ACM Motion - Demotions

oldandslow · Post by **oldandslow** » Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:01 pm

I feel that there ought to be a motion to prevent average/good paddlers being demoted simply because they haven't done enough races through whatever reason: injury, exams, work commitment, financial etc.

Any paddler with an average of more than say 300 (30)??? should be protected from demotion.

What do you think? Has anyone got time to do some number crunching and put a proposal together?

Geebs · Post by **Geebs** » Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:15 pm

They could apply for 'frozen status' if it is a genuine reason?

Munchkin · Post by **Munchkin** » Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:26 pm

I thought if there were a genuine reason eg injury they could already apply for protection...?

Mr Munchkin · Post by **Mr Munchkin** » Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:40 pm

I think this probably covers it...from Rule 3.1:

"Paddlers who have been unable to race in a major part of the season due to unforeseen circumstances, may apply to the Ranking Status Officer to be treated as 'short season competitors' protected from demotion. Such applications must be in writing and received by the 31st October of that season. Such status is discretionary. Applications will be decided by the Slalom Committee following a recommendation by the Ranking Status Officer."

John · Post by **John** » Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:24 pm

I agree with oldandslow. Offering protection only for "unforeseen" circumstances is not enough. In particular in the premier division it can be difficult for people to attend enough races as there are only 9 each year. There are people who work weekends or have children, etc. As they know in advance that they can only race two or three races per year, rule 3.1 doesn't apply. But surely we should be encouraging people to race what they can, rather than demoting those that do?

FatBoy · Post by **FatBoy** » Tue Oct 06, 2009 5:06 pm

I would agree with the motion in principal. I think the figure of 300/30 could need some work, possibly different for each division. Maybe the appropriate portion (4 or 5 events) of the points of last non-SS paddler to stay up?

I have only done one race this year and will do no more. This is not due to unforseen circumstances, but forseen ones such as working weekends and not wanting to travel too far. As it happens my standard has dropped to a level I should be demoted, but for the purposes of argument assume I had one result at 300+ points then it would be silly to demote me only to then skew div 2 events and those chasing promotion. Particularly if I was then to continue to do as few events in years ongoing and never be promoted back up.

djberriman · Post by **djberriman** » Wed Oct 07, 2009 7:35 am

I can understand why people want this and thought it was a good idea at first. I do agree in principal as I know a paddler who this would effect and it makes no sense them getting demoted however the more I think about it the more I see issues.

I think you end up skewing div 1/prem. Over time you end up with a number of paddlers who race say a couple of times a year, thus in effect there are 'n' places less in Div 1. That will result in the points required to stay in Div 1 going up and some paddlers feeling its unfair they got demoted.

Even worse would be the case someone gets a couple of reasonable results and it actually benefits them to stop paddling.

Simple case - paddler A gets 400+400,stops competing (perhaps judges), stays up under new rules, paddler B gets 400+400+50+50+50 and gets demoted from Div 1 as hasn't got enough points to reach the 1000 point cut off point.

More reason for opens/unranked status?

Kazz · Post by **Kazz** » Wed Oct 07, 2009 8:07 am

I agree with Mr Munchkin and think that the rule 3.1 just about covers it and lets paddlers with genuine reasons to appeal against demotion, if paddlers dont want to do more than one or two events thats fine but then they must take the risk that they might get demoted, good paddlers cant stay up just cos the are good they need to show the committment and support to the sport that many others do by competing why should someone who has paid their entry fees+fuel+accomodation costs be demoted to allow someone who has been to 2 events stay up just not fair
???

FatBoy · Post by **FatBoy** » Wed Oct 07, 2009 9:38 am

Yes Duncan - unranked and open!

Given that some paddlers cannot commit to many events, and a division system exists then the equation is that there will be a skew one way or the other. Increase the size of the upper divisions by keeping them up, or slow down genuine promotions by putting them down (maybe some see this as a good thing though?). I wouldn't say keeping somebody up because they commit to the sport in place of those who are better but not so committed is the right thing to do.

I can't claim to have studied the figures in detail, but I would guess based on memory of being in Div 1 last 4 years that a not insigificant number every year do a race or two. A quick scan of the current rankings in K1M looks like more than 10 not SS who are in dangerous points positions only having done a race or two, but with one or more scores good enough to easily stay up. They may turn up at one of the remaining 3 races so no point in counting just yet.

If you could come up with an average figure for the number of paddlers per race, and factor this in to the pyramid division size thing rather than total number then this wouldn't skew things too much I don't think. Yes some will race more the following year, but others will race less. If you're keeping those 10 extra people in Div 1 K1M who only race once or twice a year then on average there is only about one more competitor per race, not exactly too much of a skew.

I guess we need to look at the figures accurately to see what would happen. Anybody know where that info can be found historically?

John · Post by **John** » Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:51 pm

why should someone who has paid their entry fees+fuel+accomodation costs be demoted to allow someone who has been to 2 events stay up just not fair

As is explained in the yearbook, “the divisional system (…) ensures that there is a standard of competition suitable for competitors of all degrees of ability.”
But Rhys Davies was able to win the July div 2 race in hpp by 33 seconds, so that shows the competition was clearly not suitable for his ability. And why give multi-class discounts to encaurage paddlers to try more than one class if they are subsequently demoted because they haven’t shown “the commitment and support to the sport”.

Djberriman does raise two valid points.

Over time you end up with a number of paddlers who race say a couple of times a year, thus in effect there are 'n' places less in Div 1.

Fatboy’s suggestion to take an average figure for the number of paddlers per race for the division size pyramid should solve this issue.

Then

the case someone gets a couple of reasonable results and it actually benefits them to stop paddling.

That currently already happening. If someone can only enter two or three races in a year then they are probably better off missing a season and being re-ranked the following year.

To solve this, you could instead of taking an average of 300 (30) points per race, protect paddlers from demotion that have five results of more than 320 (32), four results of more than 340 (34), three results of more than 360 (36), two results of more than 380 (38) or one result of more than 400 (40) points. Then there would not be a benefit to stop paddling.

djberriman · Post by **djberriman** » Wed Oct 14, 2009 5:03 pm

Another spanner .... what happens to their ranking at the end of season/bib number for the new season?

If ranked using 400 points they are likely to have catch up issues. If ranked on 400*5=2000 that may equally upset others.

I had this problem on the way up when got promoted near the end of the season but started with a very high bib number the next year as there was only one race to do, so was ranked on something like say 500 points, it meant I caught the same poor person up at nearly every event until I got promoted again.

John · Post by **John** » Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:28 pm

If ranked using 400 points they are likely to have catch up issues.

If they are likely to be catching people up at the lower end of their division (so they are at least 30 seconds per run faster), then they definitely should not be demoted to a lower division. Also they are even more likely be catching people up in the lower division.

oldandslow · Post by **oldandslow** » Thu Oct 15, 2009 10:28 pm

So whose going to collate all that into a motion? Not me... it's not my forte!

Granddad · Post by **Granddad** » Fri Oct 16, 2009 10:32 am

I agree that the issue of a paddler gaining 700/70 points from one event and not competing again need to be addressed to provide a consistent approach to demotion/ reranking in a division, but do we really want division 1 and Prem to progressively year by year to be made up of paddlers who only race once a year.

By selecting which event a paddler attends (June/july events in prem when the GB teams are away) could ensureunder this proposal that sufficent points are achieved to remain in the divison.

This would reduce entry levels further, making some events finacially unviable.
If several good paddlers only do the occational event it could affect the relevance of the ranking system

Nick Penfold · Post by **Nick Penfold** » Fri Oct 16, 2009 4:03 pm

Sorry, this is a proposal to give a special deal to people who rarely paddle, ultimately at the expense of the regulars.
It's a difficult game managing the demotions fairly, and we don't need to make it more difficult. The provision under 3.1 covers the genuine cases, and I think that is sometimes abused.
Last year K1M Div 1s were demoted if they had less than 900 points. Adam Burgess did one race and stayed up.