6.9 Paddle Up Token

[Canadian Paddler]

As the second paragraph of B3.3.1 is not mentioned it is not proposed to be changed.

Currently it is not possible to gain a paddle up and 1,000 points from a single run. This is not changing. ALL that is proposed is to remove the confusion where some people thing that a paddle up is worth 1,000 points. I am not aware of anyone trying to interpret this this way.

By the way this makes promotion EASIER. i.e. Currently one paddle up, one win. and two sets of 700 points leaves you a long way from promotion. If this goes through you will be on 3400 points and promoted.

Duncan as I said above

I foresee problems / long nights for the automated ranking lists, as currently it is the paddlers' responsibility to collate paddle up tokens, the systems will need changing to check for paddle up tokens to include them as 1,000 points.

, so yes there are problems with automating ranking if paddle up is not identified. As far as I am concerned, points AND paddle up are final on the day. That was the intent of the original motion that brought in results final on the day.

[rant mode on]
If people think rule are wrong they should find a club to agree with them and get a motion in. NOT try to extend existing motions or to introduce 'problems' where the current practice is clear.

[djberriman]

My understanding of this rule when it was first implemented was at for instance a Div 2/3 you could not paddle up as a div 3 and had to enter div3, the only place you could paddle up as a div 3 was at a div 2 or I guess a 1/2, so you could prove yourself on bigger water and I believe that is what most people at the ACM voted for.

It then transpired (to my knowledge) that the slalom comittee changed it for the current year to allow you to claim a paddle up at for example a 2/3 as a div 3 if you beat 40% of the div 2's at the same event.

Whatever the rule is (or is intended to be after the ACM) I think it needs to be worded so there is no doubt to its actual meaning.

Whatever happens please think of those involved in producing results and maintaining the ranking lists, this MAY be come a huge manual effort to check (and amend which of course is not allowed) every set of results.

[Nick Penfold]

Assuming that "portable points" is approved, which would resolve the problem from 2016 on, I'd rather this proposal was dropped or defeated. It will be seriously difficult to manage in the ranking system.

[Jaytee]

I stand corrected. My belief was based on the 2013 season arrangements!
Agree this needs to be made crystal clear, whichever way the ACM decides.

[Nick Penfold]

A key issue which is worrying Ken, Duncan and me is that registering the 1000 points is going to be a nightmare. The "PU token" is not a problem because it's the paddler's responsibility to claim: automating it is very difficult because first you have to spot the PU "success" and then you have to make sure it's credited to the paddler, who is not wearing a bib of the division racing.
I too agree that PU was introduced primarily as a a way to let paddlers experience racing on more challenging water, not as a route to promotion.

[djberriman]

Please forgive my earlier note about the rule being changed by (to my knowledge) the commitee, as has been pointed out to me on checking the 2013 rule book its always been the way it is, not I have to say my understanding of the rule nor what I thought was the intention.

[SilverSurfer]

Like the proposal for portable points, PU is over complicated, and only benefits a handful of paddlers. If a paddler is good enough they will gain promotion points in their own division and be promoted to the next division.

Paddling up should be a way of gain experiencing in a higher division before actually being in that division, I recollect they used to call this a judges run and it worked rather well.

[Mrs C P Paddler]

Paddling up should be a way of gain experiencing in a higher division before actually being in that division, I recollect they used to call this a judges run and it worked rather well.

Wish there was a 'like' button on here

Signed
Judges Ranking Complier

[boatmum]

Agree Mrs CP!

Gate Judges are getting a bit thin on the ground at some events !

Feels overly complicated

[Seedy Paddler]

The move make a lot of logic and in general those benefitting from PU points are paddling at a higher level. On paper it seems slightly complicated but is far more easily understood and objective than applying for Ranking Status. Of those gaining promotion in this manner a number are higher ranking paddlers moving into an alternative Class or experienced paddlers returning to slalom or UK slalom (C1M - Div 3 - springs to mind).

For the majority PU means paying the higher entry fee and getting competition runs with better preparation than squeezing in judges runs for free.

There will be issues in recruiting judges - in part we need to reverse the culture of criticism. I would also suggest that a number of senior section and gate judges need to go on a course for positive coaching & mentoring. Having ago at a young teenager for poor note taking or signs of inattention will promote PU and nill points in favour of spending an hour or two judging

[Canadian Paddler]

Amended to:
B3.3.1 “Paddle Up”
A competitor ranked in any given division may enter races designed for the next division up (referred to below as the Host division). This is intended to enable paddlers to get experience of more challenging racing conditions and to allow them to compare their abilities against higher-division paddlers. Provided that the class is quorate, a competitor “paddling up” achieving a result better than that achieved by 40% of the ranked paddlers may claim that result as 1,000 points by application to the ranking officer.

The motion was accepted nem con.