It is my intention to step down this year as the ranking complier for the Officials. We therefore need a volunteer to take on this role.
I thought it might help to give a rundown of what is involved as this is the only ranking list that is NOT computerised for reasons you will see below.
The points have to be done manually and I keep it all on an excel sheet which I will share with the next complier. It has 9 years' worth of info.
Briefly, once the results of a race have been published I print off a copy to work on. Hopefully, the organiser has recorded the division the competitor is currently ranked in as this makes the job so much easier. Often they do not. So, the first task is to check their ranking status and record on the working sheet. For anyone who has no ranking status, I have to decide which division to put them in and I do this in two ways. The first is to use their previous ranking status and the second is, if they have never been ranked, to decide where they would be if they were ranked. As we have two divisions in Officials (Prem/Div 1 and Div 2/3/4) this is usually not too hard. The main problem is often identifying a person. The organiser will not always record their full name but a nickname (bug bear of mine!). 'Grandpa' or 'Dave' is not helpful. If I cannot identify the person, I do not record any points for them. Once I have assigned a division I can then award the points and record on the excel sheet for each race. Often I need to check whether someone in Div 2 has been promoted into Div 1 and if they have, change their division on the excel sheet. I do not go back and change everyone's points in line with the promotion. Far too much work!
This process can take several hours a week if there are a lot of races held in one weekend or if you don't keep on top of it. Any person wishing to take this on would need to have a couple of hours a week spare to do this. Currently I don't have the time for personal reasons. I only send an updated ranking list to Nick every 4 to 6 weeks for publishing.
Automating this ranking list has been looked into a couple of times but no one can find a way to make it work when you have ex paddlers and leisure paddlers competing to support their clubs race. It may be the only time they come out and compete in a race. You can end the season with over 400 names on the list of Officials. Currently this year we have just over 200. Yes the numbers competing in an Officials race is falling.
If anyone is interested in taking this role on and would like more info, please feel free to contact me. Only too happy to go into it in more detail.
Officials Ranking Complier needed!
Re: Officials Ranking Complier needed!
I think you are too nice/lenient/generous!
I think it is brilliant that you do this at all - thanks for doing it for so long!
The officials ranking system is designed to favour those who help out most often and the points system is adequate to reward frequent helpers of different abilities on a kind of par.
I really doubt that many non-ranked officials know about the officials ranking, or if those that do even really care about it since they probably only help at 1 or 2 local events. So why spend time assigning them appropriate divisions and not just lump them all into division C?
Ranked paddlers wanting to do officials runs should enter online in advance for several reasons:
I think if the IT section were to automate this by simply dumping any unrecognisable paddler in the non-ranked division C, the results would be 99% correct anyway, and any paddlers who lose out as a result will quickly learn to enter the officials event online instead of popping their head into control briefly and assuming that whoever they spoke to actually knows their name.
Similarly non-ranked paddlers who do actually want to be recognised each time and get their points added up rather than assigned to 6 different spellings of their name will learn that they can also enter online and ensure that their own name is spelt right so they can be identified.
Remember the system rewards frequent helping, so missing a point or 2 at an individual race due to a misidentified higher level paddler should be insignificant compared to scoring at 1 more race because you are a committed helper. Actually, looking at this years rankings I only see 1 division C paddler, although his score suggests he must have raced against others who have subsequently promoted to div B. I appreciate we need a system that will continue to work in future when officials numbers go back up and we have lots more NR Officials, but maybe with so few people to disappoint, now is the right time to instigate a cultural change to entering online if you want to be included in officials ranking?
Also looking through the officials ranking it is shocking to realise that I have done more officials races in C1 than division 2 races in C1 this year. (I do div 3 and 4 as official in C1, div 2 as div 2 in C1, and div 1 and P as Vet in K1 so can infer data not explicitly in the ranking
)
I think it is brilliant that you do this at all - thanks for doing it for so long!
The officials ranking system is designed to favour those who help out most often and the points system is adequate to reward frequent helpers of different abilities on a kind of par.
I really doubt that many non-ranked officials know about the officials ranking, or if those that do even really care about it since they probably only help at 1 or 2 local events. So why spend time assigning them appropriate divisions and not just lump them all into division C?
Ranked paddlers wanting to do officials runs should enter online in advance for several reasons:
- It lets the organiser know they have people to help with judging etc.
- It ensures that your correct details are recorded for the officials ranking system
- The rules say that without the correct details your entry will be rejected
- Organisers have quite enough to do on the day without trying to get your right details into SS by hand
I think if the IT section were to automate this by simply dumping any unrecognisable paddler in the non-ranked division C, the results would be 99% correct anyway, and any paddlers who lose out as a result will quickly learn to enter the officials event online instead of popping their head into control briefly and assuming that whoever they spoke to actually knows their name.
Similarly non-ranked paddlers who do actually want to be recognised each time and get their points added up rather than assigned to 6 different spellings of their name will learn that they can also enter online and ensure that their own name is spelt right so they can be identified.
Remember the system rewards frequent helping, so missing a point or 2 at an individual race due to a misidentified higher level paddler should be insignificant compared to scoring at 1 more race because you are a committed helper. Actually, looking at this years rankings I only see 1 division C paddler, although his score suggests he must have raced against others who have subsequently promoted to div B. I appreciate we need a system that will continue to work in future when officials numbers go back up and we have lots more NR Officials, but maybe with so few people to disappoint, now is the right time to instigate a cultural change to entering online if you want to be included in officials ranking?
Also looking through the officials ranking it is shocking to realise that I have done more officials races in C1 than division 2 races in C1 this year. (I do div 3 and 4 as official in C1, div 2 as div 2 in C1, and div 1 and P as Vet in K1 so can infer data not explicitly in the ranking
)-
Mike Mitchell
- Posts: 180
- Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2014 10:44 pm
Re: Officials Ranking Complier needed!
I totally agree with Jim and a Big thank you for doing this for so long.
Jim you could be just the person to take this job on.
You must have plenty of time sat up there in your little corner of Scotland.
How about applying a handicap system to the results like the Stone Winter Slaloms.
Then Charge every organiser €10.00 for every event over Div 3.
The money could be used for Kit Vouchers and forwarded to each class at end of year.
We could find we suddenly get a lot of Officials.
Jim you could be just the person to take this job on.
You must have plenty of time sat up there in your little corner of Scotland.
How about applying a handicap system to the results like the Stone Winter Slaloms.
Then Charge every organiser €10.00 for every event over Div 3.
The money could be used for Kit Vouchers and forwarded to each class at end of year.
We could find we suddenly get a lot of Officials.
Re: Officials Ranking Complier needed!
I struggle to find time to do everything I already need to do.
I was trying to suggest using the existing rules to simplify things (I hope it came accross that way?), not add additional complication.
I was trying to suggest using the existing rules to simplify things (I hope it came accross that way?), not add additional complication.
-
Mrs C P Paddler
- Posts: 42
- Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 12:47 pm
Re: Officials Ranking Complier needed!
This has been looked into many times regarding giving points to those who help at slaloms and basically no one could come up with a system that is fair and does not put extra work onto already overworked organisers.
First problem is how do you award points to those who help with the slalom? How many points do you give them for, say, erecting the course or running the canteen. Do they get more points for attending two days rather than one? Or do you just give points to those who turn up to judge but don't paddle? How many points do you give them? The maximum points a paddler can get for winning the Officials competition is 50. The Officials event was originally set up as a thank you to those paddlers who turned up to judge. Their entry is free. The trophy came later. How many people who help at a slalom would care about winning a trophy? Most do it for the sport not for the glory of being awarded a trophy.
How would the complier know who has attended, how many days and what they did, IF you could come up with a fair way of awarding points. The only way would be for the organiser to send a list along with what they had done and the number of days they helped. More work for an organiser. Once you have an agreed system, remembering that this would require a rule change at the ACM, then the question of automation can be investigated. If a way could be found to automate it, I assume you would be expecting the organiser to enter the information? More work for them.
As I said, this has been looked into before and No one can come up with a workable solution. I'm all for making this easier and more open to everyone to use but it needs thought. Let's not rush into changing it unless it becomes easier to administer and is open to more people.
First problem is how do you award points to those who help with the slalom? How many points do you give them for, say, erecting the course or running the canteen. Do they get more points for attending two days rather than one? Or do you just give points to those who turn up to judge but don't paddle? How many points do you give them? The maximum points a paddler can get for winning the Officials competition is 50. The Officials event was originally set up as a thank you to those paddlers who turned up to judge. Their entry is free. The trophy came later. How many people who help at a slalom would care about winning a trophy? Most do it for the sport not for the glory of being awarded a trophy.
How would the complier know who has attended, how many days and what they did, IF you could come up with a fair way of awarding points. The only way would be for the organiser to send a list along with what they had done and the number of days they helped. More work for an organiser. Once you have an agreed system, remembering that this would require a rule change at the ACM, then the question of automation can be investigated. If a way could be found to automate it, I assume you would be expecting the organiser to enter the information? More work for them.
As I said, this has been looked into before and No one can come up with a workable solution. I'm all for making this easier and more open to everyone to use but it needs thought. Let's not rush into changing it unless it becomes easier to administer and is open to more people.