Not another rant about judging!

[katonas]

- Section judge on river right sees the pole move, but does not know why, could have been boat or water. Records "2 , Gate Judge only, left pole moved?water or boat" Reports a 2 to control, "Gate Judge only" indicates teh section judge did not see the reason for the touch.

Thanks CP for that ECA link. Surely everyone beginner like myself should be told about it ?

I'm still confused whether I should put a '2' down as a judge if I see a single pole swinging after a paddler has left a gate (without seeing a touch).

If a water splash moves a pole, is it a penalty ? :p

[beefy]

if a water splash causes a pole to move this is not a penalty.

Therefore if you did not actually see the paddler hit the pole then you give clear as benefit of the doubt

[Canadian Paddler]

Water splash movement is not a penalty.

If you put down a penalty, you have to put down a reason so the paddler has some idea. So
- If you cant say why there is a penalty, give benefit of doubt.
- penalty is for a touch by paddler or equipment not water
- write down the reasons so you have a chance of remembering when teh jury ask you about a protest (and they can tell the paddler).

OK?

[Nick Penfold]

I’m a Section Judge. I wasn’t at this race, so I’ve no axe to grind and only the video to go on. Here’s my personal assessment:
The boat is moving to river left to get a downstream gate. We can’t tell from the video the relative upstream/downstream positions of boat and gate, but it’s clear that it’s falling short because the back man ducks forward to get into the gate.
At the same moment he also makes a paddle stroke, and, again at the same moment, the pole moves right and “opens” the gate. We can’t see what moves the pole, but we can guess that it was the back man’s arm or paddle. We clearly see the pole slide across the back man’s back.
A judge in a different position might well have seen the paddler’s arm or paddle move the pole, been able to judge whether the displacement was intentional, and decide whether the boat would have negotiated the gate without the pole being displaced or not.
A judge viewing from the camera position would only give a touch penalty (paddler’s back, right pole) because that’s all he clearly sees. But what we see in the video certainly does not disprove deliberate displacement.

[david wilson]

Interest Declared.
Nick, I thank you for contributing but need to take issue with you over a few things you mention.
Firstly The back man "DUCKS FORWARD". Have another look. The back man is leaning back during the cross and then kneels upright as he gets to the gate. He never goes forward of his normal upright position.
Secondly Both Heads are in the gate line. The pole does move but this is after both heads are in the gate line. The paddler has deflected the pole as part of his stroke and the paddle is in the water all the time during that stroke.The pole runs across his back indicating the slightest of all contact.
Finally, if a K1 paddler is falling short and they lean/reach to neck the pole but touch it and "open" the gate, should they be given Maximum penalty. I am sure this would not be the case and 2 seconds would be preferred. Otherwise the protests would go on for ever.
After your comments Nick, I, as a gate judge, am very confused. If the Heads are in the gate line the surely this is a touch 2 second penalty. Calling it as a Deliberate Displacement is harsh but I accept that the judges get one view at the time of the race. But it is the HEADS that are important not the BODY and I think if you look at the footage again you will see that both heads are in the gate line.
Where was the Benefit of Doubt? The judges on this day did not apply BoD but this is clearly a case where it could have been applied. The footage does not disprove DD but neither does it prove it conclusively.

[Nick Penfold]

Sorry but I still see exactly what I saw before.
From the camera position we really cannot make this judgement either way. We cannot tell whether the heads would pass through the gate line without the displacement because we cannot see the upstream/downstream relationship of boat and gate. What we do see does not prove a DD, and it does not disprove it. In fact I think what we see is consistent with a possible DD, assuming that the judge is in a better position to make the call.
The crucial issue lies in your own words: “The paddler has deflected the pole as part of his stroke” and accidentally, or accidentally-on-purpose, opened the gate. The fact that the movement is part of his stroke does not automatically make it legitimate.
On the wider issue of gates being “bumped” open, it’s a judgement call on intent. But specifically, a paddler necking who bumps a pole “open” with his head can only do it if he would have got his head through anyway.

[John]

But specifically, a paddler necking who bumps a pole “open” with his head can only do it if he would have got his head through anyway.

Nick, you've misread the rules here.
Rule 29.4.2 states that a paddler is given a 50 second penalty for "Intentional pushing of a gate to allow negotiation (it IS NOT judged an intentional push when the body and the boat of the competitor were already in a position in which it would have ideally negotiated the gate)."

That is not the same as "... (it IS judged an intentional push when the body and the boat of the competitor were NOT already in a position in which it would have ideally negotiated the gate).", which is how I think you've read the rule.

[Nick Penfold]

Ah, no John, I haven't. What I'm saying in "specifically, a paddler necking who bumps a pole “open” with his head can only do it if he would have got his head through anyway" is that if you can bump a gate open with your head it's almost certainly NOT a DD within the rules, because if you can get your head there to do it you could have got through anyway - regardless of what you intended.

[John]

Yes, I see what you're saying now. That's sounds right.

You can probably extend your reasoning to the torso of a paddler. At least I can't picture the the possiblity of, say, a paddler pushing a pole with the left shoulder to right of the head.
There is the question to what "ideally negotiated" means. Is that without touching the gate?

[quaker]

Topic deviation declared here!

Now I've spoken to a few people about the "if your head displaces a gate then it isn't a DD 50" idea but don't believe that it's true.

Take this situation:
A breakout behind/on a stopper (e.g. on the muncher or in the plughole).

I approach the gate and get the nerves and decide that I'm going to do one of two things:
1 - Headbutt the gate to cause it to swing upstream and then down. On the down swing I nip from behind the stopper saving a few seconds avoiding the stopper but incurring the 2 seconds penalty. 100% deliberate action.... but from what you are all saying it is only a 2 second penalty dispite the intent.

2 - I sit behind the gate again falling short but this time I hook my head around the pole and swing it behind me. I was in a position to get the gate but have gained an advantage by not going in the stopper but have taken a 2 second penalty. Again a 100% deliberate action but not a DD according to the thread.

What are your thoughts on this (and will I get a 50 when I try it!).

I'm not 100% clued up on the rules but is there one that states you should make a reasonable attempt to negotiate the gates clean?

[Irena]

You'll probably get a 50 when you try it.
My feeling is that if you have to headbutt the gate so that it will move in a way that allows you to go through it, then your head would not have been in a position in which it would have ideally negotiated the gate and it's a 50. May I add that it is one of the most difficult things to judge.

[Vicky]

id also be pretty impressed if you had the time to head butt it, sit there are wait for it to swing back and pick up a 2s penalty in less time than if you'd have just paddled through it. ???

[davebrads]

Confession time

Once upon a time, a long time ago, in the days of 4m boats that did not turn too fast, and Ace helmets (I'm not sure it was that long ago, I put that bit in for a bit of colour), a sequence of gates was set up on the Graveyard. The sequence was based by the island. A downstream was hung just above the left hand corner of the stopper, and the next gate was an upstream at the top of the right hand eddy. Anyone that tried to do it direct, either missed the eddy, collecting a 50, or else only just made it, and spent a good 10 seconds clambering their way back up the eddy to the gate. A lot of paddlers broke out right and surfed across the wave into the gate, this being the safest option, and probably no slower than the direct route. The only person that could get the move direct was a certain Mr Wignall in a shortened boat that his dad had made for him as a playboat, sub 4m boats being allowed for the first time in all divisions except Prem.

I chose to take the direct route, but rather than try to miss the gate, I paddled hard left to right, collecting the left hand pole on the way, moving it a good metre. It gave me an excellent line into the upstream, and I achieved my best ever result in a kayak, coming third.

Should I have been given a 50? Would you have spotted what I did?

[quaker]

It would depend if there was a rule that said you had to attempt all gates cleanly....

I would probably have spotted it dependant on wether you tried to avoid the hitting the gate (i.e. body swerve or constant body position), but I would probably say that it was only a touch.

Wiggy would probably have managed that move in a 4m boat - he's still as quicker than the top Div 1 paddlers at the moment even in a 4m!

[david wilson]

Occupation declared. Police Officer.
Dave Brads, in 28+ years of interviewing suspects, I have never come across anyone so remorseful and honest as you. However I think the Statute of Limitations prevents any adjustment to your "best ever result in a kayak".

However your "confession" highlights something very interesting about "INTENTIONAL" moving of the pole. In my job, I cannot make "judgement calls" as Nick tells us Section and Gate judges do when they see a paddler negotiate a gate and move the pole in some way. The law prevents me from making such judgements and I have to prove the state of mind of the suspect at the time of the offence. Did the suspect intend to endanger life by carrying a firearm? Did the suspect intend to endanger life when he caused damage/destroyed property? Did the suspect intend to cause Grevious Bodily Harm when he hit the victim with an iron bar? Yes even when the weapon is an iron bar the lay person may think it was intentional but the law does not allow such assumptions. GBH with Intent carries a maximum Life sentence. GBH on its own is only 5 years. There is a direct correlation here between the 50 second penalty and the 2 second penalty.

According to Nick, judges have powers to read the Intentions of the paddler and "make a judgement call". There is no way on earth that judges will know exactly what the paddler's thoughts are.

That is what is wrong with this rule of Deliberate Displacement. Unless the paddler does what Quaker has described, or moves the pole with his/her hand, or deliberately "hooks" the pole when the blades are out of the water IE Kayak paddler makes a forward stroke in the air, on the left and hooks the left hand pole around them, there being no contact with the left blade and the water, or the front man in a C2 performs a needless crossbow stroke and on bringing his paddle back to his on side he catches the on side pole to "open the gate" for his partner to get through, then these moves are obvious (Though not always noticed by judges who give only a touch). Quaker tells us that this is what he would have given Dave Brads even though the latter has admitted his intentions to deliberately displace the pole.

This is why the 50 second penalty that is the subject of this string was HARSHLY given and I question why Benefit of Doubt was not applied. This is the argument throughout.
Unless All our judges, International, Section and Gate can prove that they have the ability to read minds and show that the movement of the pole in these circumstances is INTENTIONAL there is no way that they can prove that this action was Deliberate.