus

D1/Jr/CHR/SrTm

57+ 6 WC

95 77+13

=90 78.5

73/82 45 52 20 29 30 44 5 1

Campi-Sapery

Feb Memphis

Jr./Cadet/Jr. Tm

57 89 35 20 37.5 7.5 Sierra

March Baltimore

D3/Y10/Y12/ Y14/Y14 Tm

57 89 30 15 45 10 Crocket

April Richmond D1/CHR/Sr

Team Champ & D2/D3/Vet/

Vet Tm

57+ 6 WC

95 40 20 35 5 Balog

June/July St. Louis

All Events Except WC

69 107 35 20 35 10 Frye

Percentages are rounded up. Percentage Hired per rating level is based on Full Time Referee only. Actual Number in Cadre is Full Time Referees + Part Time Referees and Walk-ons


2017-2018


Comments NAC target referee hiring percentages are based upon projected needs of the competition combinations that make

up an NAC.

The referees per strip ratio was increased this season from 1.4 to 1.55, to help reduce the work load on the referees.

1. The increased ratio meant an increase of 8 or 9 referees hired per tournament. 2. The increased number of full time referees was accompanied by a cap on the number of part-time and

walk-on referees allowed. (Cap was set at 30 referee work days for part time referees.) 3. The increase in the referees per strip ratio also meant that the total number of full time referees being

hired became a maximum number of full time referees that could be hired. 1. Allowances are made for potential last-minute cancellations, which may mean that the total

number of full time referees may exceed the cap if the anticipated cancellations don’t materialize.

The actual number of referees in the cadre includes full time, part time, and walk-on referees, and thus may be higher than the targeted number of referees originally projected.

The number of strips per tournament was increased by four strips for every tournament this season. Even with the planned increase in the number of strips, three tournaments had to be increased by four more strips once the actual entries were tabulated.

1. November, February and March all were increased from 53 to 57 strips

We strove to have the target number of referees each day of each tournament (combining full time and part time referees), because of the need for officials for video replay and mentoring. This meant that the referees per strip ratio may be higher than 1.55 when viewed for a tournament as a whole.

We began tracking the number of referee staff working each day on the hire sheet, to help the national office better determine the meal requirements.

1. Referee staff includes full time referees, part time referees, Assigners and the Referee Coordinator. 2. Referee Assessors are not include, as they are under a separate budget line.

Two of the tournaments this season had delayed start times on the first day due to circumstances beyond our control. This led to long days for the referees on both the first day and the subsequent day, as Saturday is almost always set up as the longest run day of a tournament.

1. October was impacted by missing equipment, with the official start time being 2 pm. In reality, many events started later than projected due to the ad-hoc nature of equipment arriving and being set up. The first day did not finish until almost midnight.

2. January was impacted by a snowstorm, with an official start time pushed back to 3 pm. The first day did not finish until 11:30 pm.

Analysis Of the four tournaments finished so far this season, the total number of referees hired and the referee ratings percentages have met expectations with the following exceptions:

The number of 3-rated referees is consistently below the targeted percentages. The shortfall is usually made up by having a greater than projected number of 4-5 rated referees.

The number of total referees and the hire percentages for the January NAC are out of line with requirements due to the snowstorm that impacted the East Coast the day before the tournament.

o Due to travel issues, twenty of the full time referees and two of the Assigners hired could not make it to the tournament, resulting in a much smaller cadre than required.


2017-2018


o Many of the referees made truly heroic efforts to make it to the tournament. One group drove in from Detroit, with many other referees flying to relatively nearby cities and driving to Virginia Beach. Groups drove in from Washington D.C., Richmond, Raleigh-Durham, Charlottesville, Charlotte and other cities.

o A few referees who were not originally hired for the tournament drove in to volunteer on whatever days they could.

Hiring for the March NAC is extremely difficult. As of the date of this writing, we are short 25 referees, and the quality of those hired is not going to meet the target percentages.

o This is due to the NAC being held once again on the same weekend that the NCAA Regionals are being contested for all four regions. This results in a large group of high and mid-level referees not being available for the NAC.

Results We are continuing to expand opportunities for experienced and qualified referees to serve as Assigners and Referee Coordinators. So far this season, one new Referee Coordinator has been utilized, and a second new RC will serve at the Junior Olympics. All other tournaments will be using more experienced RCs, with many of them having their first experience last season. Using higher-level referee as Assigners continues to be a success. So far this season, 28 different referees have served as Assigners. There is a continuing issue finding saber Assigners due to the lack of higher level referees overall in saber. Referees we could use as Assigners are needed on the floor because removing them would leave the saber cadre too weak to properly serve the fencers. Due to this, we have to rely on only one or two saber Assigners. This can be problematic, as it opens up the cadre to the potential for favoritism, or suspicions of such. There is only one new Domestic Assignments associate member this season, David Sierra. He has done a good jobs hiring referees for JO. Sean Shumate did not depart the committee. Submitted by Mary Frye for the Domestic Assignments Committee: Mary Frye – Vice Chair Marcus Balog Lisa Campi-Sapery Dan Crocket Mary Mahon Kevin Mar Sean Shumate David Sierra

Appendix: Referee Coordinators

October – Bruce Gillman November – Patrick Webster December – Mark Stasinos January – Dan Crocket


2017-2018


February – Fernando Delgado March – Patrick Webster April – Mary Frye July – TBD

Assigners

Abdelwahab Abdelaziz David Sierra Jon Moss Mary Mahon Andrew Lambdin-Abraham Donald Alperstein Justin Meehan Robert Del Gaizo Ariana Klinkov Douglas Findlay Kelly Koehler Sean Shumate Bill Oliver Greg Domashovetz Kevin Mar Sue Borgos Bobby Gibbs Jelana Zeljkovic Lisa Campi-Sapery Tasha Poissant Bradley Baker Jerry Benson Marcus Balog Tim Bookwalter Charles Greene II Jon Moss Mary Frye Tom Thliveris

Rules and Exams Mid-Season Report, 2017-18

Devin Donnelly, Vice ChairBradley BakerLaura DeckerTyler Jacobson

Designate a new editor for the rulebook

● The previous editor, Omar Bhutta, has decided to step down from the position

● Bradley Baker of the Rules Committee has volunteered to take up the position○ We’ve started the material and knowledge handover from Omar to Brad

○ Brad is preparing to make his first edit, removing the verbiage that indicates reversal of the shoulders in foil

is a group 1 penalty per the results of the FIE Congress

Answer Membership Questions

● The Rules Committee has responded to all incoming questions from the membership within our

target 3-day window for response.

● In addition, the Rules Committee has reviewed and approved 7 proposed mask designs from

membership.

● All members of the Rules Committee have been involved in answering membership questions.

Increase the frequency of Rules Blog posts

● I’ve set a target of one post per month, double last season’s rate of one every two months.

● Thus far I have missed that target by one post; I can make an extra post later in the season

● The Rules Blog was also used to disseminate the RC Chair’s directive to warn coaches about their

behavior and the potential consequences thereof

Review International Rules Changes from 2017 Congress● Several alterations were made to the technical and operational rules at the most recent congress.

● The Rules Committee is currently reviewing these rules to make a recommendation about which

should be adopted by USA Fencing, along with a timeline for doing so.

● This process is underway.

Replace the Written Exam

● Proposal for a new written exam has been drafted here.

● I have enlisted several referees with educational backgrounds to assist in drafting a pool of 200

replacement questions. They include:○ Brad Baker

○ Tyler Jacobson

○ Matt Tucker

● Proposed question categories: Procedural, Material, and each of the three weapon-specific pools

of questions.

● A video component to the exam should be considered an extreme stretch goal for the future, given

current staffing and resources.

● Currently debating some particulars of the exam, such as length and passing score.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/17N92G-6Y4crtTYL3jF_73JUAXV65yLj31x-O5Xa6PjI/edit#heading=h.4u8qggrylphr

Research Referee Training Methods

● I plan to send out feelers to our colleagues in other countries regarding their referee training and

structure. Potential partners:○ Italy

○ France

○ Romania

○ Germany

● No progress of note as yet.

Referee Exam Assessment and Proposal Date: 16 August 2016 Owner: Devin Donnelly, FOC Rules and Exams Rules Committee: Bradley Baker, Tyler Jacobson, Laura Decker This document contains an assessment of the current written exam for prospective USA Fencing referees, and a proposal for revamping the exam for future candidates.

Current Exam The current written referee exam is an indirect measurement of a referee candidate’s rules knowledge, in that it relies heavily on hypothetical situations that read like word problems of varying complexity and clarity. The candidate uses knowledge of the rules (presumably gained by studying the rulebook directly and attending an FOC-mandated seminar) to choose the correct outcome of a given hypothetical situation. The following example question is fairly representative of the current written exam: 25. No penalties have been given. While fencing at close quarters, Fencer X is not moving. Fencer Y’s elbow strikes X’s mask as Y makes a parry. Y’s immediate riposte lands valid. What is the outcome? a. No touch; in foil and sabre, Y receives a YELLOW CARD. b. No touch; in all weapons. c. Award a touch for Y. ANSWER: b - Rule t.20 Technical Part I Chpt 5 Questions such as #25 above, which rely on written descriptions of live fencing, can be prone to misinterpretation. This particular question appears to be designed to potentially mislead or “trip” a candidate into mistakenly applying a rule about a blow with the guard or a blow to the mask, or to consider whether or not corps-a-corps penalties (to avoid a touch, with jostling) potentially apply. Based on the designated correct answer, the rule knowledge that the test is actively seeking appears to be if the referee knows to call halt for an instance of corps-a-corps and annul any subsequent hits that began after the halt. Any difficulty in answering this question arises from the potential for ambiguity. Passing Threshold: The current passing threshold for the exam is 90%. Given the current state of the questions, this feels unnecessarily strict.

Referee Exam’s Purpose/Goals The current exam reads and feels more like a “gatekeeping” experience, in that it is intentionally designed to be difficult in order to screen out unacceptable candidates. The intentionally ambiguous hypothetical questions require candidates to essentially guess which rules application pertains to each question. The exam can seem discouraging or intimidating to potential referee candidates, especially younger candidates. The Rules Committee posits that the exam should be as much a teaching tool for the rule book as it is test of rules knowledge. Our goals for the exam are as follows:

● Make the exam a straightforward test of a candidate’s knowledge of the fencing rules. ○ Use fewer hypothetical questions and make them as unambiguous as possible. ○ Ask more direct questions about specific rules.

● Provide instantaneous and comprehensive feedback when a candidate answers a question.

○ Rather than simply listing the relevant rule, include an explanation with each question that states the text of the rule and why it applies in that situation.

● When testing a candidate’s ability to parse situations involving live fencing such as priority interpretation, timing of infractions, or “halt” calls, favor video over text.

○ Create a video section for the exam. The guiding principle for the exam is to teach the candidate, rather than trip them up. Passing Threshold: If we revise the questions to be more straightforward as discussed above, we should maintain the 90% passing threshold; however, that threshold should be somewhat easier to meet.

Sample Questions for a Proposed New Exam Rules Application: Questions involving how to apply the rules to live fencing should be worded as clearly and unambiguously as possible. Answers should be relatively straighfroward (yes/no questions, for example) with immediate, rule-cited feedback for each answer. A revised version of Question 25 on the current exam might read as follows: “Fencer X and Fencer Y are fencing at close quarters. Fencer Y attempts a parry, and in the course of their parry, makes body contact with Fencer X. Fencer Y then makes an immediate riposte that lands valid. Should Fencer Y’s hit be awarded?”

A. Yes. Incorrect! According to t.20.1, when two competitors are in contact, the Referee must

stop the bout (call “halt”). All actions that began after the bout has been stopped (in this case, Fencer Y’s riposte) are not valid, according to t.18.3.

B. No. Correct! When the competitors are in contact, the Referee must stop the bout (t.20.1)

and any subsequent action that brings after the halt is not valid (t.18.3). This question’s purpose is clearer: to test whether a candidate knows that corps-a-corps stops the action, and that subsequent actions after the halt should not be counted. The answers are clear “yes” and “no” with rules-backed explanations for each. Procedural and Material Questions: Procedural- and materials-related questions should be a straightforward test of knowledge, but should focus primarily on safety and de-emphasize those rules that are generally less-strictly enforced at the National level. Every question we put on the exam is also a message to the candidate that the FOC considers this rule important enough to test for it. A good procedural/inspection-related question: “What is the required overlap between a fencer’s protective jacket and fencing pants when in the on-guard position?”

A. 10 centimeters B. 5 centimeters C. No overlap is necessary

Answer: A, 10 centimeters. A question about the specific requirements for uniform lettering, by contrast, is less relevant. Uniform lettering requirements (8-10 cm, block capitals, navy blue) are enforced very loosely at the National level. A better and more relevant question might be: “What penalty applies when a fencer reports for their assigned pool without their name appearing on their uniform?”

A. The fencer receives a Red Card and may not fence until his/her name has been applied to the uniform.

B. The fencer receives a Red Card at the start of each bout he/she fences without the name appearing on their uniform.

C. The fencer is scratched from the competition.

Answer: B. According to t.45.4, the fencer incurs a Red Card penalty, but shall be allowed to remain on the strip and fence the bout concerned.

Use of Video in the Exam We should take care in how and why we include video questions in the referee exam. In the opinion of the Rules Committee and Chair, video questions should be used for the following purposes:

● Testing a candidate’s ability to identify infractions in live fencing situations. ● Testing a candidate’s ability to recognize rules applications (stepping off the strip,

retreating beyond the end line) in live fencing situations. ● Demonstrating the absolute basics of priority interpretation.

The video section should not be considered a test of referee skill; we should strive to eliminate any priority calls that are “tight” or open to interpretation. Basically, the calls should be more or less blindingly obvious. Guiding Principles:

● Make it clear what the question is looking for. Each question should ask something specific about the action presented. “Should this touch be annulled?” “What infraction did the fencer commit?” “What is the right-of-way phrase?” We don’t want to present a video to a candidate and make them guess which of three or four different things they’re supposed to notice.

● Include the complete call in priority actions. Questions dealing with matters of priority (two-light actions in foil and sabre) should test the candidate’s ability to identify the complete/correct call--“Attack from left, no; attack from right arrives”--rather than simply “touch for right” or “touch for left”.

Exam Result/Rating Granted Currently, passing the written exam grants the candidate a “P”, which must then be further validated/upgraded by a practical exam given by a CRI/RRO. We can explore the idea that a candidate who both passes the written exam and scores extremely high on the video portion be granted a rating directly, between 8-10.

Plan and Timeline for Implementation ● Phase 1: Draft new potential questions. ● Phase 2: Rules Committee members and delegates test sample/pilot exam questions

with volunteer candidates from local fencing communities. ● Phase 3: Develop pilot video sections.

● Phase 4: Test video sections with volunteer candidates from local fencing communities.

Study Guide The current exam study guide simply draws presents the pool of possible exam questions along with the answers. The Rules Committee needs to revisit the study guide in the context of the redesigned exam and provide a more appropriate solution.

Online Administration The current online administration of the exam offers the exam for a fee, and unlimited retakes within 48 hours if the candidate doesn’t pass. It’s possible that a candidate can exploit this mechanism by using a script to take the exam for them until they receive a passing score. We need to do some background research on how exactly the test is administered and figure out how to make it more secure.

Required Resources Resources we have:

● People to draft new exam questions (Rules VC, Rules Committee) ● People to draft study guide (Rules VC, Rules Committee)

Resources we need:

● Broad RC review of proposed new questions ● Video resources, including:

○ Videos to be used as potential exam actions ■ Define criteria for exam videos ■ Regarding existing videos: What’s the format? One action per video file?

Do we have to edit them out of entire bouts? ■ Need to standardize the file format and centralize the collection

● Web teaching resources ○ Evaluate the current hosting mechanism for the online exam ○ Figure out how to make the online exam secure

For the first half of the 2017-2018 season our Ombudsman Committee is comprised of the following

regionals members:

Tasha Poissant

Bobby Gibbs

Michael Ross

Susan Borgos

Lisa Sapery

Patrick Webster

Tim Bookwalter

This is a mix of new people along with the Committee and referees who have previously served, but we

have maintained the mix varied regions, weapons, genders and levels. We feel this is important to reach

the maximum number of referees possible. We are also still finding out voice as we struggle with the

conflict between a traditional Ombudsman role and our hybrid version. A traditional Ombudsman is

truly independent and we are all working referees, so this can lead to a bit of a conflict when we

advocate in areas where we a traditional Ombudsman would have a more balanced approach. We will

continue to work on this as the season progresses. This includes more effective collaboration with the

RC before we publish our posts and a more balanced message.

With every “follow” we get on our Facebook page, with every click on our posts; we feel we are

increasing the positive engagement with the RC and to some extent with the National Office. To date we

have over 721 followers on our Facebook page, all organic, which means we are up 60 likes over our

August meeting, or 10 new likes per month. This number is significant as it indicates that we are

potentially followed by every active national level referee. We know our reach has extended

internationally and we are setting the tone for referee relations in other fencing federations. The

statistics for our reach indicate some interesting things:

1. We average 450 people reached for each post, with a high of 1803 and a low of 30. When you

eliminate the high and low numbers our reach is still 280 per post.

2. When we augment posts from USA Fencing regarding changes in times for NAC our reach

doubles the average, which means more than just working referees at a specific event are

reached by our posts

Through the first four events of the season we have had at least two members of the Ombudsman

Committee present at every National event, and they have made their presence known by attending the

morning meeting, announcing themselves in the referee corral and by publishing our schedules on our

Facebook page in advance. At these events, we have met with and counseled with over 25 referees. We

have also attended over 35 regional events and while we do not announce our presence at every event,

as many do not have meetings, we do counsel referees at these events. From these events we have had

several main takeaways from our discussions with the cadre:

1. There are concerns that we do not have a member of the sabre cadre as a part of our

Committee.

a. We are addressing this by conducting outreach and interviews to add at least one

member of the sabre cadre to our Committee

2. We need a much clearer understanding of the SafeSport procedure. We have heard from several

referees who have filed complaints and they have no understanding of the progression of their

cases nor does there appear to be consistent reasoning that some cases move forward while

others are dropped.

3. Sexual harassment will be the biggest issue this organization faces for the balance of 2018. The

high profile cases in the entertainment industry and the #metoo movement have increased

willingness of our female referees to come forward. I believe this topic will consume most of our

time in 2018.

Appendix E

Name: Brandon Rochelle, Tournament Committee Chair

Meeting Minutes – Report and upcoming meeting 2/18/18

Board Liaison: Jeff Salmon

Staff Liaison: Christine Strong Simmons

Tournament Committee Report

The tournament committee has a scheduled meeting on Sunday, February 18, 2018, in Memphis.

As the deadline to submit this report is prior to that time, a full report of the committee’s

activities will be submitted for the next board meeting. The following items are on the agenda to

be discussed:

How to handle pool sizes in some smaller competitive field sizes

Allowing restricted competitions based on size to issue classifications

Finalizing scoresheet protest procedures

Annual review of the qualification paths to JOs and July Challenge

A potential review of the classification letter rating system

Presentation of recommendations from the Tournament Summit Team submitted at the

December board meeting to include high school, regional, and national tournaments

A retrospective review of the two-day event format

In addition to our scheduled meetings, several members of the committee have been rewriting

and editing the newest version of the operations manual, and have handled routine rules and

procedural requests submitted by the membership.

The national bout committee trainee application for the 2018-2019 season is now available. New

trainees can contact [email protected] for more information. Staff shadowing opportunities are

also available at each NAC for those interested in learning more about tournament operations.

Respectfully submitted,

Brandon Rochelle

Tournament Committee Chair

mailto:[email protected]

Agenda Special Meeting of the USA Fencing Board of Directors · there should be a waiting period...

Documents

Transcript of Agenda Special Meeting of the USA Fencing Board of Directors · there should be a waiting period...