6.3 Veterans Ranking

General slalom chatter...rant about the bad, rave about the good
Post Reply
Canadian Paddler
Posts: 1480
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 8:31 am
Location: Peterborough
Contact:

6.3 Veterans Ranking

Post by Canadian Paddler » Sat Nov 04, 2017 4:03 pm

6.3 Veterans Ranking
Proposed by Brecon Canoe Club, Seconded by Matlock Canoe Club and Llandysul Paddlers
Following consultation and discussion, both on the bulletin board and via email, the motion below draws together the proposer and seconders views of the debate and replaces all of section B5 (Pages 58 – 60)
B5 Veterans' Ranking
5.1 Paddlers aged over 35 may elect to be classed as veterans. Veterans are ranked in a single Division and can enter any ranking competition or Championship event.
5.2 Eligibility
5.2.1 A Competitor whose 35th birthday is on or before the 31st December in the year in question may elect to become a Veteran in any event, but not necessarily in all the events in which they compete. For example, a Competitor ranked in Kayak Men and Canadian Men may elect to become a Kayak Men Veteran but remain as a Master in Canadian Men (See Rule C3.5 for Masters).
5.2.2 Any such Competitor must first declare to the Veteran Ranking Compiler his/her year of birth and current divisional status (if any).
5.2.3 Upon application to the Ranking Status Officer (see B 2.2), any Veteran may revert to divisional status in an event. The revised ranking will start at the beginning of the next season.
5.3 Calculating points – Quorate Divisional Event
5.3.1 If a corresponding Divisional event is quorate (see Rule UKC5.1) the following calculations are applicable.
Ranking points are obtained by comparing scores with the corresponding Divisional event. Where a Veteran’s score does not correspond exactly with a score in the Divisional event points will be awarded for the next place higher. If the Veteran’s score matches the score of more than one competitor in the corresponding Divisional event then the points awarded to the higher placed Divisional competitor will be used.
5.3.2 Where there is progression from qualification to (semi-finals and) finals, scores are compared with the corresponding Divisional event scores to decide whether the competitor progresses and the points they are awarded.
For example: for a Vet K1W, if the paddler’s score is equal to or less than the score of the last placed Divisional K1 Woman qualifying from the heats, the paddler proceeds to the next stage. Similarly, the paddler must match the score of the last placed Divisional K1 Woman qualifying from the semi-final to progress to the final. Points are calculated by comparison with the scores of Divisional K1 Women at the last stage reached.
5.3.3 In the case of a competition hosting more than one Division, scores will be compared with every Division in the same event and the highest points found will be awarded, for instance, at a Division 2/3 race, a K1W Veteran's score will be compared with those of K1 Women in both Division 2 and Division 3 and the higher score so found will be awarded.
5.4 Calculating points – Inquorate Divisional Event
5.4.1 If the corresponding Divisional event is inquorate (see Rule UKC5.1) ranking points will be calculated against the corresponding Kayak Men’s event using the method described in section B4.2.
5.4.2 Where there is progression from qualification to (semifinals and) finals, modified scores are compared with K1 Men’s scores to decide whether the competitor progresses and the points they are awarded.
5.4.3 In the case of a competition hosting more than one Division, where any one (or more) of the corresponding divisional events is inquorate the Veteran’s modified score will be compared to K1Ms scores for that division and to the corresponding quorate divisional events where available. The highest points found will be awarded.
For example: A Division 2/3 race hosts a Division 3 K1W event that is inquorate and a Division 2 K1W event that is quorate. In this case a K1W Veteran's modified score will be compared with those of K1 Men in Division 3 (using the method described in B4.2.) and her raw score with Division 2 K1W (using the method described in B5.3). The highest score so found will be awarded.
5.5 End of season results
5.5.1 Ranking positions at the end of the season are calculated on the best five results obtained in the season.
5.6 Additional Information
5.6.1 For single division competitions the entry fee charged shall be the same as for those Competitors entering the divisional event.
5.6.2 At multi divisional competitions the entry fee charged will be that for the highest division competing on that day. If this is different across different days of the competition, then Vets will be charged half of the sum of the two double entry.
5.6.2 All registered Veterans must apply to the appropriate bib officer for a bib.
All spelling errors are intentional and are there to show new and improved ways of spelling old words. Grammatical errors are due to too many English classes/teachers.
Old. Fat. Slow. Bad tempered. And those are my good points

Canadian Paddler
Posts: 1480
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 8:31 am
Location: Peterborough
Contact:

Re: 6.3 Veterans Ranking

Post by Canadian Paddler » Sat Nov 04, 2017 4:03 pm

6.3.1 Committee Amendment
There is complication in having to compare all results to a single division
5.3.3 In the case of a competition hosting more than one Division, scores will be compared to the highest Division in the same event.
All spelling errors are intentional and are there to show new and improved ways of spelling old words. Grammatical errors are due to too many English classes/teachers.
Old. Fat. Slow. Bad tempered. And those are my good points

Nick Penfold
Posts: 338
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 8:21 pm

Re: 6.3 Veterans Ranking

Post by Nick Penfold » Mon Nov 06, 2017 6:13 pm

The motion looks long and complicated, because of the ground that has to be covered and the nature of a rulebook. But it can be summarised:
* All Vets will be in one division
* Registered Vets can enter any ranking competition
* Points are allocated by comparison with the equivalent divisional event (K1W with K1W, etc) if quorate, or by a factored comparison with K1M if the equivalent division race isn't quorate.

User avatar
davebrads
Posts: 508
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 7:43 am
Location: Tamworth
Contact:

Re: 6.3 Veterans Ranking

Post by davebrads » Wed Nov 08, 2017 3:06 pm

I am opposed to this motion. The concept of the veterans class was to allow paddlers who no longer could maintain their position in the divisional system to continue to race at the level they had reached.

This motion allows people of a certain age to leave the divisional system entirely and race wherever and whenever they want. Apart from being discriminatory, it also undermines the divisional system.

I am a firm believer in the strengths of our divisional system; it gives us a fair and transparent way to control the quality of the races and competition. Others have argued for a more open system, but they have been unable to demonstrate how this would result in an improved experience for the paddlers.

Terryg
Posts: 128
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2009 6:29 pm
Location: Stevenage

Re: 6.3 Veterans Ranking

Post by Terryg » Wed Nov 08, 2017 4:27 pm

I am also against this, on similar grounds to Dave.
Should this go through I suspect I will return to the divisions, or retire from slalom after 47 years involvement.

Dee
Posts: 1444
Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 8:34 pm

Re: 6.3 Veterans Ranking

Post by Dee » Fri Nov 10, 2017 9:34 am

35 does seem very young. Know this corresponds to the current rules but it still seems young..... of am I just getting too old!

Who is the youngest Vet and more importantly how young is the youngest Vet?
Kit Washer, Entry Clerk, Chauffeur, Reluctant Organiser, Online Entry Advocate .....
Anything I post under this user is my personal opinion; I am not posting as a member of the Slalom Committee!

JimW
Posts: 570
Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2015 2:17 pm
Location: Pinkston

Re: 6.3 Veterans Ranking

Post by JimW » Fri Nov 10, 2017 1:18 pm

It is not just age, I am only about a year older than a friend who has 30+ years of slalom paddling and several of those years in prem, whilst I have just over 2 years of slalom paddling and have never ranked higher than div 2, but under the proposed rules we could both elect to become veterans and enter all the prem races, even though only 1 of us is actually capable (or has ever been actually capable) of negotiating a prem course in anything like a prem time.
Under the current rules I would need to gain promotion to prem in the divisional system first, and then use veteran status to continue to paddle in prem.

There is no way to tell how many masters in the lower divisions are frustrated by not being able to race on water they easily paddle recreationally and might opt in to veterans under the proposed rule - possibly there are not many, possibly it might be all of them. If all of them move it would have a significant impact on the divisional system.

I can see the enormous organisational benefits to not having P/1 and 2/3 vets but I feel the proposal should have come with an option to limit vets to racing in any division up to the highest they ranked in normally - obviously this means they still need a nominal divsion so online entries can restrict them to entering appropriate events so it doesn't eliminate the complexity...

Dee
Posts: 1444
Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 8:34 pm

Re: 6.3 Veterans Ranking

Post by Dee » Fri Nov 10, 2017 11:44 pm

Just to be clear, in case anyone is under a false impression. This Vet motion was not really anything to do with online entries. I did have a light hearted moan on here because every time I thought I had Vets sussed I learnt about another quirk, but Vets were being discussed earlier in the year before I'd even realised how complex Vets were. My "moan" may have triggered another discussion but if this was about the online system I'd have pushed down a different route. Personally, I'm fairly ambivalent to this proposal.
Kit Washer, Entry Clerk, Chauffeur, Reluctant Organiser, Online Entry Advocate .....
Anything I post under this user is my personal opinion; I am not posting as a member of the Slalom Committee!

Terryg
Posts: 128
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2009 6:29 pm
Location: Stevenage

Re: 6.3 Veterans Ranking

Post by Terryg » Sat Nov 11, 2017 9:06 am

Dee wrote:35 does seem very young. Know this corresponds to the current rules but it still seems young..... of am I just getting too old!

Who is the youngest Vet and more importantly how young is the youngest Vet?
Div1/P Vets used to be from 29.

Nick Penfold
Posts: 338
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 8:21 pm

Re: 6.3 Veterans Ranking

Post by Nick Penfold » Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:10 pm

Dee says: 35 does seem very young.
I think I agree. And it would put a different aspect on the freedom to enter races issue if Vets started at (say) 45.

Dee
Posts: 1444
Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 8:34 pm

Re: 6.3 Veterans Ranking

Post by Dee » Sat Nov 11, 2017 5:57 pm

Nick Penfold wrote:
Dee says: 35 does seem very young.
I think I agree. And it would put a different aspect on the freedom to enter races issue if Vets started at (say) 45.
But then I think you are even older than I am! :P
Kit Washer, Entry Clerk, Chauffeur, Reluctant Organiser, Online Entry Advocate .....
Anything I post under this user is my personal opinion; I am not posting as a member of the Slalom Committee!

Canadian Paddler
Posts: 1480
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 8:31 am
Location: Peterborough
Contact:

Re: 6.3 Veterans Ranking

Post by Canadian Paddler » Sat Nov 25, 2017 12:03 pm

6.3.1 Committee Amendment
There is complication in having to compare all results to a single division
5.3.3 In the case of a competition hosting more than one Division, scores will be compared to the highest Division in the same event.
After some debate the amendment was voted on. The amendment was defeated with 7 votes for, 62 votes against and 3 abstentions.

An amendment was proposed that veterans may only paddle up to the highest division they have been ranked in.
Proposed by Kingston Kayak Club, seconded by Viking Kayak Club
The amendment was defeated with 5 votes for, 59 votes against and 8 abstentions.

The substantive motion was then voted on and was accepted with 59 votes for, 10 votes against and 3 abstentions.
All spelling errors are intentional and are there to show new and improved ways of spelling old words. Grammatical errors are due to too many English classes/teachers.
Old. Fat. Slow. Bad tempered. And those are my good points

Post Reply