Potential Rule changes for proposing at the ACM - For discussion...

Munchkin · Post by **Munchkin** » Mon Jun 28, 2010 3:10 pm

I know it is early but here are a few changes that have come to mind which I think should be open for discussion before the ACM...

1. Changing quorum from 3 to 5 (query (???) - except in Division 4). This would mainly affect K1W and C1M. At the moment people are getting maximum points (and thus promotion) for coming 1st out of 3 which doesn't necessarily reflect their abilities, but more the standard of the other compeititors on the day. Remember that if there are not enough competitiors the winner would still get maximum points IF they are fast enough against the K1M.

2. Promotion points for Div 3 K1W should be the same as the K1M at 330 not 320 (I have been told that was an error that has never been fixed, though that was during Pre-Munchkin times so I don't know for sure).

3. Div 2/3 C1W should be split into Div 2 and Div 3. There is a definate divide in standard across the division at the moment (which is understandable as it is developing) and with the number of competitors in each class being irrelevant as the points are decided by a multiplier not by quorum the numbers in the class are largely irrelevant. This would mean that:

a) Those who are not so confident in the C1 would be able to compete at Division 3 events and get points out of 1000 not 500, which is psychologically more uplifiting. Hopefully by the time they have the points required for promotion they will be more confident in the C1.

b) There would be fewer events where the winner is 30+ seconds ahead of the next competitor (without penalties) which is again, not pyscholocially uplifting for those concerned.

c) No one will be able to keep going to division 3 events and getting maximum points as they will have been promoted after 3 events. (Though I know at the moment those 500 points can help towards promotion which is why some of us have done it).

As I said, discuss...!!!

andya · Post by **andya** » Mon Jun 28, 2010 4:46 pm

Interesting ideas,

Only issue I can see with 1/ is there is a possibility of Inquorate Div3 K1 M. This would nearly have happened at Ogmore this Sat. Obviously not a good scenario as it effects all D3 points at the event.

While writing to add .. if 3/ could be made to work ... then why not:

4/ Split Div 2/3 C2 into 2
- with 135 bids issued at the start of the year and over 100 crews scroing points last year it should easliy be able to support this.

I know as a new D2/3 C2 crew we're certainly not ready for a big water Div 1/2 course, and maybe never will be ..
:laugh:

Munchkin · Post by **Munchkin** » Tue Jun 29, 2010 10:38 am

Good point with 1/ - we need more paddlers

A recruitment drive maybe?!?!

Slow Paddler · Post by **Slow Paddler** » Tue Jun 29, 2010 12:56 pm

Agree with no 3. I would like to see the divisions split. Numbers in the division don't matter as it compared to the mens times anyway.

It deters us from racing at 3/4s when we know those way too good for the event are paddling, but not taking it seriously enough to attend the 2/3s to get promoted.

I would like to be in division 3 racing against other div 3s not prem / div 1 kayak girls racing for the sake of it in division 3.

Another example is Bala Mill - had I raced in my C1, I would have had to do the bottom of the falls. I am only a div 3 c1 paddler & want confidence boosts. I would have done the div 3 course in the c1, but not the div 2. Having the combined division meant I had no choice, hence didn't enter. The same went for a number of other female C1 paddlers that weekend.

Andy · Post by **Andy** » Tue Jun 29, 2010 3:10 pm

i personaly think that the rule about 2/3 paddlers to stay on the water after there run should be changed to k1's and c2 (still with c1 on the water to assist) as in a c1 it is very hard to rescue a boat flowing downstream even if there are a few of you. like at nottingham or trywerin ect or some addaption to this would be benificial. what do you think????
thanks
AK VKC

Nick Penfold · Post by **Nick Penfold** » Wed Jun 30, 2010 7:33 pm

The only change I would like to see to the "stay on the water until two other paddlers have finished" rule would be to make it very clear that it's a disqualification offence not to.
Who will rescue the C1s, Andy? Do you think the K1s should hang about for them?

Nick Penfold · Post by **Nick Penfold** » Mon Jul 05, 2010 1:49 pm

Re Munchkin's Point 2. "Promotion points for Div 3 K1W should be the same as the K1M at 330 not 320 (I have been told that was an error that has never been fixed, though that was during Pre-Munchkin times so I don't know for sure)."

Yes. It was my error, and I agree. But why not base all classes' points on 1000, rather than some on 100 and some on 1000? Whatever the reason for the difference it goes back into the mists of time and I don't think there's a reason to keep it that way. It would be at least a small move toward simplifying some horribly complicated points calculations.

Munchkin · Post by **Munchkin** » Mon Jul 05, 2010 2:30 pm

Good point Nick - I wonder if anyone knows why the difference was introduced?

Nicky · Post by **Nicky** » Mon Jul 05, 2010 5:49 pm

maybe all were 100 and events exceeded 100 for K1M, but not other categories...

Just a guess!

Nicky

Nick Penfold · Post by **Nick Penfold** » Wed Jul 07, 2010 5:17 pm

My best guess is that, in pre-computer days, 100 was easier to handle than 1000, but with over-100 entries in K1M that put people with different places on the same points.

K1W entries were very small.