I am keen to get views from paddlers, officials, supporters, judges etc on the subject of 'behaviour unbecoming' and how it should be dealt with.
Two things I would like to state first:
a) in my view the behaviour of the majority of slalom paddlers is exemplary and they should be congratulated on this.
b) the pressures on paddlers - specially at the end of the season - because of promotions and the impact results can have on funding etc sometimes results in "unusual" behaviour - but these instances are "one-offs" hopefully never to be repeated.
My concern is with regard to repeat offenders. There were a number of incidents at Serpents Tail this weekend with regard to behaviour that had been pointed out to paddlers on previous occasions - ranging from illegal kit to unacceptable outbursts and poor attitude towards race officials etc
At what point do we take action and what should that action be? My concern is to do with
a) safety
b) what message this type of behaviour can give younger, less experienced paddlers
c) how this behaviour can potentially influence how the wider public regard our sport.
I'm sure everyone saw the BBC's coverage of the Spanish paddler's behaviour at the Lee Valley test event. Personally I would have preferred to have seen more TV coverage of the racing than precious air time being spent on a paddler - who should have known better - having a hissy fit on the water. Yes he was upset, yes he probably lost his Olympic place on the Spanish team - BUT ... the tantrum is for the privacy of the changing room if you must! Not in public and not on national TV where those not in the know see it as the "norm" for our sport.
Serpents is a fairly closed course with few if any members of the public present BUT this behaviour has also occurred at very public venues - Cardiff, HPP, Tully etc where there can be large gatherings of the public.
I don't profess to now what the answer is - but I am aware that this type of behaviour may be on the increase in some quarters. Goodness knows I do not want to brand any paddler but I do think that acceptable behaviour is part of the discipline an athlete should develop in any sport. As someone who is more than willing to do my bit at events I do not expect to be given the run around by competitors (because they think it's funny) or indeed have to put up with poor behaviour.
Behaviour unbecoming?
From my point of view I have not yet seen anything that I would regard as "behaviour unbecoming", maybe a couple of incidents of behaviour that I would prefer to not see/hear but then I am only there as a paddler's parent, not an official, jury member etc, also up until recently only been involved in Div 2/3. Is this more an issue with Prem and/or Div1?
At the weekend I know that one Div1 K1 M 13 year old emitted a clearly audible swear word and then went on to throw his paddles in the water at the end of his run. Quite an odd experience for me - the first time that I have heard him swear in 13 years!
I would describe this as "innappropriate" but other than a quiet word and a minor parental punishment I do not believe that any further action is required (unless it continues at further races)
I appreciate why you are reluctant to go into specifics but I think that the types of indiscretions that you might be referring to could be quite varied.
I am going to guess that the range of offences that you refer to are somewhere between 2 extremes:
1: "paddle abuse" at the end of a very poor run by an under 16.
2: verbal abuse of an official by a paddler/parent/coach
I would hope that 1: could be dealt with easily by the parent without any official intervention although at this age I think that some allowances should be made.
I would hope that 2: would be covered somewhere in the existing rules(?): something along the lines of a minimum of disqualification from current race and put on warning of additional sanctions if such behaviour reoccured - much along the lines of Rugby Football rules (not Association Football, where this behaviour appears to be a key element of the skillset for any top player).
As I say, the only innapropriate behaviour that I have seen/heard is paddle abuse and swear words (usually used as a form of in-race self-appraisal - although I did hear one in-race course appraisal that contained the odd swear word).
Andrew
At the weekend I know that one Div1 K1 M 13 year old emitted a clearly audible swear word and then went on to throw his paddles in the water at the end of his run. Quite an odd experience for me - the first time that I have heard him swear in 13 years!
I would describe this as "innappropriate" but other than a quiet word and a minor parental punishment I do not believe that any further action is required (unless it continues at further races)
I appreciate why you are reluctant to go into specifics but I think that the types of indiscretions that you might be referring to could be quite varied.
I am going to guess that the range of offences that you refer to are somewhere between 2 extremes:
1: "paddle abuse" at the end of a very poor run by an under 16.
2: verbal abuse of an official by a paddler/parent/coach
I would hope that 1: could be dealt with easily by the parent without any official intervention although at this age I think that some allowances should be made.
I would hope that 2: would be covered somewhere in the existing rules(?): something along the lines of a minimum of disqualification from current race and put on warning of additional sanctions if such behaviour reoccured - much along the lines of Rugby Football rules (not Association Football, where this behaviour appears to be a key element of the skillset for any top player).
As I say, the only innapropriate behaviour that I have seen/heard is paddle abuse and swear words (usually used as a form of in-race self-appraisal - although I did hear one in-race course appraisal that contained the odd swear word).
Andrew
-
djberriman
- Posts: 806
- Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 8:19 pm
I guess for behaviour issues you perhaps need a system like polo whereby 'cards' are given out and a referees report is filed at the end of the event. In polo paddlers are brought before the committee if they are repeat offenders. I guess it would be yet another job for the jury to do but I guess they should file a report on individuals whom they have to warn about their behaviour.
Abusing an official is a red card at polo and should really be a disqualification at Slalom.
Disqualification rarely happens, perhaps we should use it more often and paddlers might take more notice.
As for illegal kit surely thats just a simple case of disqualification - especially for repeat offenders, the rules seem pretty clear.
Without hijacking the thread I'd also like to raise some other behaviour issues which seem to be getting worse.
1) Not staying at the bottom after a run to do safety - this is getting more common IMHO. When pointed out the paddlers response is often very poor. I've had to remind paddlers numerous times this season as have event organisers - there should be no need, especially in Div 2 and above, newly ranked Div 3's might have an excuse. So come on paddlers, parents and coaches make sure your paddlers DO do safety as required - it could be you floating down the river one day wondering why there is no one there to help.
note for organisers (including myself) - "After their run a Competitor MUST stay in their boat within a
clearly indicated distance from the finish" - rarely have I seen any such notice or indication. Perhaps the Jury Chair should ensure its in place as part of their report?
2) Official practice. Some paddlers do not leave the water after their official practice run and paddle back up to do a section again and ruin someone elses run. All paddlers should be aware when official practice starts and should clear the course quickly, they should not have to be asked numerous times and then reminded, if and when asked they should do so quickly and with good grace.
note for organisers (including self) - "During all practice there should be at least two persons supervising safety, one at the start to organise regular starts and at least one other along the course to ensure that full runs only are attempted"
3) Etiquette on the water during free practice - give way to paddlers coming down the course on a run, look up river before setting off and do not pull out on someone on a run, avoid sitting in or very near upstream gates. I've lost count of the times recently when I've had someone pull out in front of me simply so they can practice the next move for the nth time.
As with everything we all get it wrong now and then and a simple sorry works wonders.
End of rant
Grumpy old man!
Abusing an official is a red card at polo and should really be a disqualification at Slalom.
Disqualification rarely happens, perhaps we should use it more often and paddlers might take more notice.
As for illegal kit surely thats just a simple case of disqualification - especially for repeat offenders, the rules seem pretty clear.
Without hijacking the thread I'd also like to raise some other behaviour issues which seem to be getting worse.
1) Not staying at the bottom after a run to do safety - this is getting more common IMHO. When pointed out the paddlers response is often very poor. I've had to remind paddlers numerous times this season as have event organisers - there should be no need, especially in Div 2 and above, newly ranked Div 3's might have an excuse. So come on paddlers, parents and coaches make sure your paddlers DO do safety as required - it could be you floating down the river one day wondering why there is no one there to help.
note for organisers (including myself) - "After their run a Competitor MUST stay in their boat within a
clearly indicated distance from the finish" - rarely have I seen any such notice or indication. Perhaps the Jury Chair should ensure its in place as part of their report?
2) Official practice. Some paddlers do not leave the water after their official practice run and paddle back up to do a section again and ruin someone elses run. All paddlers should be aware when official practice starts and should clear the course quickly, they should not have to be asked numerous times and then reminded, if and when asked they should do so quickly and with good grace.
note for organisers (including self) - "During all practice there should be at least two persons supervising safety, one at the start to organise regular starts and at least one other along the course to ensure that full runs only are attempted"
3) Etiquette on the water during free practice - give way to paddlers coming down the course on a run, look up river before setting off and do not pull out on someone on a run, avoid sitting in or very near upstream gates. I've lost count of the times recently when I've had someone pull out in front of me simply so they can practice the next move for the nth time.
As with everything we all get it wrong now and then and a simple sorry works wonders.
End of rant
Grumpy old man!
Blimey! That all sounds a bit intriguing
My immediate comments would be:-
We are dealing with youngsters here and they are the product of parents and peer influence - so if they misbehave the parent may or may not be responsible - either through there actions or even lack of. Throw in peer influence though and it skews it more.
I've had to take mine aside quite recently and have a word and those who were there will no doubt vouch that I dealt with it by escorting down the course and making him offer an apology to one person in particular. So yes I believe it is entirely they responsibility of the parent (if indeed they are aware) but only up to a point. There must be a point when official action is required though.
Now I know that this next statement will likely not go down well with some. If I personally saw any young paddler acting in a way I deemed inappropriate (and by that I mean in a way I wouldn't expect my own child to behave) I would speak to them there and then and then seek out their parent and explain what I had seen and tell them what I said. Now I'm fairly confident that this wouldn't go down well with some but it's worked for me - it has to be done in the correct way. The apology incident mentioned above was fed back to me by a respected third party and I acted on that so it does go both ways.
There are plenty of negative role models - and you've mentioned one - but they are frequently in the media in other sports too.
I have heard some recent tales of this sort of thing but it's difficult to comment when not seeing it personally
Intrigue to know more about being given the runaround?
My immediate comments would be:-
We are dealing with youngsters here and they are the product of parents and peer influence - so if they misbehave the parent may or may not be responsible - either through there actions or even lack of. Throw in peer influence though and it skews it more.
I've had to take mine aside quite recently and have a word and those who were there will no doubt vouch that I dealt with it by escorting down the course and making him offer an apology to one person in particular. So yes I believe it is entirely they responsibility of the parent (if indeed they are aware) but only up to a point. There must be a point when official action is required though.
Now I know that this next statement will likely not go down well with some. If I personally saw any young paddler acting in a way I deemed inappropriate (and by that I mean in a way I wouldn't expect my own child to behave) I would speak to them there and then and then seek out their parent and explain what I had seen and tell them what I said. Now I'm fairly confident that this wouldn't go down well with some but it's worked for me - it has to be done in the correct way. The apology incident mentioned above was fed back to me by a respected third party and I acted on that so it does go both ways.
There are plenty of negative role models - and you've mentioned one - but they are frequently in the media in other sports too.
I have heard some recent tales of this sort of thing but it's difficult to comment when not seeing it personally
Intrigue to know more about being given the runaround?
I'm actually referring to Prem paddlers ouch!
So athletes who have gone through the system and in my book at least should know better.
I'm not sure illegal kit is a disqualification but the wording in the rule book is a bit fuzzy. Unless there is very clear direction for next year re BAs - its not going to be much fun for officials - can we make sure the wording is very clear - specially so the paddlers know what is what.
Finding it amusing to waste officials time when they are trying to help them - needlessly as it turned out - you know who you are!. Not acceptable
not staying at the bottom for the requisite time - yes - tantrums and paddle throwing - yes - swearing no - not on this occasion thankfully.
I totally agree that politeness and tolerance is a two way street but there is a punch line to this
Without the race officials - racing can't happen. So BE NICE!
So athletes who have gone through the system and in my book at least should know better.
I'm not sure illegal kit is a disqualification but the wording in the rule book is a bit fuzzy. Unless there is very clear direction for next year re BAs - its not going to be much fun for officials - can we make sure the wording is very clear - specially so the paddlers know what is what.
Finding it amusing to waste officials time when they are trying to help them - needlessly as it turned out - you know who you are!. Not acceptable
not staying at the bottom for the requisite time - yes - tantrums and paddle throwing - yes - swearing no - not on this occasion thankfully.
I totally agree that politeness and tolerance is a two way street but there is a punch line to this
Without the race officials - racing can't happen. So BE NICE!
-
djberriman
- Posts: 806
- Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 8:19 pm
I would think rule C9.7, C9.8 and C9.12 cover illegal kit. The main one being.
"Where a Competitor does not meet the safety standards,or the Competitors equipment or their boat does not carry the marks or tags issue by the Boat Controller, the Pre Start Controller must immediately advise both the Start Judge and the Jury and advise and apply their instructions to the Competitor."
"Where a Competitor does not meet the safety standards,or the Competitors equipment or their boat does not carry the marks or tags issue by the Boat Controller, the Pre Start Controller must immediately advise both the Start Judge and the Jury and advise and apply their instructions to the Competitor."
Which raises an interesting dilemma
Does pre-start always know? but also even if this is relayed what are the consequences?
We had one issue of an illegal helmet being spotted by a section judge half way down the course - so what do you do? The pre start has let them go?
Another helmet issue where the paddler was just being well.. soft ... and a nuisance to be blunt.
The culprits were spoken to but I don't think there is anything black and white in the rules about consequences??
Does pre-start always know? but also even if this is relayed what are the consequences?
We had one issue of an illegal helmet being spotted by a section judge half way down the course - so what do you do? The pre start has let them go?
Another helmet issue where the paddler was just being well.. soft ... and a nuisance to be blunt.
The culprits were spoken to but I don't think there is anything black and white in the rules about consequences??
Ummm... Interesting points above - I suspect that you would be interested in seeing the jury reports at the end of the Llandysul and Serpents Tail events...
I can categorically state that a paddler was given the scare of their life at Llandysul for failing to stay on the water for safety. They had a very nervous wait whilst we (as the jury) decided what to do about it. Unfortunately the yearbook conflicts as it states in one place paddlers "will" be disqualified and in another place "may" be disqualified. This has already been brought to the attention of the committee so that a clarification motion can be put forward at the ACM (its too late for club motions). The paddler's name was put ont he jury report so that if they became a repeat offender it would be known. A similar approach was taken with a number of paddlers talked to by the Serpents Tail jury (I only know about this as I was on finish and reported some paddlers over the weekend).
The unfortunate thing is that usually (especially at Prem and Div 1) the paddlers only storm off the water if they have had a bad run so if you disqualify them from that run they don't care. Perhaps the rule should be qualified and state disqualified from the competition? Several disqualifications and you have to serve a ban?
With regard to kit, again, at least one issue was brought to the jury's attention. Unfortunately the rule book (again) is inconclusive as the wording brought in regarding the proposed changes to kit requirements did not include transistionary requirements. Although from being at the ACM I know the intention was to keep the old requirements until 2012 the rule book doesn't actually say this. Again, this has been noted for the ACM. So that paddler could not be disqualified. The other unfortunate point is that if the rule was (as intended) properly enforceable without looking at helmets it is hard to see if they are properly certified when the paddler is in the middle of the river and you are on the bank. Some helmets are certified for international competition but not domestic competition! Unless we do as they do at International events and tag all helmets that have been checked so the pre-starter can see them I am not sure that much can be done. Furthermore, we would need consistent pre-starters rather than helpful volunteers to work at the events in the same way as start and finish... However, at Tully a paddler was disqualified for paddling with their helmet undone, which was spotted by the section judges as the paddler made their way down the course and radioed in to the jury.
As for bad behaviour the young man who went over the finish line and smashed his paddles on his boat as he went through resulting in broken paddles at Serpents Tail this weekend gave me a laugh. I was actually surprised that he was able to do his second run - I guess he told his parents that they were broken on a rock? If it were my kid and he had been seen doing that he would have been sent home (that might be why I don't have kids). I did also radio in to point out that without paddles he couldn't do his safety duty. The prem girl the day before was not so amusing (tumphed by the broken paddle!), she threw her paddle onto the bank then had to hand paddle back upstream and pull herself onto the rocks to get them back!
:laugh:
AndrewG - if you look at the section on disqualification in the rule book it does actually allow for disqualification for interfering with an official, so yes, your example 2 would be covered.
Munchkin
P.S. I apologise for the long post - we spent a lot of time (yes, a teeny bit sad) pooring over the rule book in control at Serpents Tail...
I can categorically state that a paddler was given the scare of their life at Llandysul for failing to stay on the water for safety. They had a very nervous wait whilst we (as the jury) decided what to do about it. Unfortunately the yearbook conflicts as it states in one place paddlers "will" be disqualified and in another place "may" be disqualified. This has already been brought to the attention of the committee so that a clarification motion can be put forward at the ACM (its too late for club motions). The paddler's name was put ont he jury report so that if they became a repeat offender it would be known. A similar approach was taken with a number of paddlers talked to by the Serpents Tail jury (I only know about this as I was on finish and reported some paddlers over the weekend).
The unfortunate thing is that usually (especially at Prem and Div 1) the paddlers only storm off the water if they have had a bad run so if you disqualify them from that run they don't care. Perhaps the rule should be qualified and state disqualified from the competition? Several disqualifications and you have to serve a ban?
With regard to kit, again, at least one issue was brought to the jury's attention. Unfortunately the rule book (again) is inconclusive as the wording brought in regarding the proposed changes to kit requirements did not include transistionary requirements. Although from being at the ACM I know the intention was to keep the old requirements until 2012 the rule book doesn't actually say this. Again, this has been noted for the ACM. So that paddler could not be disqualified. The other unfortunate point is that if the rule was (as intended) properly enforceable without looking at helmets it is hard to see if they are properly certified when the paddler is in the middle of the river and you are on the bank. Some helmets are certified for international competition but not domestic competition! Unless we do as they do at International events and tag all helmets that have been checked so the pre-starter can see them I am not sure that much can be done. Furthermore, we would need consistent pre-starters rather than helpful volunteers to work at the events in the same way as start and finish... However, at Tully a paddler was disqualified for paddling with their helmet undone, which was spotted by the section judges as the paddler made their way down the course and radioed in to the jury.
As for bad behaviour the young man who went over the finish line and smashed his paddles on his boat as he went through resulting in broken paddles at Serpents Tail this weekend gave me a laugh. I was actually surprised that he was able to do his second run - I guess he told his parents that they were broken on a rock? If it were my kid and he had been seen doing that he would have been sent home (that might be why I don't have kids). I did also radio in to point out that without paddles he couldn't do his safety duty. The prem girl the day before was not so amusing (tumphed by the broken paddle!), she threw her paddle onto the bank then had to hand paddle back upstream and pull herself onto the rocks to get them back!
:laugh:
AndrewG - if you look at the section on disqualification in the rule book it does actually allow for disqualification for interfering with an official, so yes, your example 2 would be covered.
Munchkin
P.S. I apologise for the long post - we spent a lot of time (yes, a teeny bit sad) pooring over the rule book in control at Serpents Tail...
-
PaulBolton
- Posts: 127
- Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2007 10:30 pm
- Location: Lincoln
Anyone who behaves in an un-sporting way should be required to explain themselves to the chair of the jury and apologise. Failure to do either is disqualification. The jury chair should also report the incident to the slalom committee who should have the power to further ban competitors for a period, should the "crime" warrant it.
I've always maintained that having competitors do safety is a stupid idea. Firstly, they have just finished a run and may not be physically capable of performing a rescue. Secondly, it could be a 9 year old child given the responsibility for rescuing a 15 stone adult. There is no way this policy meets a duty of care obligation. The answer is properly trained, experienced and physically capable people. The standard has to be consistent, not based on luck of who went immediately before you.
I've always maintained that having competitors do safety is a stupid idea. Firstly, they have just finished a run and may not be physically capable of performing a rescue. Secondly, it could be a 9 year old child given the responsibility for rescuing a 15 stone adult. There is no way this policy meets a duty of care obligation. The answer is properly trained, experienced and physically capable people. The standard has to be consistent, not based on luck of who went immediately before you.
Paul, I agree with you to some extent. Though I do believe that you canassist in a rescue even if you are not hands on. On more than one occassion I have helped someone rescue themselves by being able to talk them into swimming in the right direction towards an eddy where they could then get themselves out, or by talking to them to calm themselves down. As an exlifeguard I was always told that physical contact (unless unconcious) was a last resort! Even a 9 year old can shout instructions for a swimmer... Alternatively, if a smaller or novice paddler asked me to stay on to cover them I would do so willingly, though I would ask them to stay on the bank rather than leave so they could learn...
However, while the rule is there it should be enforced fairly and equally.
However, while the rule is there it should be enforced fairly and equally.
Munchkin wrote:However, while the rule is there it should be enforced fairly and equally.
I think that is a key point. The trouble is, that sometimes rules are not enforced, or some rules are not, but others are, or there are inconsistencies, or they are not clearly signposted on site (though I do think it is fine to have 'may' be, rather than 'will be' on some rules, just as many laws or policies have 'reasonable' - it is for the jury to make their judgements case by case)
With the general issue of behaviour, we now seem to have much younger paddlers in the higher divisions as said (9,01,11, 12, 13 yrs), but how many of them will have read the year book? or the latest information on the web just before the race?
so they learn the rules by osmosis, or hopefully through coaches and parents, but also through other paddlers who seem to have more influence.. but can then see people getting off the water early at other races with no issue, or not having buoyancy aids that comply, and think that perhaps it isn't so serious, or don't realise the potential significance or consequences, (aside from the issue of rescue re weaker paddlers staying on - I remember being at the bottom at Washburn in my slalom boat when a topo duo capsized and no-one else there to rescue the boat, not a chance could I get the heavy thing to the side! though I recognise that it's rescuing the people that's important)
You are right the lad in question got a scare - he stayed on for FIVE paddlers the next day......
Interesting to note though - The rule book says to stay on for two paddlers, the information for Llandysul on the web prior to the race actually asked paddlers to stay on for THREE - but how many did that?
Similarly if all boats were checked for grab loops that you could get a fist round at each race..how many would have passed?
A clear notice at the top of each race at control to clarify what checks were taking place, or reinforcing the rules so that paddlers get used to seeing them - or at least the key ones. I know this happens at some..again, inconsistencies
djberriman wrote:note for organisers (including myself) - "After their run a Competitor MUST stay in their boat within a
clearly indicated distance from the finish" - rarely have I seen any such notice or indication. Perhaps the Jury Chair should ensure its in place as part of their report?
This seems to be a particularly contentious issue. I am perfectly happy to remain on the water until two other competitors have completed the course - as an oldy I need the time to get my breath back anyway!
As djberriman points out, the competitors should be told where they are required to wait. Having been on the receiving end of a threatened disqualification earlier this year when I was waiting in the same place as all other competitors up to that point I have strong feelings on this one.
If the organisers feel that competitors are all waiting in the wrong place they should not wait for an incident and then try to blame only the last two competitors for being in the wrong place. If there is a long distance between the finish and the get-out, perhaps the organisers, particularly at events with div 3 and 4 paddlers, should consider whether it is appropriate to have more dedicated safety cover - it is not unforseeable that a tired competitor may have an incident on flat-water gates just before the finish or at any point between the finish and the point at which they get off the water.
Another issue is how any special requirements should be communicated to competitors. I have heard of a competitor being threatened with disqualification for ignorance of requirements only published in the event information sheet. Is this part of the event rules? I suspect that there are a number of competitors who enter based only on the information in the yearbook and may not see supplementary information. Is there a standard "official place" where competitors should always look for special information and event-specific rules before going on the water?
Pauls contention about the ability of paddlers to rescue at the bottom of the course is a valid one - however a better practical solution has so far not come to my attention. It also concerns me as noted that without adequate grips / handles on both ends of a boat it may be difficult for a swimmer to hold on to a boat offering support. It is also the case that compliance with the requirement to wait at the bottom is variably enforced. As someone who has spent a fair amount of time on finish I would note there has often been little consequence for paddlers reported for failing to stay on the water at the bottom.
There are some courses e.g. Tully where it is appropriate and where we do put specific safety on the water at all times during racing. Other courses may represent different risks as much narrower and on water safety less appropriate. As noted it is for the organisers to assess risks and provide reasonable and appropriate responses. Risk cannot be removed completely. If an organiser wants boats to wait for three further boats to come down then it is a reasonable requirement and I would be prepared to support disqualification for non-compliance. If it becomes the norm that failure to comply with rules results in event disqualification then it will not be long before compliance is the norm.
There are some courses e.g. Tully where it is appropriate and where we do put specific safety on the water at all times during racing. Other courses may represent different risks as much narrower and on water safety less appropriate. As noted it is for the organisers to assess risks and provide reasonable and appropriate responses. Risk cannot be removed completely. If an organiser wants boats to wait for three further boats to come down then it is a reasonable requirement and I would be prepared to support disqualification for non-compliance. If it becomes the norm that failure to comply with rules results in event disqualification then it will not be long before compliance is the norm.