Missing Gates on Purpose - A suggested solution

djberriman · Post by **djberriman** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 10:25 am

There is quite often debate on missing gates on purpose so here is a solution which I post for the usual interesting debate.

Where the organiser or jury chair sees that due to course design/natural features an unintentional competitive advantage can be gained by missing a gate the organiser may erect additional penalty gates.

Penalty gates will not be included in the total gate count (up or down) for the race course.

Penalty gates will be erected such that the paddler has to transit thru the gate line in order to reach the next gate. Poles should be hung for judging purposes but should be as wide as possible whilst achieving the desired effect. A 'P' board indicating direction should be hung together with a gate number that the penalty gate relates too.

The gate line must be crossed in the direction indicated by the poles and penalty board. If the paddler does not cross the gate line then they will be awarded a 50, no penalties will be gained for touching any poles, double entry, pre-touch etc.

A paddler will be deemed to have crossed the penalty gate line if they complete the gate which the penalty gate relates too.

I think this would help cope with situations like at Howsham, HPP and (I believe) Shepperton this year where missing a gate gave an unfair advantage to those who attempted the gate.

It may also mean that some paddlers make more of an attempt to achieve the gate if only to reduce their potential penalty from 100 to 50.

It sounds a lot more complicated than it is but hopefully what I've outlined is clear and might work - I'm sure there are some flaws so have fun pulling it apart.

Slow Paddler · Post by **Slow Paddler** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 12:10 pm

How about people just try their best to do the course.

It is on their conscious if they missed the gates and then won. Do they honestly think the win's worth it?

What's the point of people entering if they can't be bothered to negotiate all the gates or to even try and then to win. I can understand those slower getting used to the water missing certain gates, but think it's pathetic if they miss purposfully just to win. Why are they bothering to paddle slalom?

If they get promoted this way, then they're the ones that lose out when they get into a higher division & can't cope.

The others in the race wouldn't in all honesty be ready for promotion either if they are taking longer getting each of the harder gates than the 50 seconds penalty

djberriman · Post by **djberriman** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 4:12 pm

some unfortunately don't and that upsets those that do hence my suggestion.

jke · Post by **jke** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 6:30 pm

Duncan I think the suggestions are too much faff and change the rules and make them more complicated which I'm sure we don't want. Why not just have an additional (easy / wide ) gate in the course if you want to force racers to take a certain route.

oldandslow · Post by **oldandslow** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 9:55 pm

Some decide not to paddle because they know they can't attempt the gates on the set course! You can't win!

djberriman · Post by **djberriman** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 10:08 pm

The reason to not 'set' another gate is it potentially shortens the course particularly if its a red gate.

davebrads · Post by **davebrads** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 11:12 pm

I don't follow. You are allowed up to 25 gates, I can't remember the last course that used more than 21.

Nick Penfold · Post by **Nick Penfold** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 10:34 am

Why the complication? Just put in an additional gate!
At a course like Shepperton the course design can sometimes require paddlers to cross a fast flush of water twice to get one gate, and put paddlers who don't attempt the gate at an advantage over those who do.
So hang a second gate very close to the first, such that if you get one you can't really miss the other. Result: penalty for not doing the two crosses is now 100. It's not a perfect fix - a paddler who tries can still get blown away and take over 100 seconds to get back - but usually it balances things up.
The odd touch is neither here nor there in this situation.
The important bit is that the course designer, or the jury, must see the problem before the race starts. Not hard as long as they think about it.

djberriman · Post by **djberriman** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 4:01 pm

I may be wrong but I thought red gates were limited to 7. But heh it was just a suggestion to an old chestnut.

Added single pole gates are a solution I had thought of but not in some circumstances I can think of hence my careful choice of rule such as "A paddler will be deemed to have crossed the penalty gate line if they complete the gate which the penalty gate relates too".

Dee · Post by **Dee** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 4:18 pm

It is precisely because of this "miss a gate because the gate will take me more than 50seconds to get to" attitude that we have, for the last few years at least, always put 2 gates up for the double cross. Thus, paddlers deciding not to do the double cross will get 100 second penalty rather than 50. We did look at increasing the penalty for a single gate, but no rule exists to allow this. Hanging 2 very close together is not really an option (because of line availability) unless we literally hang both gates from the same carrier. Is this allowed - could make pre-touch judging for the two gates interesting!

In spite of going for 2 gates we still get anomalies. This is because at Shepperton it is possible to go a long, long way "down stream" before making the cross and then take a long time paddling up. To my mind though a strategic decision to take this route is probably not significantly different from that to miss the gates.

I think the idea of Penalty gates is unnecessarily complex. Difficult to implement and will certainly cause the odd judging hic up.

Munchkin · Post by **Munchkin** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 5:35 pm

I think it is mainly up to the course designer to design a course that (where possible e.g. where there are big crosses such as at Shepperton and Tully) discourages purposefully missing a gate (as they did at both events).

The problem comes at other events where that is difficult or impossible to do. For example at HPP I know some of the Division 2 girls planned on missing gates and got good points from doing that. However, I guess that two things come from it 1) they were at least there and giving the bigger water a try and 2) no one can get promoted on the results of just one weekend, so even if their results help towards promotion they will have to prove themselves elsewhere too. Thus, is it really that much of a problem?

Dave Royle · Post by **Dave Royle** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 6:57 pm

First of all, let's not get into this "let's create another UK rule business" We have had that over the last few years and finally got back to the ICF rules and let's keep it like that.

The rules, just like the gates, are a series of obstacles that the competitor must negotiate to his/her greatest advantage in the pursuit of that illusive win or best result and if missing a gate costs a 50s penalty but is quicker overall, then that is within the rules and therefore justified. If you think Campbell would paddle for 50.1s just to get a gate which could lose him the World Champs do you think he would do it?

If Button could save time by going across the grass within the rules, lap after lap, would he do it?

As many have already pointed out this is down to course design and the course designer should take this into account. Please be a bit more interesting than putting two gates on top of each other though. Single pole gates may provide interesting ways of acheiving this.

Seedy Paddler · Post by **Seedy Paddler** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 10:22 pm

Don't believe this to be any failure on the paddlers behalf.

The objective is to achieve the fastest score including time and penalties.

The failure lies with the course designer - the guidance is to provide a competitive course with a target for winning times in the order of 100secs with up to 25 gates. If you take that brief and design a move that requires more than 50 secs to achieve any one gate then you have failed the brief.

There are situations where things may be close, e.g. at July HPP 1/2 on Sunday - it maye have been quicker for some to miss out 12 and go straight from 11 - 13 but doubtful if you could nail the complete sequence.

I have overheard many of our established and senior coaches re-iterate the mantra that you need to paddle at race speed to be effective. Can't see how that fits in with a requirement to continually recirculate to get a single gate. It is actually better to work out a safe and secure route paddle at speed and then work out how to develop the missing moves than to spend half the day trying and re-trying moves that aren't coming off.

If designers follow the guidance and respect the rules there should never be an issue that missing a gate will provide a competitive advantage. It may reduce risk and provide security to getting a result but that is quite different to any competitive advantage.

djberriman · Post by **djberriman** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 11:16 pm

The problem comes when you design a course for 2 divisions, there is quite a disparity between the 2 divisions, and the top and bottom of the 2nd division, some places don't allow for a design as stated, if you did design out the issue with the current rules then you would remove the difficult gates for the higher division and not be able to use many of the features. I agree its rare the problem occurs but if you read this forum there are regularly complaints from disgruntled paddlers.

But if for interests sake an extra course wide gate had been put in at HPP (say 1m below and parrallel to the stopper) that could be used to double the penalty as suggested and design out the issue but it would also mean someone trying the stopper move could get a 50 for double entry if they failed the stopper move, dropped below the extra gate and had to paddle through it again to complete the stopper gate.

I guess the other option would have been to put the extra up gate on the entrance to the stopper but that would have removed the safe and secure route.

A penalty gate would not cause either issue. Simply placed say 1m below the stopper and parallel to it, it would mean paddlers have to cross it so as to not get a 50 (by stopper route or safe and secure route) but it would not matter if they double entered.

In other cases when shooting a weir where there is an up gate near the the bottom it may be desirable to put a penalty gate/line just below it thus, the paddler correctly shooting the weir and nailing the up will not be penalised (even though they do not transit the penalty line) but the paddler making no attempt would gain 100 penalties, the paddler at least making an attempt and paddling back up as far as the penalty gate would only gain 50, the paddler who paddles back up and eventually makes the gate will get 0 penalties.

In my experience its generally the slower but having a go at everything safe secure paddler who loses out to the faster paddler who (apparently purposely) misses a gate. So its not always that it takes them 50 seconds to do that particular gate but the time it takes overall is enough to tip the balance in the favour of the speedy gate missing paddler.

It was just a suggestion for debate and it looks like its a non starter!

Nick Penfold · Post by **Nick Penfold** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 7:46 pm

Quote: "If you take that brief and design a move that requires more than 50 secs to achieve any one gate then you have failed the brief."
I don't think anyone does that, and you are missing the point. The "double cross" situation at Shepperton can be negotiated by a good paddler, or a lucky one, in seconds. The problem is that if you mishandle the cross you are blown 50m or more away, and that's why missing out the gate and taking the penalty can get a better result than doing it.
This is an issue for course designers, yes: also for the organiser and jury, because course designers don't always foresee these things.