I wish to express my concern re a change made to the original provisional K1M results for the Washburn Prem on Sept 2nd.
The competitor wearing bib 801 (a newly promoted J14) was hindered as he attempted gate 17 (a split on the bottom fall) by a swinging pole, which had just been hit by the previous paddler (an out of sequence official wearing 910) who had been whistled off at gate 18. As a direct consequence 801 slid sideways into the stopper where his deck popped and he swam. He had completed this sequence on his 1st run without a penalty. Following an appeal to the Jury Chair a re run was awarded on the grounds that the swinging pole had hindered his intended tight line through gate 17. The originally published results gave the re run score for his 2nd run.
The re run decision was raised at the Slalom Committee meeting on Sept 8th and the Jury Chair's decision was overruled on the evidence of the Section Judge who said that 801 had not been physically obstructed by 910 and the result now reads 'disqualified'.
I suggest that the swinging pole on a tight gate like 17 is as much a hindrance to a competitor's fair attempt at the course as a direct contact with another paddler's boat and that judges should be aware of this possibility. Moreover to reject this possibility sets a dangerous precedent whereby a paddler can conspire to hinder the following competitor by 'accidentally' setting poles swinging on critical gates.
Rule 31.3 p84 discussion doc - Events, Washburn Prem.
-
Don Raspin
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 12:42 pm
- Location: 28 Cotswold Drive, Skelton TS12 2JN
Sounds to me like 801 has been treated unfairly.
Does anyone know if the starter is obliged to delay your start if you can see gates swinging++ because the previous competitor has just given them a whack.
At Bala Mill div2 gate1 by the rocks was set swinging++ before my run and I was told I couldn't delay starting. On my next run some big open canoes came down the river knocking several gates, and I was allowed to wait.
???
Does anyone know if the starter is obliged to delay your start if you can see gates swinging++ because the previous competitor has just given them a whack.
At Bala Mill div2 gate1 by the rocks was set swinging++ before my run and I was told I couldn't delay starting. On my next run some big open canoes came down the river knocking several gates, and I was allowed to wait.
???
Whilst one can sympathise with 801, the idea that we have to ensure poles are not swinging before a paddler starts is an obvious non starter. We would end up with 3, 4 or even more minutes between paddlers as each paddler would be entitled to wait until the poles had been reported as not swinging.
The problems of poles left swinging are part and parcel of doing slalom and paddlers know that they may have to negotiate them. However, if rafts, open canoes or other such non participants cause the problem then it seems fair that time is allowed for the swinging to reduce.
Some may argue that in extreme circumstances, a re-run should be granted even though the paddler has not been hindered by another paddler. However, if you imagine the problems of establishing whether or not a re-run should be granted and then the number of protests which would arise as to why a paddler was given/not given a re-run, then this too is a non-starter.
I would guess that a newly promoted paddler was probably first off and hence, though generally it may be undesirable, it is acceptable that a judge went down ahead of him as it would then have been between classes. However, maybe 801 should have asked for extra time between himself and 910.
The problems of poles left swinging are part and parcel of doing slalom and paddlers know that they may have to negotiate them. However, if rafts, open canoes or other such non participants cause the problem then it seems fair that time is allowed for the swinging to reduce.
Some may argue that in extreme circumstances, a re-run should be granted even though the paddler has not been hindered by another paddler. However, if you imagine the problems of establishing whether or not a re-run should be granted and then the number of protests which would arise as to why a paddler was given/not given a re-run, then this too is a non-starter.
I would guess that a newly promoted paddler was probably first off and hence, though generally it may be undesirable, it is acceptable that a judge went down ahead of him as it would then have been between classes. However, maybe 801 should have asked for extra time between himself and 910.
I think you might be opening a can of worms if you start a discussion about when a paddler should or shouldn't be awarded a re-run.
I remember a discussion last year, where a paddler had picked up penalties at the top of the course, but then was hindered at the bottom. By being hindered, the paddler was denied the result he should have achieved. However, by giving the re-run, the paddler got a better result, than would have been possible considering the penalties obtained before the hindrance.
Neither case is a good solution, so I think the emphasis should be on preventing any hindrance.
I think in this case, the mistake was that of the starter or organiser for not leaving a gap between the judges and the Premier men. Having the start order based on last years ranking, should prevent most catch-ups within classes, as the person ranked one lower will be of a similar standard.
However, judges will probably be of a lesser standard than the Premier men, so a longer gap should have been scheduled.
I have been to an event, where there was a split gate that was regularly hit and left swinging. The gate judge found himself a long pole, so every time the gate was hit, he could steady it before the next paddler came.
I remember a discussion last year, where a paddler had picked up penalties at the top of the course, but then was hindered at the bottom. By being hindered, the paddler was denied the result he should have achieved. However, by giving the re-run, the paddler got a better result, than would have been possible considering the penalties obtained before the hindrance.
Neither case is a good solution, so I think the emphasis should be on preventing any hindrance.
I think in this case, the mistake was that of the starter or organiser for not leaving a gap between the judges and the Premier men. Having the start order based on last years ranking, should prevent most catch-ups within classes, as the person ranked one lower will be of a similar standard.
However, judges will probably be of a lesser standard than the Premier men, so a longer gap should have been scheduled.
I have been to an event, where there was a split gate that was regularly hit and left swinging. The gate judge found himself a long pole, so every time the gate was hit, he could steady it before the next paddler came.
-
david wilson
- Posts: 17
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 9:52 am
This is a very difficult one for all concerned.
The jury on the day made a decision to allow the re-run.
The Committee has viewed the evidence and disqualified the paddler.
Perhaps all the England squad members of 1966 should hand their medals back and declare West Germany (as it was then) the World Football Champions for that year.
Of course not. On the day the decision was that Geoff Hurst scored the (Controversial) goal and English supporters will be forever grateful to a Russian Linesman.
The sanction should have been words of advice to the Jury members but perhaps their decision on the day should stand.
I am intrigued that this matter was taken to a committee meeting and dealt with in this way. There have been many suggestions as to other factors which affected the run, less capable paddler infront of the aggrieved paddler, starter setting paddlers off to quickly, even the suggestion that paddlers get help from judges who steady a pole if it is swinging before they arrive at the gate. What happened when that judge was relieved by the next rota of judges on that day?
Poles should be left swinging no matter what caused them to move, wind, watersplash or contact. It is a test of ability to deal with the swinging gate pole.
That said it is now time to sort out the jury, the gate judge stated that the paddler was not impeded by the paddler infront. What I wonder was the score in penalties before the capsize? Was it the same situiation that John described when a paddler who had not done so well in the early part of the course caught up with the paddler infront and claimed a re run. Juries need to look at why paddlers are claiming re-runs and deal with the matter accordingly on the day.
The Jury was at fault not the paddler who got his re run. He should not have been awarded the re run and we would not have had this string. Juries need to be stronger when dealing with protests.
The jury on the day made a decision to allow the re-run.
The Committee has viewed the evidence and disqualified the paddler.
Perhaps all the England squad members of 1966 should hand their medals back and declare West Germany (as it was then) the World Football Champions for that year.
Of course not. On the day the decision was that Geoff Hurst scored the (Controversial) goal and English supporters will be forever grateful to a Russian Linesman.
The sanction should have been words of advice to the Jury members but perhaps their decision on the day should stand.
I am intrigued that this matter was taken to a committee meeting and dealt with in this way. There have been many suggestions as to other factors which affected the run, less capable paddler infront of the aggrieved paddler, starter setting paddlers off to quickly, even the suggestion that paddlers get help from judges who steady a pole if it is swinging before they arrive at the gate. What happened when that judge was relieved by the next rota of judges on that day?
Poles should be left swinging no matter what caused them to move, wind, watersplash or contact. It is a test of ability to deal with the swinging gate pole.
That said it is now time to sort out the jury, the gate judge stated that the paddler was not impeded by the paddler infront. What I wonder was the score in penalties before the capsize? Was it the same situiation that John described when a paddler who had not done so well in the early part of the course caught up with the paddler infront and claimed a re run. Juries need to look at why paddlers are claiming re-runs and deal with the matter accordingly on the day.
The Jury was at fault not the paddler who got his re run. He should not have been awarded the re run and we would not have had this string. Juries need to be stronger when dealing with protests.
I do wonder sometimes that the choice of jury members may have some bearing on decisions, I know that we have been at events and some members of the jury were not even BCU members?
In reply to Don's comment I don't believe a swinging pole could be called hinderance as this is common place, however the fact that a judge doing a run out of turn (again which unfortunatly is common place due to rota's etc.) could have a bearing on the fact if they impeded the paddler as is stated they were whistled off at the next gate, should they have not been whistled off before if the competing paddler was that close?
The fact that this was taken to committee is interesting as who instigated this and for what reason? was it a protest to the committee?
I think that the final sentence of Don's post sum's it up "Moreover to reject this possibility sets a dangerous precedent whereby a paddler can conspire to hinder the following competitor by 'accidentally' setting poles swinging on critical gates."
I have always found it difficult to understand why "Judges run's" have taken place when the main part of the competition is in progress, bearing in mind the competitors pay an entry fee to race and should not have their chances jeposied by any external influence! whilst we all appreciate the judges for attending and giving up their time to help, they must expect to give the competitors the best chance possible and not to run out of turn?
All the previous post's have made good common sense, the fact is the decision has been made and all that can be achieved is to learn by it and try and make sure at future event's this type of incident should not reoccur.
In reply to Don's comment I don't believe a swinging pole could be called hinderance as this is common place, however the fact that a judge doing a run out of turn (again which unfortunatly is common place due to rota's etc.) could have a bearing on the fact if they impeded the paddler as is stated they were whistled off at the next gate, should they have not been whistled off before if the competing paddler was that close?
The fact that this was taken to committee is interesting as who instigated this and for what reason? was it a protest to the committee?
I think that the final sentence of Don's post sum's it up "Moreover to reject this possibility sets a dangerous precedent whereby a paddler can conspire to hinder the following competitor by 'accidentally' setting poles swinging on critical gates."
I have always found it difficult to understand why "Judges run's" have taken place when the main part of the competition is in progress, bearing in mind the competitors pay an entry fee to race and should not have their chances jeposied by any external influence! whilst we all appreciate the judges for attending and giving up their time to help, they must expect to give the competitors the best chance possible and not to run out of turn?
All the previous post's have made good common sense, the fact is the decision has been made and all that can be achieved is to learn by it and try and make sure at future event's this type of incident should not reoccur.
Paddle fast,,,Paddle safe Yorkshire Canoe Coaching
If judges are forced to only take their runs at the scheduled time, then what does a judge, who is due to take his run soon, do when his replacement fails to turn up on time. We would end up with the race being stopped until the judge arrived. I have seen this happen at Mile End Mill where, through no fault of his own (the organised shuttle bus was delayed), the relieving judge was stuck on the North side of the river after his first stint of judging and did not get back in time for his second stint on the island. The judge due to be relieved decided to abandon his post so that he would not miss his run.
Whilst it is undesirable that they run between classes, judges should be allowed to take both their runs. The alternatives of the race being stopped, as above, or worse a lack of volunteer judges is even more undesirable. Whilst it fortunately does not happen too often, paddlers can be forced to judge where there is a lack of volunteer judges. This then results in poorly motivated reluctant judges and, almost inevitably, poorer judging. Worse, they too are then watching the clock so they can get ready in plenty of time for their own runs - and in this case late arrivals of replacements are even more common.
Whilst it is undesirable that they run between classes, judges should be allowed to take both their runs. The alternatives of the race being stopped, as above, or worse a lack of volunteer judges is even more undesirable. Whilst it fortunately does not happen too often, paddlers can be forced to judge where there is a lack of volunteer judges. This then results in poorly motivated reluctant judges and, almost inevitably, poorer judging. Worse, they too are then watching the clock so they can get ready in plenty of time for their own runs - and in this case late arrivals of replacements are even more common.
Ray, whilst I agree with you and we all appreciate the volunteer judges, they should not impede a competitor, the common sense thing to do (as most judges tend to be a lower division than the race in most cases) is to give the competitor an extra couple of minutes before setting them off.
The couple of minutes would allow everybody to have a fair chance.
The couple of minutes would allow everybody to have a fair chance.
Paddle fast,,,Paddle safe Yorkshire Canoe Coaching