ok So I want peoples opinions on the rule about not being able to compete in the competition in any/ as many classes as you want with as many c2 partners as possible but when it comes to an event where you can race in one boat and not the other and you want to do a judges run in the boat you cant compete in.
All seams fine?
Apparently not, at cardington this weekend me and my c2 partner both in div 1 for c1 and div 2/3 in c2 got told we couldn't race in both it was either c2 or the judges run. After a lot of debate on the rule and how 'rubbish' it was and the pathetic excuse we got out of the people that said no being 'it gives you more practice on the course' that reason being absolutely barbaric otherwise you would limit everybody;s entries to 1 per person including at selection and world championships? We chose what anyone would do and race c2 and pull out of judges runs and judging. When we did this we got told that it was fine and then they had the cheek to ask us if we were still ok to judge, at that point we said NO! and we were met with the response of 'well that means we'll have to cancel the event' to witch we replied 'fine' that's not our problem.
After rumour had spread of what had happened we came to an agreement with everybody.
I ask the question to you as paddlers or parents, once you progress in slalom we all have our own clubs event that we help out in do the occasional judges run or jump in a c2 with someone for fun. Is this rule fair or should it be brought up for review at the AGM?
There are plenty examples all over the place of where people judge and do official runs, and one example I found was tom abbott at Cardiff racing in k1 officials and prem c1. (sorry tom for using you as an example no hard feelings) but if this rule is in place then surely make sure it is being abided by?
Anyway rant over and hope to see or hear your opinion soon.
I mean to spoil no-ones fun as I enjoy canoe slalom but find some rules unfair when there not followed as if we had just kept our heads down we would have gotten away with it. Cardington Slalom this weekend was a good event and this had nothing to do with the running of the event just a rule that in my mind NEEDS CHANGING!
Thanks
Andy
Stupid Rules?? your Say
-
John Sturgess
- Posts: 280
- Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 12:01 am
- Location: Gedling, Nottingham/Long Preston, North Yorkshire
This question is being looked at in a broad sense as part of the Slalom Strategic Review. However the following is my personal (and of course humble) opinion.
I have been attending Slalom ACM's for a large part of the 33 years I have been in the sport.
At each ACM (or AGM's as they used to be called) long periods of time were spent discussing minor rule changes to try to eliminate small perceived unfairnesses - and very often the Law of Unintended Consequences meant that they succeeded only in creating slightly larger unfairnesses (see the effects of the changes in quoracy requirements brought in for this year).
In fact the whole thing is largely irrelevant. In Div 4 and Div 4, and for Juniors in Div 2 as well, there is only one factor that decides in 90% of cases whether and when paddlers get promoted: how many races they do. And in 90% of cases the only valid indicator of progress towards promotion is elapsed time. For instance, when Div 4 paddlers go down the course fast enough (time only - ignore penalties) that they would have been promoted if they had gone clear, they are promoted then, or within 2 races at most.
So my suggestion is that it is a bit of a red herring to start by debating whether this rule, or any other, is 'right': we need to start from the position that we have far too many rules - and of course those rules makes extra work for judges, juries, and all the other volunteers we need to run the sport. They are also a mjor factor in delaying the production of results, another major issue that the Strategic Review is looking at.
I have been attending Slalom ACM's for a large part of the 33 years I have been in the sport.
At each ACM (or AGM's as they used to be called) long periods of time were spent discussing minor rule changes to try to eliminate small perceived unfairnesses - and very often the Law of Unintended Consequences meant that they succeeded only in creating slightly larger unfairnesses (see the effects of the changes in quoracy requirements brought in for this year).
In fact the whole thing is largely irrelevant. In Div 4 and Div 4, and for Juniors in Div 2 as well, there is only one factor that decides in 90% of cases whether and when paddlers get promoted: how many races they do. And in 90% of cases the only valid indicator of progress towards promotion is elapsed time. For instance, when Div 4 paddlers go down the course fast enough (time only - ignore penalties) that they would have been promoted if they had gone clear, they are promoted then, or within 2 races at most.
So my suggestion is that it is a bit of a red herring to start by debating whether this rule, or any other, is 'right': we need to start from the position that we have far too many rules - and of course those rules makes extra work for judges, juries, and all the other volunteers we need to run the sport. They are also a mjor factor in delaying the production of results, another major issue that the Strategic Review is looking at.
-
John Sturgess
- Posts: 280
- Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 12:01 am
- Location: Gedling, Nottingham/Long Preston, North Yorkshire
-
djberriman
- Posts: 806
- Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 8:19 pm
Yes, I got in to trouble for the C2 rule, As one of the organisers I raced as an Official (rather than in the open) in K1M at our Div2/3. I have to race as it counts towards our Yorkshire Interclub Competion.
We also run a short course Div4 after the Div2/3, with a different start, it misses the first 6 gates or so and the weir.
So because its on the same day I got in to trouble (or rather SB did) because I was allowed to paddle with my wife (non paddler) in C2 in Div 4 for fun. I seem to remember we came last. We finally got promoted at Wagon Lane having fallen foul of the timing rule at West Tanfield despite being quorate.
In our case it just depends if you see the Short Course 4 as a seperate event or not.
I'm told Div 4 is supposed to be an 'advertising' division to get people interested and get them into Div 3 so I think the rules should be relaxed with regard to Div 4.
Similarly I'm suprised the timing rules regarding promotion in relation to the K1M apply when C2 (and other classes affected by that rule) are quorate. It seems odd if you are first C2 out of 5 in Div 4 you don't get promoted because you aren't as fast as the last promoted K1M.
We also run a short course Div4 after the Div2/3, with a different start, it misses the first 6 gates or so and the weir.
So because its on the same day I got in to trouble (or rather SB did) because I was allowed to paddle with my wife (non paddler) in C2 in Div 4 for fun. I seem to remember we came last. We finally got promoted at Wagon Lane having fallen foul of the timing rule at West Tanfield despite being quorate.
In our case it just depends if you see the Short Course 4 as a seperate event or not.
I'm told Div 4 is supposed to be an 'advertising' division to get people interested and get them into Div 3 so I think the rules should be relaxed with regard to Div 4.
Similarly I'm suprised the timing rules regarding promotion in relation to the K1M apply when C2 (and other classes affected by that rule) are quorate. It seems odd if you are first C2 out of 5 in Div 4 you don't get promoted because you aren't as fast as the last promoted K1M.
I was a bit surprised so I reached for the rule book and it is very clear
UKC6.1.2A A competitor may not at one event enter both a ranking event or Championship event and an Officials event in the same OR different category.
I'm assuming the reasoning behind this is potential additional "practice"
I am not saying I agree or disagree with the rule but do agree if thems the rules then they need applying across the board until such time as they are changed. Surprised it slipped through at Cardiff??
UKC6.1.2A A competitor may not at one event enter both a ranking event or Championship event and an Officials event in the same OR different category.
I'm assuming the reasoning behind this is potential additional "practice"
I am not saying I agree or disagree with the rule but do agree if thems the rules then they need applying across the board until such time as they are changed. Surprised it slipped through at Cardiff??
I wonder if there was a loose interpretation of the rules as Cardiff was over two days and am I right in saying that Tom particpated on day 1 and officiated on day 2. Not sure if that is right and even if is how it fits against the ruleAndy wrote:There are plenty examples all over the place of where people judge and do official runs, and one example I found was tom abbott at Cardiff racing in k1 officials and prem c1. (sorry tom for using you as an example no hard feelings) but if this rule is in place then surely make sure it is being abided by?
I am aware of this rule and have applied it at div 1/2 races. So, why do I apply it......
Well, apart from the idea that if we have rules we should either stick to them or change them, it is partly for practical reasons. If someone is competing in 1 or 2 ranked classes and then does a judges run in addition, it makes it difficult to fit in the corresponding judging slot at a time that they (or their class) are not racing. Good chance they will be late for their judging slot/run and leave some other poor sole on the bank getting wet/sunburnt.
Well, apart from the idea that if we have rules we should either stick to them or change them, it is partly for practical reasons. If someone is competing in 1 or 2 ranked classes and then does a judges run in addition, it makes it difficult to fit in the corresponding judging slot at a time that they (or their class) are not racing. Good chance they will be late for their judging slot/run and leave some other poor sole on the bank getting wet/sunburnt.
Kit Washer, Entry Clerk, Chauffeur, Reluctant Organiser, Online Entry Advocate .....
Anything I post under this user is my personal opinion; I am not posting as a member of the Slalom Committee!
Anything I post under this user is my personal opinion; I am not posting as a member of the Slalom Committee!
As long as you are not judging the ranking class you are racing in i dont really see an issue, not that you would as you would be on the water
Depends on how long the class lasts
Kit Washer, Entry Clerk, Chauffeur, Reluctant Organiser, Online Entry Advocate .....
Anything I post under this user is my personal opinion; I am not posting as a member of the Slalom Committee!
Anything I post under this user is my personal opinion; I am not posting as a member of the Slalom Committee!
it becomes an issue in prem races where there is no practice BUT at Cardiff if you raced on the Saturday evening - which was K1M and C1M I would have thought it should have been fine to do judges run on Sunday morning because that was K1W and C1W and C2s
So an officials run wouldn't have been a practice cos he'd already raced when he came to do his official's run:) - does that make sense?
So an officials run wouldn't have been a practice cos he'd already raced when he came to do his official's run:) - does that make sense?
I think we need to think about why we offer judges run. I think it's a "thank you" for someone who has turned up at an event and offered to help where they would not otherwise be at the event. If you are already paddling then you can and should be expected to judge where there is a shortage of judges, I cannot see that you need an extra reward for that as you would have been there anyway. That leads on to the whole other thread on why it's always the same people that offer to help time and time again :-/
I also agree with Dee that getting rid of the rule would be a nightmare for organisers and if you are doing a proper judging stint you are unlikely to have time to do both. I have tried fitting in C1 and K1 runs with officiating at P/1 and 1/2 events and it's a nightmare for everyone.
However, I do think that if the organiser wishes to relax the rule they should have the option to do so. This is particularly true at lower division events where the judges are more likely to be taking beginners around in C2's etc and encourraging more people to take up the sport.
To sum up, I think the rule should remain to protect organisers but if they opt out of it they should be able to do so at their discretion.
Ps I think the Cardiff and Duncan's example are outside the rule because Cardiff was over 2 days and the other example was two events, but hey, that's just my view!
I also agree with Dee that getting rid of the rule would be a nightmare for organisers and if you are doing a proper judging stint you are unlikely to have time to do both. I have tried fitting in C1 and K1 runs with officiating at P/1 and 1/2 events and it's a nightmare for everyone.
However, I do think that if the organiser wishes to relax the rule they should have the option to do so. This is particularly true at lower division events where the judges are more likely to be taking beginners around in C2's etc and encourraging more people to take up the sport.
To sum up, I think the rule should remain to protect organisers but if they opt out of it they should be able to do so at their discretion.
Ps I think the Cardiff and Duncan's example are outside the rule because Cardiff was over 2 days and the other example was two events, but hey, that's just my view!
-
Seedy Paddler
- Posts: 440
- Joined: Wed May 26, 2004 2:00 pm
This is one that should be more of a guideline than a rule. In low level events it is often beneficial to have good paddlers on the water and encouraging others to participate. It is also a benefit for paddlers when crossing craft to be able to run comparison - e.g. K1 to C1 or vice versa.
Taking a Judges entry should not compromise the event, it is the entrants responsibility to ensure that they (or a delegate)are available to cover their judging duties. I have known several paddlers that take Judges entries but rarely spend much time on the bank, that being the parental role (from memory but I won't swear to it - I remember some well recognised paddlers taking judges entries on the basis of their parental section judge parents activities).
It cannot be about practice - otherwise we should see similar restrictions on Messrs Hounslow & Florence. Or is someone going to promote that as a reason for their success??
I would also note that in the past I have been asked to take on Jury Chair at events that I also compete. I have always stated that if any paddler objected I would step down - there has never been an issue.
Rules may be rules, but where they are counter to the constitutional objectives that establish the organisation then they may also be illegal. Hence if they prevent development of the sport at lower level events they become guidelines. Adopt or adapt at the Organisers discretion.
Taking a Judges entry should not compromise the event, it is the entrants responsibility to ensure that they (or a delegate)are available to cover their judging duties. I have known several paddlers that take Judges entries but rarely spend much time on the bank, that being the parental role (from memory but I won't swear to it - I remember some well recognised paddlers taking judges entries on the basis of their parental section judge parents activities).
It cannot be about practice - otherwise we should see similar restrictions on Messrs Hounslow & Florence. Or is someone going to promote that as a reason for their success??
I would also note that in the past I have been asked to take on Jury Chair at events that I also compete. I have always stated that if any paddler objected I would step down - there has never been an issue.
Rules may be rules, but where they are counter to the constitutional objectives that establish the organisation then they may also be illegal. Hence if they prevent development of the sport at lower level events they become guidelines. Adopt or adapt at the Organisers discretion.