Unauthorised Rule Change?

John Sturgess · Post by **John Sturgess** » Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:46 pm

I am puzzled by the way a rule appears to have been changed without a proposition being even discussed at the ACM - still less passed.

Why am I raising this? On the Sunday of the recent Stone Slalom (June 6th) the Div 4 C1 class contained 3 Div 2 KIM and 2 Div 3 KIM. The winner, a Div 2 KIM, was promoted on the 1/5 Rule. However had the Rule that was in force 1985 - 2009 still been in force, 2 of the Div 2 KIM who beat the K1M promotion score would have been promoted (although in fact the Sunday winner would have been promoted on the Saturday...).

From 1999 to 2009 Rule 5.5.1 (Promotion Canadian Men’s Singles) finished with the provision ‘(Promotion for Canadian Men Singles is achieved....) - in the case of Division 4, where a competitor’s score would have gained promotion in the corresponding Men’s event, including ties as in 4.1’. The same provision applied to Women’s Kayak (Rule 4.2).

There has not been a change for C1W and C2: in Canadian Women’s Singles (2009-10) (Rule 5.2) they have to finish ‘within 120% of the last promoted Division 4 Men’s Kayak score’. In Canadian Doubles (Rule 5.3) they have to finish ‘within 120% of the last promoted Division 4 Men’s Kayak score’ to get automatically promoted (2007 - 10); (2006) ‘within 125% of the winning Division 4 Men’s Kayak score; (1999 - 2005) where a competitor’s score would have gained promotion in the corresponding Men’s event, including ties as in 4.1’

For Canadians 1985 - 1998 (Ladies 1989 - 1998) the same rules existed for those three classes; but of course they referred to promotion from Division 5; and applied to all promotions that were possible at events.

This was entirely separate from the rather easier Inquoracy rule (Canadian Men’s Singles Rule 5.5; Women’s Kayak Rule 4.5; there does not seem to have been a separate Inquoracy Rule for Canadian Women’s Singles or Canadian Doubles).

However in the 2010 Handbook:
• Promotion has become easier at quorate events for C1W and C2 (120% of the last promoted KIM)
• There is no longer a provision for Men’s C1 and Ladies’ K1 to get promoted at quorate events, even if they beat the KIM promotion score.

There was no motion at the ACM to remove the parts of Rules 4.2, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3. The attempt to remove in-season promotion to Div 1 would specifically have left those parts of the Rules untouched. I assume, therefore, that this was a typo?

Had this come up at the ACM, I would have strongly supported the status quo on the grounds (a) of encouraging C1 paddlers (b) that the make-up of that C1M4 class was by no means untypical.

Seedy Paddler · Post by **Seedy Paddler** » Thu Jun 17, 2010 2:19 pm

John

You have come across one (of several) errors in the 2010 Yearbook. An errrata slip was issued with some yearbooks but there are others including mistakes in the factors to be applied in comparison (e.g. the 120 % is wrong) see Slalom UK front page etc.

Have to say (as an organiser) it meant that sorting results this year has been a nightmare as I had to juggle yearbook several pieces of paper etc. and respond to paddlers in short time.

Yearbook 2010 Errata:
Page 57 rule 4.2 and page 58 rule 5.1

Last paragraph should read - In the case of Division 4, where a competitor's score would have gained promotion in the corresponding K1Men's event, including ties as in 4.1.

Canadian Paddler · Post by **Canadian Paddler** » Thu Jun 17, 2010 2:40 pm

I suspect finger trouble as all sections are very similar, but should have had different percentages, now all have 120%, when (for example) Men's C1 should have read 108%.

Granddad · Post by **Granddad** » Thu Jun 17, 2010 5:15 pm

What happend to the application of rule 2.2 'except as separately provided for new C2 crews and C1 any competitor currently ranked in div 2 or above in any catergory must apply for ranking status before competing in a different catergory'. The only seperat provision for C1 is if ranked above Div 2. If applying for ranking status a paddler can only be ranked in div 3 as ranking status is only relevant to ranked divisions. If this had been followed the div 2 K1M would have paddled in div 3 C1 not div 4

Canadian Paddler · Post by **Canadian Paddler** » Thu Jun 17, 2010 8:46 pm

Just above it there is "Any competitor wishing to compete in C1 and currently ranked higher than Division 2 in any other category must cpmpete in Division 3m . . . "

The good news is that Ken now has all the rules in a form that he can edit, so these errata should be ironed out for the next year.

PeterC · Post by **PeterC** » Mon Jun 21, 2010 1:08 am

Could we perhaps have an up to date list of current rules as they should be. Then it would be useful to me to have an annual list of agreed changes - it would make getting the scoring systems we build much easier to get right.

I have picked up on the error with the correction factor but have this W/E found the change in Div 4 C1M and promotion. I had already found the change in K1W Div 4 and enabled it. As a result yesterday 3 girls out of Fifteen in Div 4 were given promotion certificates by the organisers but in actual fact according to the rules none should have been promoted at all. Furthermore none of the C1's got comparable times to the top five out of 25 K1M so should not be promoted.

I don't seem to have the error slip referred to in my copy of the year book - I have checked one of my sons and his does.

I think there should be correction for the C1's and Women when comparing with K1M. Otherwise they could be stuck in Div 4 for ages and what do you do if the K1M is inquorate?

I now have a bad headache and need to go and lie down for a long time!:rock:

andya · Post by **andya** » Mon Jun 21, 2010 10:30 am

PeterC wrote:Could we perhaps have an up to date list of current rules as they should be. Then it would be useful to me to have an annual list of agreed changes - it would make getting the scoring systems we build much easier to get right.

... snip ...

I now have a bad headache and need to go and lie down for a long time!:rock:

Now my head hurts too .. I thought 1 in 5 applied to all D4 classes if quorate. With the extra % rules been applied afterwards??

As a suggestion if Ken has the updated rules maybe he could publish them online as a PDF. Then they would be searchable, so when you're looking for something it would be much easier and quicker

So long as we have version numbers on each amendment published online, there shouldn't be a problem.

Sound like a plan?

PS As for inquorate K1M, then my head just hurts more. It does sadly happen, like at Ogmore last year .. where everyone in D3 got 400 or 40 points ...
http://www.canoeslalom.co.uk/results09/040709ogmore.pdf

PPS - Its Ogmore next weekend, surely worthy of support! See you there?

PeterC · Post by **PeterC** » Mon Jun 21, 2010 7:14 pm

Andy

While I am sure the Saturday promotee from Div4 Ladies was truly worthy of promotion since the 1 in 5 does not apply in womens then should not be promoted under the rules as would not have been as a man with that time. Its crazy!!!

You could have 3 mens K1 with one very fast one. One would get promoted. You could then have 10 C1 and 15 K1W and none get promoted as they did not beat the mens K1 who came first. At least I think thats what the rules mean if interpreted strictly.

My head still hurts.

Canadian Paddler · Post by **Canadian Paddler** » Mon Jun 21, 2010 8:46 pm

I always understood it to be 1 in 5 promoted OR promoted if match mens promotion regardless of how many there are, so 6 K1W compete, then 2 get promoted, unless more than 2 would have beaten, or equalled the last men's kayak promotees best run.

So could have the whole K1W (or C1) class promoted if they beat the last K1M promoted.

andya · Post by **andya** » Mon Jun 21, 2010 9:47 pm

Would it be easier to use the 2009 rule book for D4 promotions?

I don't think anything re D4 changed at the ACM did it??

Ken Trollope · Post by **Ken Trollope** » Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:24 am

After my enforced stay in Prague thanks to Easyjet. I will publish the the Ranking and Rules (pages 52 to 87) with all the amendments to date.

Apart from any changes at the ACM this is what will be published in the 2011 yearbook.

If you see any other errors the please e-mail me and I will check and correct as required.

Ken T

andya · Post by **andya** » Tue Jun 22, 2010 11:27 am

Perfect, thank you Ken.

oldandslow · Post by **oldandslow** » Tue Jun 22, 2010 10:16 pm

I think the whole rule book needs throwing up in the air and re-writing! There are so many subtle tweeks and changes each year it gets muddled. But that's not an offer to do it!

Canadian Paddler · Post by **Canadian Paddler** » Wed Jun 23, 2010 1:40 pm

Trouble is trying to keep ICF rules and changes, and UK adaptions of these changes all in line. . . .Not an easy Job.

roodthomas · Post by **roodthomas** » Wed Jun 23, 2010 10:19 pm

Would it be possible to have an online rulebook on the site that could be rewritten/adapted as an when it is needed. This would also make checking the rules easier as paddlers currently have to look at the website and the rulebook to be aware of the errors. With the developments of the mobile website, the online rulebook would be accessible for the majority of the races.