“A club TD may not be the chief TD for USCFGrand Prix or Category N tournaments and should not be the chief TD of Category A, B, or C tournaments, which includes any tournament, or section of a tournament, expected to draw more than 50 players. Computer assisted club TDs can be the chief TD of any tournament, or section of a tournament, expected to draw up to 60 players with the aid of one assistant TD.”
I’m a bit confused by the above - so, as a club TD, if I hold a tournament with an open section and 3 scholastic sections, for example, and the open draws 20 and each scholastic section draws 30. Can a single club TD direct such a tournament since each section is under 50?
I believe the best way to interpret this is as follows:
If the EVENT is expected to draw more than 50 players (more than 60 with an assistant), then a club TD cannot be the chief TD of the event.
If a SECTION is expected to draw more than 50 players (more than 60 with an assistant), then a club TD cannot be the chief TD of that section.
The point is that a club TD may not have the experience to handle a large section (more than 50/60 players) or a large event (more than 50/60 players in all sections combined).
Getting around the above restrictions by having lots of small sections is not within either the letter or the spirit of the rule.
No A Club Td may not be the chief TD of the entire event. A club TD may be the chief of any one (and only one) section expected to draw less than 50 players.
The USCF is not going to refuse to rate your event just because it was larger than what a Club TD should be directing. (We might hold it for a few days, though, if it trips some of our validation filters.)
Later this summer we will probably change how and when we check events against the TD certification level of the chief TD and section chiefs. That’s likely to generate a cautionary notice with a copy to TDCC. A pattern of running several such events might lead to further review.
If you are a Club TD, and you have 51 players, the USCF is going to rate the event. If the organizer set up the event for 20 to 40 players, then have 51, the event is going to be rated. The guide lines make sure the organizers are forced to have the best directors with the larger events.
Say a organizer plans to have a event with 120 to 180. If the organizer makes it clear, the prize money is based on 150 players. Then the organizer is forced to hired a senior tournament director or higher. If the organizer is dirt cheap, they can tell one of there workers to be the director. All they have to do is pay for the workers USCF membership, then the employee has to become a club director. The level of certification is to make sure the members get the best standard of director.
Myself feel the level is a little to high. If it was me, I would lower the amount down to 40 entries or 50 entries with a pairing program. With a local, 80 entries or 100 entries with a pairing program. Have been feeling for years, they need a certification between club and local or local and senior.
Ought to and should can be used to express a duty.
Both words imply obligation, with “ought” and “must” being the stronger.
“Should” implies an obligation of propriety (proper or correct conduct); “Ought” implies an obligation of duty." “Must”, of course,indicates that you have no choice.
In all of these, the words may be used interchangeably to mean the same thing.
If the director sent in the tournament not as one tournament with four sections, only as four tournaments with one section. The club director would have credit for four tournaments with three having thirty entries, one with twenty entries. In theory, the club director would have in one day all the norms to take the local tournament directors test. Send the report in one way, the club director would not have the experience to perform the duties as a catogory B event. If sending the report in a different way, the director in one day will have all the experience to take the local tournament directors test: as it was sent in as four catogory D events.