PROTEST FEES - £5 for selection?

[Canadian Paddler]

8.10. P94, 36.2, bullet 3. In order to ensure fairness in racing and minimise speculative protests, it is proposed that after £1 the following words should added:
“….of £1. At any designated GB selection race, the protest form deposit will be £5.”

At the junior selection races this year, in particularly at the Grandtully race opportunistic protests were submitted. The loss of £1 was of no consequence if there was a remote possibility a penalty may have been reduced or removed. It is felt that if a competitor truly felt a protest needed to be submitted then a deposit of £5 was not unreasonable. This was done at both Senior Selection Race and there were no valid objections.

Proposed by the Slalom Committee

[Guest]

Your day is bad enough when you get given an unfair penalty. I don't feel that the loss of £5 due to someone's bad judgement is a fair price to pay....on top of the penalty given.

[Geebs]

I was an RACMSA Steward (i.e. Chair of the Jury) for Motor Sports events for 15 years until I retired from the sport due to my daughters involvement with paddling.

The protest fee some years ago was equal to the entry fee for the event between £50-£120 depending on the status of the event.

The decision of the Stewards (Jury members) was the same regardless of the fee, a fair judgement on the facts presented.

The fee is immaterial, giving the competitor the correct and fair, impartial judgement is paramount.

I had to attend annual seminars to keep my status as a Steward, taking part in discussions and taking written test's.

I did this voluntary but still enjoyed the sport and found the time to attend these training seminars, even though I was an international competitor myself at the time.

I do query some appointments of Chair of the Jury at some events as some of the people have not an up to date knowledge of the rules and procedure.

At the moment slalom does not have a formal qualification for jury post's, unlike polo that you have to have attended a referees course and be asssessed and graded.

I may have wondered slightly off subject here, but the fact of the matter is rules are rules and they should be adhered to, we all know what happened at Tully.

I would like to propose that we could organiser a seminar for Jury members to attend so we could all share in each others experiance and all sing of the same hymn sheet to make it a fair for all. (and I think I have just shot myself in the foot).

Basically the protest fee should be set depending on the status of the event.

[FatBoy]

One could argue that £5 is not much for an opportunistic protest either, given the cost of getting a paddler equipped, trained, entered and transported to a selection race.

As the deposit is returned for a successful protest you could argue at making it higher still, but I think for the same reason it wouldn't work unless you made it a silly amount of money. This wouldn't be fair as you would only get protests from the better off paddlers.

Perhaps one could give the jury the power (i.e. not automatic but at discretion) to impose a further penalty for any protest felt to be opportunistic. A bit radical perhaps?

On the other hand if the protests are opportunistic they are surely to be rejected? This provides unwelcome work for the organisers and the jury but isn't unfair.

All that said I think as all other fees are on a scale related to the event's standing I think the protest "fee" (deposit) should be as well.

[Guest]

If the judge has written down a reason you aint goin' to win a protest whether you are right or wrong!
Can't see the point in protesting.

[Bus Driver]

i think i am correct in saying (but i am sure i will be told if i am not, perhaps John Sturgess could help me out here) that at most races abroad section judges report the lowest agreed penalty not the highest. The reason most opportunist protests are ever put in is because people have realised that if the section judge and gate judge do not agree the penalty is likely to be removed. Hence, "Oh d**m I missed that gate but I will protest anyway and maybe it will be removed". This train of thought does not just happen at tully but know of a junior that did just that at the British open and pushed out a paddler who would otherwise have made the final.

[John Sturgess]

Yes Bus Driver you are right - which is why my Club has put in a motion to bring our practice in line with foreign practice - and, I think, with our own rules (see Agenda).
However I think we need to be careful in talking about opportunistic protests. If of two equally well placed judges one judge sees a penalty and another doesn't, there is a doubt: and our rules specify that the paddler should get the benefit of the doubt. At present they don't. So although I hate protests - I have now racked up 55 events running as Jury Chairman at Div 2,3 and 4 events without a protest - I sometimes have to advise paddlers that at Div 1/Prem events they have to protest in order to get that benefit of the doubt.
So please vote for Ormskirk Scouts' motion!

[Anne]

Benifit of doubt is given when appropriate, by individual judges. However if one judge is better place to see a penalty i.e. the other is unable to see as on off side then there is no doubt, one saw and one didn't because they were not in a position to see it. The oppertunistic protest however is different, sometimes a paddler knows they have a penalty and protests "just in case" judges not properly recorded so the can get removed. This is now becoming more prevelant band was particularly evident at J selection this year.

[Canadian Paddler]

RESULT

This motion was carried with 38 votes for, 28 votes against and 13 abstentions