ACM Motion 6.2 Paddle Up Priority

General slalom chatter...rant about the bad, rave about the good
Canadian Paddler
Posts: 1480
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 8:31 am
Location: Peterborough
Contact:

ACM Motion 6.2 Paddle Up Priority

Post by Canadian Paddler » Tue Nov 06, 2018 1:07 pm

The current rules defining priority of entry for paddle ups are not ideal and suffer from a number of issues:
• Paddlers are released from the waiting list in earliest entry date order irrespective of their current divisional ranking
• Priority by earliest entry date encourages large numbers of early entries for competitions many months in advance
• Paddlers doubling up tend to get accepted in both events without regards to their divisional ranking in each event as their entries will have been submitted simultaneously.
• In the past the British Open invited the highest ranked paddlers from Div1. This is not possible under the “first come, first served” rules in place today.
• The idea that paddle up served as preparation for the next step to the higher division is diluted as priority is not given to the paddlers closest to making the transition.
• Including paddle ups ranked lower in their division may dilute the standard of the competition.
Most of the above applies to paddle up at Prem races where there is greater competition for places and where low numbers of paddle ups get a place. Lower divisions races are rarely oversubscribed.
Now that all Prem competitions are entered online and the waiting list is also openly published then any solution to address the current shortcomings will need a technology solution. Up to now the only indicator available to sort the paddle up waiting list was entry date.
The Online ranking system already calculates a “percentile” for each paddler that is recalculated whenever a new set of results are loaded. The percentile figure indicates a paddler’s relative position within their divisional event and crucially it also offers a method to compare across events.
The key point is that we would be in a position to offer places based on current performance and also take into consideration the different population size of an event, which we wouldn’t be able to do if we just took their ranking position. For example, if we compare the current ranking position in Division 1across events and using paddlers with a percentile of 12% (picking a number at random) we get the following current ranking positions: K1W - 10th, K1M - 20th, C1W - 4th and C1M - 7th. If we had these 4 individuals in a waiting list sorted by percentile then they would all be grouped together, possible further sorted by earliest entry date. This would be a reasonable grouping as they are all at the same relative position in their individual event ranking lists.
How would this work in practice? The online system will show an indicator for each paddler that shows the percentile updated with each set of results. Up to the cut off date, the waiting list will be displayed in alphabetical order. Just prior to the 4-week cut-off for paddle ups entries, the waiting list will be sorted by the current percentile value. The organiser would then release entries based on the revised order. Where there is a tie in percentile (such as two athletes with the same points total, or athletes across classes with the same relative position) all tying entries should be accepted, even if this results in a small increase in the maximum entries for the competition. Paddle up entries will be shown in alphabetical order prior to the priority entry date. In the case where a paddler has not earned any ranking points then their percentile at the start of the year will be used to determine their place in the waiting list. Those entering after the cut off date will be at the bottom of wait list in order of entry.
This would achieve:
• Paddle ups closest to promotion will get priority
• Paddlers doubling up will only get two entries if they are high enough ranked in both events
• The incentive to submit paddle ups as early as possible to guarantee a place is removed
• Prestige races (such as the British Open) would offer places based on current performance and be seen as a recognition of achievement
UK C11.2 The deadline for entries to Ranking Competitions shall be 15 days prior to the first day of the competition (the Friday two weeks prior to the competition).
The priority entry deadline (before which host paddlers get priority of entry) is the Friday four weeks prior to the competition. The competition organiser may impose a limit on numbers, either in the published calendar or at the time of planning the start list. If such a limit is applied, priority of entry shall be as follows:
a) Up to and including the Priority Entry Deadline: Host division paddlers, in order of receipt of entries.
b) After the Priority Entry Deadline:
If on line entries are being accepted: host paddlers in order of receipt, followed by “paddling up” in order of receipt ranking percentile. If two or more competitors have the same percentile they must be accepted, or remain on the wait list together, even if this results in a small increase in the maximum entries.
Ranking percentile is the current ranking position divided by the number in the division rounded to a whole percentage. E.g. if there are 70 in the division, the 16th placed athlete will be 16/70*100 = 22.85%, rounded to 23%. Where an athlete has not competed, the percentile will be taken from the start of year ranking.
If on line entries are not being accepted: host paddlers in order of receipt, followed by “paddling up” in order of ranking position.

If a paddler is promoted, their entry is treated as a host division entry received at the date the organiser is notified. If the Competitor has an accepted paddle up entry this will be converted to a Host division entry, otherwise they will remain on the waiting list, but with higher (host) priority.
All spelling errors are intentional and are there to show new and improved ways of spelling old words. Grammatical errors are due to too many English classes/teachers.
Old. Fat. Slow. Bad tempered. And those are my good points

Nick Penfold
Posts: 338
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 8:21 pm

Re: ACM Motion 6.2 Paddle Up Priority

Post by Nick Penfold » Wed Nov 07, 2018 3:05 pm

I like the principle, but:
  • Doesn't this, in practice, give more races to those who have already had races, at the expense of those who haven't been able to get entries to past races?
  • I don't understand how last year's rankings are taken into account.

JimW
Posts: 570
Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2015 2:17 pm
Location: Pinkston

Re: ACM Motion 6.2 Paddle Up Priority

Post by JimW » Wed Nov 07, 2018 11:47 pm

Perhaps paddlers with 1 - 4 results would get thier mean score projected to 5 races in order to determine their effective percentile, and paddlers with no results could be based on whether their bib number would be eligible if it was a current ranking?

Dee
Posts: 1444
Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 8:34 pm

Re: ACM Motion 6.2 Paddle Up Priority

Post by Dee » Wed Nov 07, 2018 11:56 pm

JimW wrote:
Wed Nov 07, 2018 11:47 pm
Perhaps paddlers with 1 - 4 results would get thier mean score projected to 5 races in order to determine their effective percentile, and paddlers with no results could be based on whether their bib number would be eligible if it was a current ranking?
This gets ever more complex. It already says "Where an athlete has not competed, the percentile will be taken from the start of year ranking."

Messing around with projections is always going to cause disagreements.
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!

JimW
Posts: 570
Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2015 2:17 pm
Location: Pinkston

Re: ACM Motion 6.2 Paddle Up Priority

Post by JimW » Thu Nov 08, 2018 12:23 pm

Yes more complex, but the alternative is that a paddler that can't get to the first couple of races in the season will (hopefully temporarily) have less priority for paddle up if they win their first race, than they did based on their bib number before that race. Surely that isn't right?

WindsorCC
Posts: 113
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2016 8:22 pm

Re: ACM Motion 6.2 Paddle Up Priority

Post by WindsorCC » Thu Nov 08, 2018 1:06 pm

Just throwing it out there, but would it be better/easier to just have priority based on bib number?

That then gives priority to those who have been strongest in the previous season, so in theory are working towards to promotion this season.

It would disadvantage those who are rapidly progressing, so perhaps some who have come into Div 1 late the previous year so have a high bib number. But how often does someone come into Div 1 late, then be seriously aiming for Prem (and not only that, being competitive at Prem) during the following season? Basically going from Div 2 to mid-point of Prem in 12 months?

It does mean that those who are consistently near the top of Div 1 but don't make Prem could be taking paddle-up spaces year after year, but I'm not sure those people are likely to do that?

Paul.

Dee
Posts: 1444
Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 8:34 pm

Re: ACM Motion 6.2 Paddle Up Priority

Post by Dee » Thu Nov 08, 2018 1:32 pm

The thinking against bib number:
  • It doesn't take into account those progressing quickly
  • It unfairly advantages those in small events - A bottom end C1W would end up having more chance of a race than 4/5 of K1M which does not seem fair. Start of season percentile would effectively be bib number adjusted for the number of paddlers ranked in the given class/division
Based on the rule a paddler who has not competed at all would be positioned on the waiting list based on the start of season percentile. A paddler who has only raced once will be based on the current percentile. I agree this could be detrimental to those who have only competed once after two races as they will inevitably drop down the percentiles. We could get around this by using the best of start of season percentile and current percentile.

I'm not entirely clear about the rule requirement though (which is a bit worrying given that I will need to code it!). The pre-amble seems to imply that we will use the percentile as at the end of the host period. The downside to this is that I won't have the percentile for anyone entering after that date.
The actual rule as stated is the current percentile at the time the waiting list is sorted. This is probably easier to do but it does mean that the order of the waiting list will change when new results are added which could be a tad confusing.

I anticipate that this could cause confusion and significant discussion at the ACM and that whatever is decided it will not be trivial to code!
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!

JimW
Posts: 570
Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2015 2:17 pm
Location: Pinkston

Re: ACM Motion 6.2 Paddle Up Priority

Post by JimW » Thu Nov 08, 2018 2:15 pm

Dee wrote:
Thu Nov 08, 2018 1:32 pm

I'm not entirely clear about the rule requirement though (which is a bit worrying given that I will need to code it!). The pre-amble seems to imply that we will use the percentile as at the end of the host period. The downside to this is that I won't have the percentile for anyone entering after that date.
The actual rule as stated is the current percentile at the time the waiting list is sorted. This is probably easier to do but it does mean that the order of the waiting list will change when new results are added which could be a tad confusing.
I think it needs a snapshot of the ranking list at the date host priority ends (or as soon as the results of all races before that date have been uploaded) to be attached to each competition to be used for sorting the waiting list and determining eligibility of new entries after that date. Also for competitions not using online entries, a snapshot is still going to be required for the organiser to pick entries by hand.

I kind of like the idea of the displayed waiting list re-sorting every week, maybe even highlighting the percentile likely to be accepted based on the currently remaining spaces, just to keep people on their toes, but I think you would be flooded with queries about that!

Dee
Posts: 1444
Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 8:34 pm

Re: ACM Motion 6.2 Paddle Up Priority

Post by Dee » Thu Nov 08, 2018 2:34 pm

JimW wrote:
Thu Nov 08, 2018 2:15 pm

I think it needs a snapshot of the ranking list at the date host priority ends (or as soon as the results of all races before that date have been uploaded) to be attached to each competition to be used for sorting the waiting list and determining eligibility of new entries after that date. Also for competitions not using online entries, a snapshot is still going to be required for the organiser to pick entries by hand.
The system doesn't work like that and would be a significant rewrite! As the rule is currently worded it will be the current percentile and a changing order in any case.
JimW wrote:
Thu Nov 08, 2018 2:15 pm
I kind of like the idea of the displayed waiting list re-sorting every week, maybe even highlighting the percentile likely to be accepted based on the currently remaining spaces, just to keep people on their toes, but I think you would be flooded with queries about that!
It would not be every week - just when results are posted - which will depend on when they are sent in.
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!

Canadian Paddler
Posts: 1480
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 8:31 am
Location: Peterborough
Contact:

Re: ACM Motion 6.2 Paddle Up Priority

Post by Canadian Paddler » Thu Nov 08, 2018 5:19 pm

The bottom line was to try to give paddlers closest to promotion the best chance of paddle up, not those whose parenst stay up till 00:01 when teh race opens and eter their offspring.

The committee meeting felt that paddle up entries could be presented alphabetically until the priority entry date, then sorted by percentile just before releasing the places, after all that is when the priority is needed. So (hopefully) not so much work for Dee, or any other supplier

If race results are not uploaded, then they are not be taken into account. We cannot hold entries for 1 race whilst waiting for others to be loaded, what happend if it takes 2 weeks to get a race results uploaded?

Then depending on the agreement at the ACM, sort again just before releasing more entries (so could be manually triggered) so organisers can resort, then invite. although there is a school of thought that entries after priority date go to teh bottom of the priorities.

Percentile was to get round the smaller categories so that 5 out of 20 C1M has the same chance of getting an entry as 50th out of 200.

If not taking on line entries then ranking position is used, not percentiles, as easier than trying to work out if 30th out of 75 is higher than 60th out of 133. Unless Current percentile is displayed on the ranking lists. . .

Could be a lively discussion, depending on who is there, are you all coming? Free lunch if you let me know in advance AND teh Award dinner in teh evening!
All spelling errors are intentional and are there to show new and improved ways of spelling old words. Grammatical errors are due to too many English classes/teachers.
Old. Fat. Slow. Bad tempered. And those are my good points

Dee
Posts: 1444
Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 8:34 pm

Re: ACM Motion 6.2 Paddle Up Priority

Post by Dee » Thu Nov 08, 2018 7:38 pm

..
Last edited by Dee on Fri Nov 09, 2018 8:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
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!

Dee
Posts: 1444
Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 8:34 pm

Re: ACM Motion 6.2 Paddle Up Priority

Post by Dee » Thu Nov 08, 2018 7:38 pm

Canadian Paddler wrote:
Thu Nov 08, 2018 5:19 pm
Then depending on the agreement at the ACM, sort again just before releasing more entries (so could be manually triggered) so organisers can resort, then invite
Why force the organiser to manually trigger sort. This is more work for the organiser and something else to remember to do, plus more work and complication for me. No-one gains anything as far as I can see.

If we want to allocate places based on current percentile at the time of allocation then it the paddle-up waiting list should always be sorted by current percentile and just change over time. It is then automatically ready for the organiser at the time that they release places. This meets the rule as defined I think.

If it is at the four week percentile then it should be sorted once at that time and subsequent paddle up entries go to the bottom of the list.

I can see good reasons for giving priority based on percentiles; it's extra work that is entirely justifiable as it meets a need. However, I'm loathe to commit to a load more additional work for no real purpose (especially as I have a sneaking suspicion that kind souls may be trying to make it easier for me and in doing so make it harder) :D :D .
Canadian Paddler wrote:
Thu Nov 08, 2018 5:19 pm
Unless Current percentile is displayed on the ranking lists. . .
I'm sure this could easily be done - the information is recorded with the ranking data on Duncan's database.
However, it could still be difficult for an organiser to incorporate into their lists to use.
It therefore makes sense to keep it simple - especially as, in practice, most of the relevant comps are likely to be online
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!

CeeBee
Posts: 331
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 9:12 pm
Location: Falkirk

Re: ACM Motion 6.2 Paddle Up Priority

Post by CeeBee » Thu Nov 08, 2018 11:20 pm

Whilst the initial aim of Paddle Up may have been to let those close to promotion gain experience, I'm not sure this is how it is now perceived.

At 3 races, there is a Prem race followed by a Division 1. The paddlers entering the Prem race on the Saturday are not doing it for Prem experience, they are racing to improve their chances at the Division 1 on the Sunday, particularly since the course does not often radically get changed.

I think in this scenario, all Division 1 Paddle Ups should be treated equally and actually another solution may be to record them alphabetically at the point of entry and then do a random sort 4 weeks before the race into the priority order for allocating places.

Another option may be to reverse a couple of the races so the Div 1 is held first followed by the Prem (you can't do this at the McConkey). This would also encourage Prem paddlers to judge on the Saturday.

djberriman
Posts: 806
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 8:19 pm

Re: ACM Motion 6.2 Paddle Up Priority

Post by djberriman » Fri Nov 09, 2018 11:25 am

The percentile figures are already there and when any decision is made if it is made the appropriate percentile figure for PU's will be available in the ranking database, Dee will get it as part of her database extract she already does so any online competition will have nothing to do as the online entry system will do it automatically (but work to do for dee and me so please keep it simple).

For those not using online entry I can make the data available to them via nicks web site BUT they will probably have to download it on the appropriate day. They can then manually select those to give entries to (or do some form of automation of their own).

lesf
Posts: 231
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 5:15 pm

Re: ACM Motion 6.2 Paddle Up Priority

Post by lesf » Sat Nov 10, 2018 10:28 pm

Whatever tweak is made to priority it needs to be simple - simple for those coding it, simple for organisers, and simple for paddlers and parents to understand why x gets a place and y doesn't.

Post Reply