6.2.1 Do Not Introduce Portable Points

[Canadian Paddler]

6.2.1 Do Not Introduce Portable Points - Proposed and seconded by Proteus Canoe Club
6.2.1.1 Preamble
This season has seen a number of issues with events being full in advance, and paddlers unable to get entries in their home division.
This is believed to be due to the increased support being offered to young paddlers in various ‘Talent Identification Programs’. These programs allow groups of youngsters to receive intensive coaching from an early stage, and progress rapidly through the divisions. This, welcome, approach will, we believe, will result in a stronger sport. But (at least in the short term) has resulted in an inversion of the numbers paddling in each division.

There is a general concern that the introduction of portable points, and the restructuring of the calendar to support this will result in a greater number of events reaching their entry limits at the top divisions, and a reduction in the number of athletes competing at lower division events, further compromising the standards at lower divisions.

Regulation 5.7 empowers the Slalom Committee to reject motions that have either the same purpose as ones that have been rejected by a large majority, or negate the purpose of an item accepted by a large majority the previous year. Such motions may be accepted if in the opinion of the Slalom Committee there has been substantial change in the circumstances or new evidence is available.
The motion below will negate motion 6.10 of last year’s meeting. We contend that a majority of 22 for, 18 against with 13 abstentions is not a large majority, and that the oversubscription of a large number of division 1 and premier races this season is new evidence.


6.2.1.2 Motion

That motion 6.10 from the 2014 ACM should be set aside, and that portable points should not be introduced.

The ranking system should remain as it is now, with ranking points only being earned in the current division, and all divisional points calculated from a base of 1,000 points.

The Ranking Calendar approved at this meeting will not become final for 1 month, to allow clubs to apply to run double division events. Where a club has applied for a particular division, they take precedence over a club wishing to add that division to an approved event. The ranking Calendar officer being empowered to resolve any clashes between events where additional divisions are requested.

[TonyO]

I fully support the delay or cancellation of portable points. Others have already made comment about the issues faced by families with children in different divisions and the issues this will cause. There is an assumption in the current editorial on the front page of our sports site making the assumption that everybody should be pushed along onto bigger water. Our sport is in real danger of becoming elitist and pushing out the paddlers who do the sport because they enjoy it, not because they expect to be an Olympian. The current paddle up system allows for those who wish to push themselves. The introduction of single division events to facilitate portable points is likely to push those dedicated slalom paddlers who do it because they enjoy competing at a level which is comfortable for them, will be forced out of the sport and the whole slalom system will become nothing more than a production line for Olympic hopefuls. The sport should not be changed for the benefit of the new talent focussed regime at the expense of the dedicated paddlers who are there to enjoy the sport.

[CeeBee]

There are some aspects of portable points that I think are good. I think for those paddlers who are aspiring to paddle in the next Division, getting the opportunity to paddle up is good.

However, the huge drawback for Scotland is losing multi Division events , particularly Div 2/3s. Yes, the paddlers can compete in Division 2 but why would you want to do that when you are just promoted from Division 4? Paddlers and families new to the sport look to race at the events the paddler is ranked in. They won't know which events are suitable or sensible to paddle up at and they are not guaranteed an entry as priority is given to the higher Division.

Juniors are incentivised by prizes and Division 3 paddlers who are paddling up in Div 2 stand little chance of winning any prizes. The gap between the Top 2 times at a race and the bottom Division 3 times is huge. Better to keep the new Division 3 paddlers competing at Division 3 events where they stay engaged.

In Scotland, The Division 3/4 events are only on slightly moving water. We want paddlers to progress onto Division 3 events such as Pinkston on 1 pump and Fairnilee as it is better White Water and equips them better once they are promoted. As single Division events, these events are deemed to be Division 2.


I would choose to retain multiple Division events with portable points.

[Hydrasports]

CeeBee's argument is a good one. I think at higher divisions the concept would work as the paddle up system has proved this season but at lower division races then unless the paddlers/parents feel confident that they can safely paddle up then people will be put off. There Is also the argument that parents with children paddling across 2 divisions or more will have to wait to see if the paddle up entry is accepted.

It affects us as a business as if portable points go ahead then the chances are we will attend very few div 3/4 races. At the moment we decide which races we will attend based on several factors including but not limited to distance/whether we will be racing as well, organisers request and whether we think we will sell kit/boats/paddles at a race. After 12 years of attending slaloms with the trade stand, we have a good idea of which races we want to go to- though are always up for trying somewhere new. With portable points cutting the div 2/3 races in particular to 2s and 3s it is unlikely that we will be attending the 3/4s which is a loss to new paddlers coming into the sport and getting to see and try out boats they can aspire to. If it's a choice between a div 2 or a 3/4 then generally we will attend a div 2.

Looking at the 2016 provisional calendar, there seem to be quite a few weekends where there are Prem or div 1 races alongside div 2 races. This is making planning for the coming season tricky in deciding which races to attend but surely this will also affect availability of judges and paddling volunteers for the races too.

[Canadian Paddler]

See also the thread in events:
http://s397900707.websitehome.co.uk/php ... 5f1cf1c0d5

[djberriman]

My vote would go for:-

Retain double events
Paddle up points only allowed at single events (ie on harder water and course set at higher level)
Paddle up points (portable) calculated by matching nearest divisional paddler (applied to own division multiplied by 2, max 1000)
Original value of any paddle up points retained on promotion
Divisional paddlers points not affected

Thus pretty much as we are now except:-
Paddle up points not allowed at doubles
Points are portable back to own division
Paddle up points (original not mulitplied) are retained on promotion

[Canadian Paddler]

Unfortunatley no one put that as a motion, so it is not on the table at the ACM. Nor CeeBees suggestion of keeping double division events

That is why I bang on about motions needing to be in earlier, not once the Agenda comes out. The regulations state that ONLY business on the Agenda can be debated. This has been the case for all teh AGMs and ACMs I have ever been to.

The only way that this can be considered is to delay the decision until 2017 and to actually put it as a motion.

[CeeBee]

I can't believe you would ever bang on about anything

Can motions already put forward be debated and amendments made at the AGM i.e. could my suggestion to have portable points and still have div 2/3s be put forward as an amendment and be voted on?

[djberriman]

The problem is we only know what the motions are when they are published and the amended rules for portable points have only been put forward as a motion.

So realistically everyone is left in the dark until motions are actually publicised.

And there in lies the problem with the ACM, we have muliple motions about the same thing, rather than 1 that can be discussed and a sensible solution reached. So portable points will probably be defeated rather than passed with amendments agreed at the ACM and the whole ACM is pretty much going to be about the one item.

[Canadian Paddler]

CeeBee, it is up to the Chair to rule whether amendments are within the spirit if the original motion or not. If in the spirit then yes, if not no.

Duncan, that is the nature of all annual meetings, look at the papers for any corporate AGM, the same stands. Dave has being trying to let people know what the proposals are, and seek consultation all year. Last year he spent a lot of time explaining to people, and then at the meeting. The initial rules changes were published a while ago, the latest set are a fine tuning and that is the motion at this meeting, fine tuning of the details.

[djberriman]

Being totally honest that wasn't a suggestion for a motion it is just what I have come up with having read everyones feedback and thought about it and the effects of the current proposals and the motions submitted. It appears it would work to me without breaking everything, leaving what already works in place but giving those pushing for portable points what they want as far as I can see.

PS. We are not a coporate body, its not an AGM, we are a sport and we need to take our volunteers and competitors with us, there are no profits, dividends, share holders, this is about having fun, enjoying paddling and hopefully producing a few medal winning olympic atheletes along the way. We should not fit ourselves in a yes/no straight jacket otherwise it could take years to make a change. Take for instance my request for U23 to be defined in the rule book, it was turned down last year as I had not submitted a motion, that is why people don't bother, you only bang your head on the wall so many times.

[Canadian Paddler]

Therin lies one of the dilemmas facing us. British Canoeing is a corporate body, with one AGM. That is why we were told to change ours to an ACM twelve years ago. British Canoeing as a corporate body is responsible for the administration of the sport, and recieves monies to do so.

At the other end is you and I sitting in a boat paddling around wanting to enjoy ourselves and compete.

No easy feat to manage the divergence between the two approaches.

The rules relating to the management of the Annual Meeting were set up in the far past, before I got involved in any of the admin side. Perhaps those of us with historic rule books can work out how long. I feel it was 1970s or earlier, but have not checked.

Know what you mean about the beating the head thing. Each year I remind people of the impending end of the time for motions, remember that motions can be submitted at ANY time, and discussed on teh river bank to try to reach a concensus as well.

Normally with two similar motions I try to get teh clubs to agree a compromise, but this year we have three balck and white motions that could result in four outcomes:

• No Portable Points
  Delayed Portable Points
  Portable points with minor changes (such as only carry forward paddle up points, short season protection for promotees)
  Portable points as originally published mid year (carry forward all points, no short season protection for promotees)

I will not discuss the merits of any of these motions due to conflicts of interest

Going to be interesting minuting teh conclusions, good job we do not minute the debate!

(If you are going to be at the meeting, please remind me of the U23 thing and we will get it inot the first motion this year!)

[Canadian Paddler]

Defeated