Not another rant about judging!

[c2canoeslalom]

Dad, ‘Hey Gaz, they gave you a 50 somewhere on the course…’
Gaz ‘C’mon Dad I already know its April fools day!’
Dad ‘No I’m not joking it’s already past midday!’

I bet you’re all thinking the same. First race of the season and someone is already winging about judging decisions. Well unfortunately I feel that it has to be done.
Cue same old tired voices spouting the same old tired lines about judges volunteering their time, sport couldn’t run without them….blah blah blah. I think a lot of people would agree that we only want these people to volunteer if they do their jobs properly.

I spent £15.50 this weekend to race and to have my weekend and money wasted because somebody was incapable of concentrating for 25 seconds at a time. When I was walking the course today I watched several decisions go in favour of several paddlers who negotiated in the gate in question far worse than we did. I hear people whispering in my ear how over the season judging decisions for and against you end up averaging out…Yawn. I’d prefer it if people were competent enough to judge correctly rather than waiting for the decisions to average out.

So anyway I go through all the correct procedures…transmission check ( basically to give the judges a heads up in case they haven’t written a description of a penalty a cynic may say.) And as that came back with the same penalty we went on to fill in a protest form, passed over a pound willingly expecting to get it back because there was bound to be some sort of mix up…. Well I think everyone can guess the outcome without me going into too much detail.

At the risk of starting further debate about video evidence, we watched our video, before our protest, during, after several times basically. Discussed why it could have been given as a 50 like sensible people.
Cue same old people….According to New Rule “So and so Sub Section. 2. whatever.” only official TV footage is available for use by the Chief Judge” As you can tell I didn’t actually look the rule up because I wasn’t asking the jury to turn the decision based on our video footage. After their decision was returned in favour of the judges, I did however want the jury to become aware of how bad the judging actually was and they were asked to watch the video recording. We were looking for a deliberate displacement. Two heads in the gate line, with the boat spinning in the gate, and the river right pole running across my back and hardly moving from the vertical position.. Somehow with my back against the pole and me leaning forward, I DELIBERATELY DISPLACED the gate pole.

And BOTH the gate and the section judge agreed this decision. We have the video evidence if anyone would like to see it and give their opinion just get in touch.

The jury can only act on what is written down.

So as this post isn’t actually going to resolve judging issues, and only fuel an age old debate of this bulletin board, I’d like to say to the judges who sat for the C2 2nd runs at Tryweryn today around gate 11, please don’t be generous and volunteer to judge at senior selection, AND I have a feeling that you’re judges exam is probably up for renewal (if you even have one.)

Sorry for the sarcasm, but it’s the only way I can deal with such a disappointment.

{Insert 'should have gone to specsavers' joke here}

Gaz Wilson
C2canoeslalom@hotmail.com

[david wilson]

Interest Declared - father of author of this string.
I took the video and have looked at it several times myself and then tried to apply the rules to the decision.

Negotiation:
Rule 28.4 UK 28.4.1
The gate line is the actual area between the poles (and the vertical extension from the foot of each pole to the bed of the river) even if deflected by wind, water, paddle, boat or competitor.

Penalties
Rule 29,4.2
The intentional pushing of a gate to allow negotiation (it is not judged an intentional push when the body and the boat of the competitor was already in a position in which it would have ideally negotiated the gate)

And finally
Rule 29.8
At all times benefit of doubt must be given to the competitor.

Gaz is the backman of the C2. The video shows the pole in question at gate 11 to be the River Right Pole. This is the only pole that either he or his frontman came into contact with.
The frontman has crossed the face of the gate from right to left, and the gate is negotiated with a spin. Gaz going into the gate line first with his frontman following. Gaz is leaning forward to "shun" the pole. His head is already in the gate line.
Gaz comes into contact with the inside edge of the right pole with the back of his body. The pole moves slightly towards the river right.
Both paddlers pass between the poles of gate 11.
Therefore he is inside the gate line and he touches the pole which hardly moves. This must surely be a 2 point penalty not a fifty point penalty.
This would be in accordance with Rule 28.4.1 above.

So he was given a 50 point penalty. Rule 29.4.2
The Rule above talks about INTENTIONALLY PUSHING the gate pole.
So Gaz is crossing the face of the gate. He is causing the boat to spin and going into the gate backwards. He gets inside the gate and touches the inside face of the river right pole with his back. Remember he cannot see the pole, he is leaning forward to reduce risk of touching the pole but does so with the back of his body. Not his arms, hands, paddle or boat. Somehow this is judged INTENTIONAL and the judges at this point have read his mind and decided he deserved a 50 point penalty.

JUDGES this was a harsh decision. Some paddlers on the day hit the river left pole at gate 11, having come right across the face of the gate and were passing it on the left but because the pole was knocked further left they benefitted from rule 28.4.1 and were given a 2 second penalty. Others did not quite get across but stuck their heads out to neck the pole some of them not managing to get the whole of the head through and catching the pole resulting in 2 second penalties or if really lucky, none, having been judged clear on the gate.

I know that judging/refereeing a soccer match etc etc, is not an easy task. However I have to refer the judges to Rule 29.8
At all times benefit of doubt must be given to the competitor.
If Gaz had used his hand, arm, elbow, whatever, to get inside the gate then there would have been no argument here. He did not. He could not see the pole - it was behind him. The Judges made a decsision that he formed an intention in his mind to deliberately displace the gate pole. It was not a good decision but surely rule 29.8 would have applied and the penalty should have been 2 points.

The video was shown to jury members after the protest decision was given and they rightly point out that they have to go on what is written down by the judges. The jury members made no comment on what they saw in the video footage but I think that they should at least speak to the judges in question about the penalty they awarded and if they volunteer to judge again ensure that they do not work together on the same section and perhaps sit out the very important Selection Races coming up.

Finally before anyone does go on about Volunteers just remember that some section judges are in receipt of expenses to attend these events. Gate Judges are the true volunteers. I know because I am a gate judge (qualified).

Apologies for the length of this entry. Well done if you got this far and thank you.

[c2canoeslalom]

Here's the video on youtube, see what you think

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMS7LgVn4zA

Gaz

[quaker]

I've had a quick look at the video on YouTube and came up with the same decision that it looks like a 2 second touch rather than a 50.

However after having the luxury of viewing it several times and several times slowly I can see where the 50 possibly came from. I don't read it as the back disloding the pole, but the paddle shaft/forearm (can't properly tell).

I'm not 100% sure but I think the judge (at least one of them) was sitting below the gate looking up. They would probably have seen the paddle shaft/forearm hit the pole and assumed that it was a 50. When I look at the video though it shouldn't be a fifty for that as you are doing it as part of a paddle stroke. You can clearly see from the video that at first you're trying to get the boat round without a spin, until you feel that the backend has stalled and then you move the paddle forwards for a sweep, then during that motion the pole moves. However I would support you for a 2 second penalty as you were both performing a paddle stroke and going through the gate anyway!

I was subject to a dodgy decision quite a few years ago and seem to remember back then being able to appeal against decisions after the event. I'm not sure if that rule is still around but it would be worth looking into.

Hang in there lads.. I know from my experience you feel like having a full blown argument with the judge as to why the penalty shouldn't be, with only a piece of paper and quick reject statement for comfort that doesn't give you the answers that you really want.

[brez1]

I can't see how anything but a 2 could be given.
Ditto - just keep at it lads- lightening can't strike twice??!!
Some great C2 paddling at Bala - a pleasure to watch.

[Geebs]

Definate 2, if nothing else "The benefit of doubt should go to the paddler" but I can not that this should be needed in this case, it's a 2 all the way.

The same thing happened to one of my daughters a couple of years ago, we had video evidence that it was a clean gate and after the protest we showed the chair of the jury the video which showed it being clean and he agreed, cost us a trip to Bala for one day plus the entry fee to get a promotion that should have happened the weekend before if the decision had been given correctly, so I fully appreciate where you are coming from and you can see why people are losing interest in slalom when this sort of thing keeps happening especially with the cost involved in entry fee's and traveling costs these days

[mwilk]

From what I can see on the video, your reactions and responses are justified.
However, this sort of reaction risks putting off volunteers for judging. By quoting lack of experience, I've certainly declined to judge at this level more than once; concerned that a poor decision due to inexperience or a momentary pause in concentration will cost someone dearly [in the ways described above] or give someone an unfair advantage. If the person involved hasn't already decided not to volunteer any more, she/he might well do so after reading the above.
Working [unpaid and 'unexpensed'] on start/prestart has its own stresses, but I was glad to find that it was where I'd been posted on Sunday, rather than judging. And after reading this string, I'll stick to doing it for as long as possible.

[quaker]

Without wanting to send this post in a different direction, I would say that no-one should be concerned about their ability to judge at any level. If anything I always find it harder to judge at lower divison events as the amount of overtaking and multiple paddlers in a section is higher.

At Prems and Div1s there are two people to each gate (section and gate judge), each with their own view on what happens. If they write down what they feel happened and why a penalty should stand then there is nothing to fear. Even if the section judge gives a penalty a gate judge needs to write down their view. (E.g. I've been given a 50 before that was taken off because one persons view was that I got no boat through the gate, the other questioned if my head was through, as they both thought the opposites part had gone through the 50 was removed.)

[david wilson]

The reluctant judge above needs to look at Rule 9.4.
The Section Judge is responsible for recording the penalty that they believe is correct even after consultation with the gate judge.
At Tryweryn last week it was a Selection Race and there was an abundance of Section/Senior Judges. These Section/Senior Judges were sitting together. The gate judge was sitting in another position. It was the Section Judge and the Senior judge who recorded the penalty not the gate judge. The Senior/Section judges over ruled the gate judge (as happened to me when I was judging once) and both agreed the penalty. If these senior judges are going to attend then they should sit separately from each other (perhaps one of them with the gate judge and offer advice to the gate judge and coach them in judging procedures) rather than sitting together, as was the case at Tryweryn, where they only see the paddlers from one side of the gate.
Inexperienced judges need to be brought on rather than put off. If the Senior Judges on the circuit could sit with a gate judge in future rather than together and leaving the gate judge out of the loop then volunteers would come forward in confidence and progress to the higher levels of judging.
There does not appear to be any "succession planning" taking place in the judging system ie not very many young people rising to Section Judge level never mind Senior and ICF levels.
Come On Senior/Section judges, don't sit together at the future events, sit apart and one of you coach the volunteer gate judges so they can make decisions with confidence.

[david wilson]

Tully Prem Races will be televised.
The new ICF Rule allows The Chief Judge to consult the Official TV Recordings in the event of disputed penalties.
I wonder of this will happen.
Judges make sure you are giving the correct penalties.
Just a thought on the whole issue of judging.

[chauffeur]

There does not appear to be any "succession planning" taking place in the judging system ie not very many young people rising to Section Judge level

Training does take place for new section judges as well as gate judges.

I expect there will be more gate judges exams at Tully.
It is the young paddlers who aren't qualified gate judges and on their own - they need supervision to make the correct decisions.

[mwilk]

Yes, maybe you can rely on rule 9.4 to 'cover your back' in respect of a decision you've made; jointly or otherwise. But look at it from a volunteers point of view - why get embroiled in making any difficult decisions, perhaps alienating a fellow paddler, even a clubmate, when I could just stick to doing start/finish or one of those cushy jobs in contol [in the warm and dry]. In defence of myself, I will eventually get more involved in judging, but we all know that human nature means that many will think this way. How many judges are actually 'volunteers', many are only doing it because they, or their offspring, will get a couple of training runs in the judges event.

As for judging div 3/4 - yes, its keeps you busier, but you're rarely making a critical decision that might affect promotion or selection and you're unlikely to be involved in a serious protest. No way would you feel under the same pressure as at 1/P/selection level.

And lets be honest - the judging exams, using cartoons, aren't going help with the difficult decisions. It needs years of experience as a paddler and/or a judge.

On the positive side; maybe this string has inadvertently come up with a means of improving judging experience for the likes of me - links to short videos showing disputed penalties along with some discussion and opinions.

[c2canoeslalom]

A video exam could be a plan. You see things in real time, you can only watch it once and you have to make a decision 'under pressure'. It would be like the hazard perception theory driving test. This way you can determine how competant the judge is at making correct decisions.

[Dee]

For those competitors in the lower divisions the misjudged 50 can be just as important as for those in P/1/selection. I've seen youngsters almost in tears because they've felt that a (perceived) undeserved 50 in div 4 has prevented promotion.

So I don't think that anyone should assume this is only an important issue to paddlers in higher divisions. However, there is no easy solution; it's easy to blame a judge for getting it wrong but it doesn't necessarily mean that they don't know the rules.

It has always struck me that, whilst the "benefit of doubt" is obviously important, we risk over-using it and thus favouring the risk takers at the expense of those for whom the "benefit of doubt" is not required.

[djberriman]

I like probably everyone have had penalties given when its blatent they are wrong. Having four people you don't know congratulate you for getting a gate at a Div 3 you'd not managed in practice only to be awarded a 50 was a bitter pill to swallow even at my age and meant I had to cancel a day out to compete the next day and get promoted.

Since then I'm sure I've had plenty of times where I have been given the benefit of the doubt and a few times like everyone where I'm sure I should have got a penalty and I've not - golden rule keep paddling you don't know until you've finished - especially with things like half head rulings.

In this case I wasn't there but the only way I can see a 50 could have been given was if the judging positions where such that they did not get the view the camera does and it looked like the pole was displaced so I think its unfair to comment. I'm pretty sure this was the case in my decision above (the judging position was moved later).

I was recently at a slalom where the next judging position was seeing touches on the last gate of the previous section which the gate judge for that section could not see, controls response was that it had happened a few times that day.

Perhaps we need a few fore runners at all events to check that the judging positions are ok and that the judge can physically judge all gates.

I agree from experience that passing the cartoon exam is one thing and applying those rules in a real situation is another thing, especially with having to do tutty, write everything down, cope with more than 1 paddler in a section, queries etc. Lower division slaloms can be a nightmare when you have 2 paddlers in a long section both getting penalties.

I found my first prem judging stressful but as another post says its actually easier as there are less penalties, normally only one paddler and you have a section judge (thank god for section judges!).

I would however suggest that control enforce a reasonable radio silence on tutty, there is far too much chatter recently leading to retranmissions, transmission errors etc as well getting distracted when you should be concentrating on the gates. I guess this only happens at lower level events - we all enjoy the odd joke or comment but please don't use the tutty as a chat line.

Finally my suggestion to help everyone improve is that judges are judged. If a record were kept and returned to the BCU of all judges at an event, along with disputes and results of disputes then it might be possible to tell if someone needed some help with their judging.

It would also be possible to black list judges who fail to appear. There is no excuse for not turning up for your judging sadly it happens and leads to delays at events or people judging for too long.

I know it would be a bit of extra paperwork but surely it would help improve judging, how else can you be sure that someone is getting things correct?