For discussion: Motion 5.14 - Division status

[John Sturgess]

5.14 Division 1 Status

If, as a result of earlier motions, the status of division 1 events is agreed to be developmental, then, in the current financial situation, the division should be treated as such. This meeting acknowledges that in an ideal world, every race would be timed and judged to the same standard as an international, but the Slalom Committee does not have the funds to carry this out. To this end, the timing and section judging teams are not required to attend division 1 events. If requested to attend, full cost’s to be borne by the organising club.

[John Sturgess]

5.14 Division 1 Status
This would strip Division 1 events of the quality control of timing team and experienced judges. I think that would be disastrous for competition in Div 1, which is the gateway to Prem and based on races on water that is as hard, and as hard to judge, as Prem.
I don't recognise the idea that Div 1 is a “developmental division”. All divisions, including Prem, play a developmental role, and all are racing divisions. Taken together, Prem and Div 1 are where serious canoe slalom racing takes place – often on similar courses, on the same water, the same weekend, with the best third of our athletes performing.
But there does have to be a limit to the number of Prem and Div 1 events.
* Both Divisions are the basis of a yearly contest - in Prem for the National Championships, and in Div 1 for places in Prem: an equally passionate competition. Such a contest cannot sensibly be based on choice from an unlimited number of events, or include races of a doubtful standard.
* There are only a limited number of venues that offer water of a high enough standard.
* Cost apart, there is also a limit to the availability of judges, and the timing team and the leading judges are particularly hard-pressed – in the season they don’t have many weekends free. It is right to limit the number of races in both divisions.
How can we manage the problem? The key seems to be in combined events.
* We can hold doubles: but the more doubles you have within a limited overall number of races, the fewer venues you can use and you don’t get regional spread.
* We can combine Prem and Div 1 races in the same weekend event. For Div 1, these are usually the best races anyway!
It may be that a full strategic review will lead to a considered change, but we should not downgrade Div 1 without widespread debate.

[djberriman]

John - I think you missed Nick said on the above - apologies if wrong.

[djberriman]

Although it would be best in an ideal world I'm sure Div 1 events can be held without having to rely on the timing team and sector judges if there is a resource/cost issue. Tully has been run in the past without sector judges for instance.

If this were to happen I would hope the current timing team/slalom committee could provide some assistance to Div 1 events such that they could provide suitably accurate timing. This might be financial as well as technical initially so that organisers/regions could get up to speed. All I think we really need is a more accurate timing system as all the other processes we use for lower level events are in place and should not need to be changed.

We may then need to look at how we use judges and use the more experienced/regular judges as replacement sector judges, this might actually be a good way of developing judges towards becoming fully fledged sector judges. Again perhaps with input/help from a member of the current sector judging team at each event to make sure everything is as it should be.

It would be ideal to keep the situation as it is (as both teams do a great job) but with costs rising and limited resources it may be time to consider this.

[Dee]

I think there is something to be said for this proposal.

Where a div 1 is linked to a prem event then having a full team of section judges is straight forward. However for other div 1 events there will always be some sections of the course that are easier to judge (and paddle ) than others. Perhaps we could have a 1/2 way point where for div 1 a jury chair is appointed and a reduced number of section judges attend. The jury and section judges could then decide which sections of the course are most problematical and assign appropriately. The other sections of the course could then be covered by qualified gate judges. Ideally a list of these would need to be sent out with organisers pack.

Not as thorough as prem, but more thorough than div 2, reflecting div 1s status.

[Munchkin]

If div 1 is deemed a developmental division and section judges and timing are dropped I assume that the entry fees will also be dropped to a developmental figure for both adults and juniors? Why would I want to pay such high prices to "compete" when in fact I am "developing"?

Then again, I think the whole idea of watering down the division to a developmental division is unacceptable and I hope the motion doesn't go through.

[Nick Penfold]

Hear Hear, Munchkin.

The entry fees for Prem and Div 1 (which are the same) effectively include a £5 premium to pay for judging and timing (as compared to Div 2 fees) which raises £450 at an average Div 1 race. I suspect that the way entry fees are divvied up doesn't deliver that money to the organisation that has to pay the expenses. Isn't that the real problem?

I'd rather pay the fiver and have the standards.

[PaulBolton]

Quote: "* We can hold doubles: but the more doubles you have within a limited overall number of races, the fewer venues you can use and you don’t get regional spread.
* We can combine Prem and Div 1 races in the same weekend event. For Div 1, these are usually the best races anyway!
It may be that a full strategic review will lead to a considered change, but we should not downgrade Div 1 without widespread debate."

I'm interested that the motion acknowledges the "current financial situation". Why is it relevant here but nowhere else? I also agree with the observation that doubles equal fewer venues and less spread. However, I don't think combining them with Prems is the answer. Why? Because this invariably delivers just 2 extra runs and as these are invariably without practise, they are therefore of negligible value (assuming that a paddler judges). In the old days, single events involved a lot of quality water time - practise Saturday morning and then team runs in the afternoon. Additional practise on Sunday morning followed by a full competition. I used to leave events thinking I'd had a really good bash at a particular venue. Nowadays, I often feel that the system has short changed me in terms of water experience and this leads me to analyse the cost/time/fun equation.

I believe slalom will continue to struggle to retain some competitors until the on-water experience/time justifies total cost. Lots of travel for a quick practise and 2 runs just doesn't float my boat (no pun intended!). Clearly, what expense is deemed satisfactory is different with each individual/parent but there are certainly many years of steady decline in our sport that indicate issues. This is most definitely my reason for considering not competing in 2011 and only 1 English double in Div1 compounds my concerns.

[CeeBee]

I think Division 1s should have a timing team. Racing in Division 1 is very competitive and the paddlers train hard. A timing team times the event to 100th of a second but also ensure that the event runs to time. To me, the entry fee at Division 1 reflects that the event will be run to a higher standard than Division 2 and below.

When you consider the time, effort and costs to get to Division 1 events, I think not having a timing team would be a huge loss.

Of the £16 entry fee over £8 goes to the slalom committee (split across the BCU and home nation) - 45% of the entry fee and an extra £1 per paddler for timing and £1 per paddler for judging.

I think Section Judges are also a bonus but agree we could reduce the number of Section Judges to cut back costs by using Section judges on the key sections of the course so long as the organiser then uses experienced judges for the sections with section judges.

[Canadian Paddler]

current financial situation

refers to the budget for the slalom committee to make LARGE losses and go broke in a few seasons. We woudl all like to have high qulaity timing and judging at all events, but the contributions from teh events do not cover the costs of getting these teams there. So can we as a sport afford it?

By the way, being and old f*rt I remember the good quality feelign from a weekend of pratcice, teams Saturday and pratcice run/individual Sunday. Less events, but bigger and more time on the water. But things have moved on, and much as I would like to go back there, I am in a minority.

IM(ns)HO CeeBee is demonstrating the bigest issue in div 1, we have those training and racing seriously, and recreational paddlers, happy where they are on the water the are on. Do we try to organise the calendar/spread for the recreational, or the racers? All I know is that we cannot please both Discuss. . . .

[Munchkin]

I put myself in the recreational category. Work precludes me from being anything else BUT I think the division should be run for the competitors not the recreational. If the recreational paddlers want to start dumbing down the division then that is not fair on the competitors. As recreational paddlers we have choices, competitors don't.

As for value for money I agree that water time does not equal value for money. In polo the same discussions have been had as paddlers can go away for weekends to wherever they want and paddle on good rivers for far less than a weekend of polo or slalom.

Perhaps the answer is to offer more? But then that will take a lot of effort from already stretched organisers and officials. Team events have started to make a comeback, lower division events (that generally have more time) could run coaching sessions rather than general practice before the events, the higher divisions could have seminars on nutrition and technique etc etc. Maybe they would help with recruitment too? I know how hard it is to get coaching if you are not in a slalom specific club, I stuck at it because people like Kate Kent took me under her wing, others are not so lucky.

[djberriman]

With the right equipment (eg. something to replace tutty timing) and some training/help from the timing team I am sure most organisers could manage to run timing to 1/100th of a second. Most clubs/areas have a number of people with the skills to do it.

Currently it's not viable (as the timing team do it) but if there is a need to reduce expense and the amount of work the timing team have to do then with the right equipment, advice, training etc I'm sure regional timing teams could provide this service.

Personally I'd prefer the timing team to continue to do the job they do so well but if either their workload is becoming too big or the costs too great then perhaps its time to look at alternatives and implement a replacement for tutty timing.

Halifax CC have a computer based tutty timing look alike for instance, that linked to timing beams might be an answer. The aim should be to keep it simple, accurate and reliable. It's not something that can be done overnight but I'm sure it can be done.

[Munchkin]

I think the problem is the cost and setting up of the equipment, the cost of the volunteers on the day is small fry!

It takes hours of time to set up the equipment before the event starts (At many events Sue and Steve or Irene and Dave are at the event the day before setting up the computers and timing beams and the data bases for the computers). On the day others like Andy, Phil and Jim are there very early helping set up and testing the beams, then during the day it takes at least 5 people to run the system, before Sue and Irene spend their evening checking the results and inputting the next set of data before the next day. That is on top of the days spent sorting out/ maintaining both the HPP timing kit and the travelling timing kit. Not sure that the organisers would want to take this on too???


The idea of regional timing teams sounds good in theory but it is hard enough to recruit for the National timing team (which would then reduce costs as the most local people could be used) for on the day helpers, would we really find enough people to be "Sue, Steve, Irene and Dave", who are prepared to take days off work/ retirement to set up, and would we really find enough money to have regional sets of equipment???

P.S. Yet again it has been assumed that it is the timing team driving this, where did that come from??? This was a committee motion put forward as a direct result of a club motion (from what I can tell)

[djberriman]

Who has said (apart from you Munchkin) that the timing team are driving this? We are discussing a motion that has been put forward. Someone mentioned accurate timing would be an issue if we did not have the official timing team.

We already have the rest of the systems in place which are used for lower level events already (results systems, cards, etc and the people to run them). We already have timing all we need is more accurate timing.

I'm well aware of how much effort goes in to events I am often there myself sometimes for 2 or 3 days before events and still clearing up well after they have finished.

I'm NOT saying the timing team do not do a good job, nor underestimating their effort which I appreciate, I'm trying to put forward positive suggestions for things that can be done if we need to do them. Yes its not simple, but its not impossible either and its not to undermine or find fault with what is already in place.

)

[Munchkin]

if either their workload is becoming too big or the costs too great

Sorry.. It was this bit I picked up on and interpreted as per my ps.