Firstly I'd like to thank all the people who turn out in the cold, wind and rain, giving up their spare time to keep our sport going. It is sometimes a thankless job, which is only partly subsidised by the section judging expenses.
Secondly I would like to echo Gaz and ask that whoever made that decision take a good long look at what they were doing? It is IN NO WAY a 50. I and several other very experienced Prem paddlers some of whom witnessed the actual run live have all come to the conclusion that this is the worst case of bad judging we have seen. I just hope that this person won't be judging selection, and if they do they remember that benefit of doubt must always be given unless they are 100% SURE that it was a 50!!
No one wants to have to complain about judging as 95% of the time the judges do a good job, but at this level that extra 5% should surely be attained.
Not another rant about judging!
In a sport such as ours there are always going to be contentious decisions. We all have had penalties at some time in our careers that have been given that are not fair. I will say that since I have been paddling (about 20 years) I do feel that judging on a whole has imporved. I can remember back in the day when parents used to judge their kids and their competitors and had selective vision!!!! I do not see that happening as much now a days. When decisions are split second and down to individual interpritations there are going to be mistakes. Just look at campbell at the worlds.
The only way to overcome the mistakes would be to have every run independatly covered by video. In our sport at national level I cannot see this being practical but maybe for international races this will be something that can be developed.
Who knows in the future maybe technology may enable this to happen but unfortunatley at the moment we have to face up to the fact that mistakes will be made.
After watching the video it was deffinatley only a touch.
The only way to overcome the mistakes would be to have every run independatly covered by video. In our sport at national level I cannot see this being practical but maybe for international races this will be something that can be developed.
Who knows in the future maybe technology may enable this to happen but unfortunatley at the moment we have to face up to the fact that mistakes will be made.
After watching the video it was deffinatley only a touch.
-
canoecrazy
- Posts: 64
- Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 11:21 am
- Location: Next to the PC durrrrrrgh!
The following posting has been made on the web site about the senior selection races:-
"Benefit of doubt will not automatically be given."
Surely this is contrary to rule 29.8 which states that "AT ALL TIMES, the benefit of ANY doubt MUST be given to the competitor".
Do the organisers really understand what they are suggesting? Has there been an alteration to the published rules that I don't know of? Can somebody explain? preferably the organisers.
"Benefit of doubt will not automatically be given."
Surely this is contrary to rule 29.8 which states that "AT ALL TIMES, the benefit of ANY doubt MUST be given to the competitor".
Do the organisers really understand what they are suggesting? Has there been an alteration to the published rules that I don't know of? Can somebody explain? preferably the organisers.
-
Dave Royle
- Posts: 178
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 11:02 pm
-
Yester Years Kayak
- Posts: 30
- Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2005 1:42 pm
- Location: Egham
I personally would be against the exam answers being placed on the web. The reason for this is, that in some cases people will simply memorise answers but actually not be able to interpret the situation being portrayed. If this happens you run the risk of a reduction in the standard of judging.
That said, youtube could be an excellent site for use in "coaching" judges. As we have seen from this discussion it can certainly promote a healthy level of discussion regarding what everyone view of the crime is, and what the punishment should be.
That said, youtube could be an excellent site for use in "coaching" judges. As we have seen from this discussion it can certainly promote a healthy level of discussion regarding what everyone view of the crime is, and what the punishment should be.
Not sure about video clips for training you only get one view, it could promote discussion though.
What they seem to mean this weekend is that if the gate judge has best line of sight their penalties will be counted and if the section judge has better line of sight then their penalties count. Sounds fair to me.
What they seem to mean this weekend is that if the gate judge has best line of sight their penalties will be counted and if the section judge has better line of sight then their penalties count. Sounds fair to me.
Yester Years Kayak wrote:I personally would be against the exam answers being placed on the web. The reason for this is, that in some cases people will simply memorise answers but actually not be able to interpret the situation being portrayed. If this happens you run the risk of a reduction in the standard of judging.
I passed the exam first time without preparation last year and have forgotten nearly everything, so a refresher would be welcome.
Does anyone really take the exam seriously enough to memorise the answers? Besides, if they can memorise the 1-200 questions that must exist, they'd end up knowing a heck of a lot more than me. :O
ps. if you see a pole swinging (even slightly) after someone has negotiated a gate, but don't see the touch, should you always give a penalty (judging that the wind is very unlikely to be responsible) ? Do you ignor it if it is caused by a water splash (caused by the boat) ?
-
Non paddler
- Posts: 31
- Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:13 pm
- Location: Salisbury
A couple of thoughts/questions on the idea that the penalty from judge with best view will count in cases of differences:
1. When and how is it decided which judge has best view? Will it differ on situation, for example if the penalty is a left pole touch judge 1 counts and if it is a right hand pole judge 2 counts?
2. if effectively scores only count from the judge with the best view why have two judges per gate?
3. If both judges do not have a good enough view of the gate to judge a penalty are they positioned correctly?
I fully understand the desire to ensure the correct penalty is given but there looks to be scope for upset paddlers if they sincerely believe they went clean, one of the judges agreed they went clean but they get 2 penalties.
1. When and how is it decided which judge has best view? Will it differ on situation, for example if the penalty is a left pole touch judge 1 counts and if it is a right hand pole judge 2 counts?
2. if effectively scores only count from the judge with the best view why have two judges per gate?
3. If both judges do not have a good enough view of the gate to judge a penalty are they positioned correctly?
I fully understand the desire to ensure the correct penalty is given but there looks to be scope for upset paddlers if they sincerely believe they went clean, one of the judges agreed they went clean but they get 2 penalties.
I'm not sure where all this uncertainty comes from. We seem to be trying to clarify the rules when I don't see any ambiguity. When I started doing gate judging with a section judge this is how the rules were and this is how it worked:
Both judges view the gate indpendently, from different viewpoints. Signal to each other and if agreed - great. If not then a certain amount of body language used to "discuss" the discrepancy. The section judge would then use their experience to decide if the gate judge had a better view given the alledged penalty, and report the appropriate penalty. Both judges would write down what they saw, and the fact there was a disagreement.
This worked fine many times in practice. Why change it?
Obviously I don't know what the 2 judges wrote down in this instance - I guess they either a) agreed (not saying they were right), or b) disagreed but then both wrote down the same thing. If not then surely a protest would've reduced the penalty. I don't see a rule change/clarification required just because the rules have not been followed. Obviously I'm speculating - I wasn't there.
I think an online judging "education" is a good idea. Not necessarily a judges exam, but just somewhere that one can go to learn the correct way to do things, including writing down, communicating with control and a section judge etc. I'm sure many people want to judge well but just don't know how. Particularly useful for newcomers to the sport who may think about going to a race to judge, but aren't confident enough they know how to.
Both judges view the gate indpendently, from different viewpoints. Signal to each other and if agreed - great. If not then a certain amount of body language used to "discuss" the discrepancy. The section judge would then use their experience to decide if the gate judge had a better view given the alledged penalty, and report the appropriate penalty. Both judges would write down what they saw, and the fact there was a disagreement.
This worked fine many times in practice. Why change it?
Obviously I don't know what the 2 judges wrote down in this instance - I guess they either a) agreed (not saying they were right), or b) disagreed but then both wrote down the same thing. If not then surely a protest would've reduced the penalty. I don't see a rule change/clarification required just because the rules have not been followed. Obviously I'm speculating - I wasn't there.
I think an online judging "education" is a good idea. Not necessarily a judges exam, but just somewhere that one can go to learn the correct way to do things, including writing down, communicating with control and a section judge etc. I'm sure many people want to judge well but just don't know how. Particularly useful for newcomers to the sport who may think about going to a race to judge, but aren't confident enough they know how to.
I'd agree with the logic in this and indeed believe that where one person most definately sees something that should be accounted for - but that's not what the rule says. Benefit of the doubt MUST be given cannot be interpreted in the way you suggest - if one person didn't see the touch, there is a doubt that it occured - so the score MUST be "clean".Dave Royle wrote:I think what the Chair of the Jury is trying to say is that where one judge clearly sees a touch and another judge is poorly placed to see same touch and does not give it, then the penalty will stand, which is why we place gate judges and section judges in different places.
As a Section Judge, if I have ANY DOUBT whatsoever about the penalty which should be awarded , I would ALWAYS give benefit of doubt to the paddler. Conferring with the gate judge is not on the agenda. All I would ask of the gate judge is a clear signal given as promptly as possible. There are inevitably close calls made and it is important that the Section Judge and Gate Judge record what they see without reference to each other other than the initial signal form Gate Judge to Section Judge and the confirmation from the Section Judge of the Gate Judge's signal.
-
Canadian Paddler
- Posts: 1480
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 8:31 am
- Location: Peterborough
- Contact:
I am also a section judge (and paddler, although I have regressed from racing, through precission drifting to imprecise drifting. . . ) and have been jury chairman at various events.
I understood that at Div 1/Prem events, the section and gate judges are positioned to give different views of the same event. They may not agree, but that does not mean there is doubt, e.g.
- Gate judge on river left at HPP by the muncher sees the side of the boat hit the left pole, records "2, left pole hit by side of boat "
- Section judge on river right sees the pole move, but does not know why, could have been boat or water. Records "2 , Gate Judge only, left pole moved?water or boat" Reports a 2 to control, "Gate Judge only" indicates teh section judge did not see the reason for the touch.
Both are correct in what they write, and if protested, the jury can take a view as to the one with the better view. (In this clear cut case I hope we would all agree a 2 is correct)
We had a period when gate and section judges were trying to communicate and write down a unified view. This is now frowned on to make sure that we section judges do not 'Bully' the gate judge into writting down just what we saw. A confirmation that a rule has been considered is all that we are supposed to do.
Having said that, rule 9.4 states that the section judge is responsible for a portion of the course and is assisted by gate judges. As such we can override the gate judge if we think they are blatently wrong, but this is very rare.
Those who do not want to see the judging exam questions on line had better not go anywhere near The European Canoe Association Site where the diagram manual is available.
I understood that at Div 1/Prem events, the section and gate judges are positioned to give different views of the same event. They may not agree, but that does not mean there is doubt, e.g.
- Gate judge on river left at HPP by the muncher sees the side of the boat hit the left pole, records "2, left pole hit by side of boat "
- Section judge on river right sees the pole move, but does not know why, could have been boat or water. Records "2 , Gate Judge only, left pole moved?water or boat" Reports a 2 to control, "Gate Judge only" indicates teh section judge did not see the reason for the touch.
Both are correct in what they write, and if protested, the jury can take a view as to the one with the better view. (In this clear cut case I hope we would all agree a 2 is correct)
We had a period when gate and section judges were trying to communicate and write down a unified view. This is now frowned on to make sure that we section judges do not 'Bully' the gate judge into writting down just what we saw. A confirmation that a rule has been considered is all that we are supposed to do.
Having said that, rule 9.4 states that the section judge is responsible for a portion of the course and is assisted by gate judges. As such we can override the gate judge if we think they are blatently wrong, but this is very rare.
Those who do not want to see the judging exam questions on line had better not go anywhere near The European Canoe Association Site where the diagram manual is available.
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
Old. Fat. Slow. Bad tempered. And those are my good points