Not another rant about judging!

[Canadian Paddler]

I was not at the event, so cannot comment on the actual event. I am biased as a) I am a secion judge (in favour of judges), b) I pretend to paddle C2 (in favour of paddler), c) I know the crew involved (in favour of paddler). Well actually for must of the section judges I know they would be insulted by a) that shoudl be recorded as in favour of judges AND paddlers.
[old man mode on]
This is made worse by the fact that back when I started (dug out canoes) penalties were:
- inside touch one pole 10
- outside touch one pole 20
- outside touch both poles 20
- inside touch one pole, and outside touch one pole 30
- inside touch both poles 40
- miss/wrong way/wrong presentation/DD 50
i.e. the 50 was not disprotionate to the other penalties.
Now we have 0,2,50 a BIG difference.
[old man mode off]

It is very difficult to be judge and executioner as a section judge (luckily there is someone else as a jury) but we are asked to draw the line somewhere. We then have to defend the decision to the Jury if it is protested. So we are not just criticising the judges here but also the jury AND the system. Is it time for us to lobby the ICF to review the 50 second penalty?

WARNING ADVERT
Of course there are some events - like Peterborough this weekend where Deliberate displacements are very rare, in the last decade I can think of only one, I was paddling with a sack of potatoes (long story), split a gate, hooked the pole round myslef (no water touch with the blade), and got the chairman of the jury to shout 50! - guess what it WAS deliberate, I wanted a 50 to ensure I did not win. But the judge only gave a 2. Luckily there was a transmission error, and my wife put the 50 on the card!

So why not come over to a friendly event this weekend? even if you hate me (see other post in the correct thread for theorigin of the comment)

[John]

David Wilson, I think is the job of a judge to make judgement calls. (It's all in the name!)

However, I think a far more relevant issue, is how to improve the facilities for judges to express themselves. This would enable the section judge and later the jury to make a more informed decision on what the correct penalty should be.
I think a first step would be to use a better judging sheet, like the Germans do.

This sheet is obviously not ideal. Canadian PAddler's example on page 3 makes it is clear that there is a big difference between saying "the pole moved, but don't not know why, could have been boat or water", or saying "0 penalty" (which implies negotiation without fault). Judges also need to be able to express their doubts.