“C, C1 or C2 TD experience credit can be claimed for an entire tournament meeting the requirements of a Category C tournament or for any tournament section (of any category tournament) that by itself, as a stand alone section, would qualify as a Category C tournament.”
I’m a local TD working with a senior TD at NYC scholastics towards senior TD. These tournaments are usually as a whole Category B tournaments, so I can’t take charge of the whole thing. There also generally aren’t single sections with more than 50 players. But I have been chief section TD of multiple sections at these tournaments where the sections combined have more than 50 players (e.g, I was chief section TD of 3 sections with 16, 18, and 28 players respectively). Does that count as a Category C credit, or not, even though if I were chief TD of a tournament with only those 3 sections, it would count?
If that’s how the rule comes out, then fine, but that seems irrational. There’s no practical experience difference between directing one tournament with three sections totaling 70 players and directing three sections totaling 70 players within a tournament of seven sections totaling 170 players. If you played games with the tournament names and submissions (just submitting those 3 sections as a separate tournament, and submitting the other four sections as a separate tournament), it would clearly be a Category C credit. If we combined those three sections into a single section, to the detriment of the players, it would clearly be a Category C credit, and the only experiential difference would be plugging the names into one section of SwissSys rather than into three (managing the floor would be no different in the two cases).
So what’s the reasoning here? I understand the reason to not credit 2 60 player sections directed on the same day as 2 Category C credits–the idea is to require a certain number of separate tournaments. But here we’re just penalizing the aspiring TD for gaining the same experience at a subset of a Category B tournament.
Of course in the case of a section chief of multiple sections, there is a superior TD, maybe several, so there is a big difference in the case of doing the, say, three sections as a separate tournament. I have a significant philosophical disagreement with anyone who thinks that overseeing three sections with a total of 70 players is the same as overseeing one section with 70 players. Finally, if three sections with a total of 70 players is the same thing as one section of 70 players, then why can’t we use different events from different dates and locations to add up to the 70 players? I don’t see a difference.
As a slight correction, the overall chief assistant can combine all of the sections of the entire tournament (just not as a chief TD). There is a certification level limitation on the maximum size of a tournament that a TD should be the chief of, but there is no such limitation for chief assistant.
Remember that there are two different limitation numbers depending on whether or not a TD has the assistance of computerized pairings and an assistant chief. Thus you have the following (level / unassisted limit / assisted limit).
CTD / 50 / 60
LTD / 100 / 120
SrTD / 300 / 360
Having often been the section chief of multiple sections I believe that handling three 30-player sections really is less difficult than handling one 75-player section.
If this were a distinguishing factor, then being section TD of a section with more than 50 players wouldn’t be worth a credit.
Why? If the sections are running simultaneously, the amount of work needed to manage the floor is the same–it’s still 35 games at a time to supervise. The amount of work needed to pair is essentially the same with a computer–actually, it’s tougher to pair 3 different sections on a computer than 1 big one. Figuring out prizes for a scholastic is the same with the computer–either way, you plug in the appropriate tiebreaks and the computer does the calculating (and no sane person hand-calculates tiebreaks for a 70 player section anyways). So which TD duty is tougher for 1 section of 70 vs. 3 sections combining to 70?
Because the difficulty is in handling that many players simultaneously and efficiently. Handling results and getting out pairings for 70 players at a time is tougher than doing so for 20 at a time. Supervising 20 players at a time is easier than supervising 70 at a time. But doing all that for 70 at a time divided in 3 sections isn’t significantly different from doing all that for 70 at a time not divided in 3 sections.
As another note here, if this is a sensible rule, I’d ask why a local TD working at a tournament of 150 players divided in 5 sections each of 30 run by a Senior TD has no way to gain experience credit towards Senior TD certification. Because that’s not a very good way to encourage local TDs to work large tournaments.
The problem is that the current certification rules only give credit for chief assistant TD to a local director at a Category B tournament if the chief director is an ANTD or NTD, not if the chief is a senior director (see 30b2). So again, there is no way for a local TD to work at a Category B tournament with 150 players divided into 5 30 player sections, run by a senior TD, and get credit towards senior TD (beyond, I suppose, the contribution to a single tournament credit under 30b6 from one category D tournament of 30 players).
It makes a difference if you’re a back room TD (directing three smaller sections is more work than directing one big section with the same number of players), but I don’t see a significant difference if you’re a floor TD trying for a Subcategory C1 credit. 70 players is 70 players. This assuming you’re an assistant TD in both cases. Yes, there’s a difference between being the chief TD and being an assistant TD.
There’s more presure on the TD if all the events/sections are being held at the same time than if they’re on different weekends.
If it were up to me, which it obviously isn’t, I’d liberalize the rules to allow sections and side events to be combined as long as they took place simultaneously and at the same site.
One thing that’s not clear to me in reading the TD Certification rules is whether being an assistant TD, or the chief assistant TD, at a Category B tournament can satisfy the requirement for being an assistant TD at a Category C tournament. If it isn’t it might be a reason for asking the TDCC for an exception. Otherwise, it looks like the only credit Edgehopper can get for helping to direct this Category B tournament which has no Category C sections is a single Category D credit under 30b6, since the chief TD is only a SrTD and not an NTD or ANTD (for credit under 30b2).
which one are you saying is harder, 1-70 player section or 3 sections totaling 70 players?
I don’t like calling anyone a “superior” TD as that creates the natural opposite of “Inferior” TD. And know the egos of TDs would never stand to be called Inferior
I’m assuming that you think that you are able to handle the Chief TD role for 150 players.
If that is the case, I’d just suggest that you ask the Senior TD if you can give it a try (assuming he/she agrees with your assessment of your skills) and submit the rating report with yourself as the Chief TD and the Senior TD as the Assistant Chief TD. The rating report won’t be rejected, and having the Senior TD on the site meets the intent of the rule. I would NOT suggest doing it without the Senior TD as the Assistant Chief TD.
But that would give him a Category B credit, and he needs Category C.
If a Category B credit satisfies a Category C requirement he can ask to be made the chief assistant TD for the entire tournament, which would give him credit under 30a2 or 30a3.
Let us exam one possible abuse here. An event has 100 players and the chief TD (Tim) gets a Category B credit as the chief. Now, another TD, Dan, is the section chief of the two sections with 50 players each (category C) at the same event. Under the proposed rule change Dan would be allowed to claim the same TD credit as Tim by simply adding the two 50-player sections together to = 100 players. Does that seem right? Same event two TDs get two separate credits for the same exact job? Is Tim’s and Dan’s TD experience really the same?
They already can under the normal rules, if the tournament has 90 players divided into sections of 30 and 60, and Dan is only section chief of the 60. And there Dan’s doing much less work than he would as the director of 2 50 player sections, and is doing less work relative to Tim than in your first scenario.
Huh? A 60 player event is not the same credit as the 100 player event (category C for one and Category B for the other). Under current rules a TD can not claim both the 60 + 40 player sections to add up to the same Category B experience credit. Under the proposed rule the 60 + 40 would be allowed to count as one category B tournament. So I guess I miss the point here that is being made. How is a category C (60 player) tournament credit the same as a category B (100 player) tournament credit?
Tim gets a Category B credit as chief TD. Dan gets a Category B1 or B2 credit, or else he can be named the chief assistant for the whole tournament and get a Category B credit that way. In every case, Tim gets credit as chief TD and Dan gets credit as an assistant TD. I don’t think that’s abusive. Some of the requirements say that you have to be the chief TD, which is as it should be.
What if the tournament has only one section of 100 players? Tim gets a Category B credit as chief TD and Dan gets a Category B, B1 or B2 credit as an assistant TD. This is perfectly legit under the rules. Is it really so different from the tournament with two 50 player sections?
I agree that Dan shouldn’t be able to claim chief TD credit as the “section chief” of a 100 player tournament when he’s really an assistant TD at a 100 player tournament. That part of the rules needs some work, in my opinion.
Sorry, was forgetting that it’s 50-99, not 50-100 inclusive. Change your initial scenario to 98 with 2 sections of 49, and that’s my point. Or compare:
150 players in 2 sections of 75, Dan is section chief of both, to
150 players in 1 section of 100, 1 of 50, Dan is section chief of the 100 player section.
If you’re going to give full credit for section chief TDs, you necessarily have this problem.
Then the Delegates need to change the rules to your way of thinking or eliminate section chief credits (appropriate exact wording across the board would be essential).
I do think the rules could use some work, but since that’s not going to happen any time soon I’m interested in your thoughts about Edgehopper’s situation under the current rules. Can he use a Category B tournament to satisfy a Category C requirement? If so, it looks like he can get a credit under 30a2 or 30a3 if he’s the chief assistant TD for the entire tournament.
