6.5 UKC19.8 Staying In The Finish Area After Your Run.

[Canadian Paddler]

Two aspects to consider in this rule
UK C19.8 After their run a Competitor MUST stay in their boat within sight of the finisher, or (if defined) within a clearly indicated distance from the finish, until the next, and next but one Competitor has finished, in case they are called upon to act as rescue boat, UNLESS the Organiser, having made other rescue arrangements, has specifically indicated that this is not required or the paddler has arranged an alternate to provide this safety cover. This regulation applies equally to team events. Failure to comply with this rule will result in disqualification from that run (DSQ-R).
• Is the Competitor required to stay in the sight of the finisher, or where the Competitor can see the finisher? Very different prospects
• Should we extend the rule to include any paddler behaviors that are included in the safety plan? E.g. at Grandtully the suggestion was that three paddlers should stay at the finish, despite the rules. At Lee Valley we may decide that staying by the finisher is not required, but staying above the lake bridge is sufficient. Similarly, if the safety plan excludes access from an area, or requires behavior above start, there is currently no sanction, short of complete disqualification from the competition, and using that rule requires interpretation.
Propose changing the rule to read: Page 66

UK C19.8 After their run a Competitor MUST stay in their boat within the finisher’s sight, or (if defined) within a clearly indicated distance from the finish, until the next, and next but one Competitor has finished, in case they are called upon to act as rescue boat, UNLESS the Organiser, having made other rescue arrangements, has specifically indicated that this is not required or the paddler has arranged an alternate to provide this safety cover, or the paddler is released by an official. This regulation applies equally to team events. Failure to comply with this rule will result in disqualification from that run (DSQ-R).

[Canadian Paddler]

Tokk a LONG Time, and resulted in Secretary being asked to go away and define wording that the meeting could not decide on (guess that is a lose lose position for secretary)
Amended so the rule will read:

UK C19.8 After their run, or official practice, a Competitor MUST stay in their boat within sight from the Finish Judges’ position, or (if defined) within a clearly indicated distance from the finish, until the next, and next but one Competitor has finished, in case they are called upon to act as safety boat, UNLESS any alternate safety arrangements have been published by the Organiser, or the paddler has arranged an alternate to provide this safety cover, or the paddler is released by an official. This regulation applies equally to team events. Failure to comply with this rule, including any alternate safety arrangements published by the Organiser, will result in disqualification from that Event (DQB).

So you must

• stay in your boat as SAFETY after practice and runs,
• visible from the Finsh Judges position (not you can see them through the trees, or be in the designated area
• wait for two boats to finish, or you are released
• Check at control, if they say three boats, then three boats have to stay

Or you will be disqualified fro the entire EVENT - that is no result in that boat for that day.

So extar pressure on PADDLERS to stay in the right place
ORGANISERS to designate an area if staying in sight is not viable
and CHIEF JUDGE - would you want to have to apply that rule?

[djberriman]

I would have no issue as chief judge enforcing this.

Put yourself in the position of the safety officer and the event organiser. We have to act as per the safety plan and the safety plan includes the rules we race by. If people don't do their safety then the event should officially stop and I would not like to be the event organiser or safety officer if something happened at an event due to people not spending a few minutes of their time doing safety. It's not a lot to ask given the amount of time every volunteer at the event is giving up.

It's very simple if everyone gives up a few minutes regardless of how good or bad their run was to do safety for their fellow paddlers then not one single paddler will be affected by this rule.

[paddlerparent]

I don't see this as a NEW rule, its simply clarity of what happens 'if you don't follow the original rule' in my mind....

Well done to everyone

[BaldockBabe]

As a chief judge I did enforce the old rule at Tees on more than once occasion and I would do the same at future events.

Actually, as the rule is drafted the chief judge has no discretion as to whether or not to enforce the rule - it says WILL be disqualified, not MAY. I think this makes it easier on chief judges as people cannot plead for discretion to be used.

It also means that, unlike now, paddlers are likely to care more unless both runs are bad runs.

We just need to ensure that reports of paddlers not staying on are consistently applied throughout the competition. At Tees there was a designated person to do that role (and also provided safety themselves) who would radio the jury and the paddler would be spoken to as they left the conveyor belt (it was that quick).

[Dee]

Agreed that in many ways the tricky bit is making sure the rule is consistently applied and that someone is responsible for check that the paddlers do remain on. There also needs to be some awareness training as some paddlers, even at div 1, can be remarkably unaware of the rules.

[John Stoner]

I came away from the ACM on Saturday with an understanding that the Chief Judge WOULD have discretion - this addressed my concern regarding the scenario of a paddler over-shooting the defined finish area due to being extremely tired! Can the wording be adjusted to make this clear?

[John Stoner]

In the interest of clarity, could I suggest the following modifications to the proposed wording?

UK C19.8 After completing a competition run or an official practice run, a Competitor MUST stay in their boat in a location such that they can be seen from the Finish Judge's position, or (if defined) within a clearly indicated distance of the Finish Line. They must stay in this location until the next two Competitors have finished in case they are called upon to act as safety boat, UNLESS:
i) alternative safety arrangements have been published by the Organiser which relieve the Competitor of this requirement; or
ii) the Competitor has arranged for an alternative paddler to provide this safety cover; or
iii) the Competitor is released by an Official.
This regulation applies equally to Team events, where the entire Team must wait for the next two Teams to complete their runs before leaving the designated area. Failure to comply with this rule, or failure to comply with any alternative safety arrangements published by the Organiser, will result in disqualification from the applicable Event (DQB), unless any mitigating circumstances are accepted by the Chief Judge.

[BaldockBabe]

What would mitigating circumstances be? I don't like the idea of there being ambiguity - there is currently none in the existing rule and adding ambiguity males the chief judges life harder. Is a lack of knowledge of the rule mitigating circumstances (I would argue not? From hours of sitting on the riverbank (albeit these days at P/1/2 events) the most likely reasons for a paddler not staying on is because either they claim not to know the rule or because they had a temper tantrum resulting from a bad run..

[John Stoner]

Yes, I agree - too vague. I was trying to address the scenario in my earlier post where a paddler can't make the designated area because he's exhausted - but has remained on the water (happened to me at Symonds Yat).

[Canadian Paddler]

The wording was agreed at the ACM except for COLIN TO DO THE WORDS HERE. So changes have to be very carefully approached.

Glad to have got debate going to raise the profile. I am also a chief judge who disqualified under this. And got called over harsh because of it.
Consistency both in an event and in a season is important
A few years ago this re said may be disqualified but the ACM changed this to WILL be disqualified so that the rule would be used with less pressure on the chief judge.

Ps do not forget that alternate arrangements can include a greater requirement such as three boats to wait.

[Steve Agar]

...and, strictly speaking, mitigating circumstances would include leaving the finish area to actually carry out a rescue unless, of course, we expect the paddlers to wait for an Official to release them to go and help! I'm a bit concerned about arguing about the wording rather than concentrating on making everyone more aware that safety REALLY matters, as providing proper safety cover in the correct place is a shared responsibility. If we're not careful, and we rely too much on rules rather than common sense we'll have paddlers arguing that they need to be in one place when they might be better off in another, and additional eyes, ears and help should always be provided by the Organiser. I was recently involved in an epic chase below Chapel Falls because the only rescue available was from C1W who were the last class down, and suffered simultaneous capsizes. The bank safety was in the wrong place to even see what was happening as boats and paddlers were swept off below the finish, let alone assist (although they did have a nice view of the fall itself all day), and the finish judge probably couldn't see the carnage either as the real safety hazards to both swimmers and rescuers (trees, etc) were further downstream whilst the judge is concentrating on the finish line itself. Safety is of prime importance and whilst I wholeheartedly agree that we need to enforce in a consistent manner the rule that paddlers are available to assist at the finish, let's not consider that our responsibility as Organisers and Officials has therefore been adequately covered as a result.

[Dee]

In practice there will always be mitigating circumstances that aren't mentioned in the rules.
If a paddler swims we do not expect them to get back in their boat to act as safety but we don't state this in the rules.
I can also remember David and Forbes in the C2 at HPP managing to cross the finish line with a boat that was three quarters full of water (deck popped) and sinking under them. The boat would not have remained afloat long enough to wait. And there will be those who miss an eddy and try to wait in the next best place.

However, if we explicitly give the judges discretion then it will be harder for them to apply the rule and, tbh, I think the result would be that the rule would not be applied at all

I have a lot of sympathy with a judge telling the paddler they are disqualified; it's not going to be easy for the judge or the paddler, but sometimes individuals have to take the stick for the benefit of all.

The new safety plans requirement has added a burden to organisers. Their very existence means that if something goes wrong and the plan has not been followed then the organiser and safety officer could find themselves in legal trouble. This could kill the sport overnight. Most organisers will, I suspect, make the two paddler rule part of their plan, so it is now even more important that the rule is adhered to than it used to be.

We all know the world has gone health and safety mad, the changes to this rule are just another symptom of the madness