Pole Heights

quaker · Post by **quaker** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 9:24 am

How come we seem to have got into a situation in UK Slalom where the pole heights are set at stupid distances from the river?

I've checked the ruling on the ICF website and it clearly states approx 20cm from the water (without water splashes hitting the poles). At Tully most of the poles were up at 2ft from the water, even those in the eddys. For example gate 18 on day one (the 'S') was set at about 30cm from water but the demo paddlers all hit it (they had an incorrect line) so the gate was raised (go figure that one!)?

The silly pole heights don't do anyone any favours - our team paddlers all apparently struggled with the concept of lower poles at the Nottingham Champs last year, and it also makes it harder for judges to work out if someone has got all their head through a gate or not!

Anyone else got any thoughts.... I'm particularly interested in anyone who believes that poles should be set higher than 20cm.

Anne · Post by **Anne** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 10:36 am

Pole heights should still be approx 15cm from the water as until the next ACM we cammot adopt the ICF changes into GB rules. 20cm will be used for all races run under ICF rules however.

mole · Post by **mole** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 3:53 pm

it's really anoying when you hit a gate because it is to low. it means ether getting a 2 or loosing time going low on the gate as to avoid hitting it. as a paddler i hope all slaloms start to consider that '20cm' rule!

quaker · Post by **quaker** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 4:35 pm

Personally I'm happy with the 15cm (6inches for the imperial lot) rule, there is still loads of room to get a boat under the pole at that. You might have to give a little extra room for the gate, but so will everyone else.

If I'm going to agree with higher pole heights in this thread then I'd still want the pole on the racing line to set at the minimum, but then we may as well have only single pole gates!

canoecrazy · Post by **canoecrazy** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 5:26 pm

??? ??? g8 18 wasnt that high out of the water on the first day anyway. i would say that it was around 25cm out of the water. your just over reacting because you might of missed out of a good position because you hit it. it also doesnt matter if you got the wrong line into the gate becuse there is always a way to avoid hitting the pole......

davebrads · Post by **davebrads** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 8:29 pm

In the main, I like higher poles, it makes racing the course "nicer" (I can't think of a better word). However, I do quite a lot of judging, and there is no doubt that a high pole makes it very difficult to be sure whether someone has gone through the gate or not. You can either award a 50 when you think that someone's head passed under the pole, in which case you may be penalising a paddler you has cleared the gate, or else you always give benefit of doubt, in which case this is unfair to those who do clear the gate.

ps 1 pole gates are the way forward

Dave Royle · Post by **Dave Royle** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 8:35 pm

I think you would find if you actually went onto a course with a rule and measured what would be a reasonable height you would find it to be around 30cm. After the 2006 Worlds we tried lowering poles to exactly 15cm and it was totally impractical. We did it to prove a point and force the ICF to change the rules so that the rules reflected what was actually common practice. The poles were very low for the Euros at Nottingham, but they were actually all between 20cm and 25 cm above the water, NOT the 15 cm people (including the chief judge) thought they were.

I agree that ridiculously high poles do cause problems for judges and paddlers alike. I think Judges should visit their Sections early and consider how paddlers are going to paddle the course before the event starts so that pole heights can be corrected if necessary before the race starts. But don't go thinking that 15cm represents a reasonable height for the poles. It isn't.

FatBoy · Post by **FatBoy** » Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:20 pm

There's been many a time where I've hit poles with the boat when flat in the water but generally I'd say due to slack appearing in the lines or perhaps water levels changing - more a problem I would say (maybe outside Prem) than being deliberately set low. I think by enlarge most courses the height gates are intended to be set at are fair.

With modern boats with high volume bows and low volume sterns, particularly for the larger gent such as myself, 15cm is quite low. Also the more direct techinques we use these days due to shorter courses mean that realistically you need to be able to get the paddle shaft under at the same time as the boat - I don't think this is a bad thing so gate heights should be set accordingly.

On the other hand if a pole is 50cm off the water it can't be judged accurately, particularly in the higher divisions where mostly it's a head (and boat) just inside the pole rather than the whole body centre gate.

quaker · Post by **quaker** » Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:53 pm

I see we are getting mixed thoughts here, but to put it into a little more context:

Do you all believe that a male paddler with buoyancy aid on, and laid back on his deck should be able to easily get under a pole?

From what I can remember of most courses in recent times the poles have been easily high enough for me to do that - and the depth of my chest (not including buoyancy aid) is about 25cm. I don't believe that I should be able to do that!

Now I reckon that even with a pole set at 15cm I could paddle a tight line and get under pole easily (i.e. breakout on a reverse). At 20cm it would be even easier.

If the rules state something and the rest of the world paddles to those rules we should follow them. I can't understand why we seem to have an American additude to some of the rules in the UK!

For information Gate 12 at Tully was my achilles heal, and I seemed to hit that somewhere up near the number board (top blade on a bow rudder)!

Shorty · Post by **Shorty** » Tue Apr 17, 2007 6:00 pm

I as a paddler do much prefer it when the poles are at a 'decent height', which in my opinion is enough to get a boat and a bit under. BUT... what about no rules for a set pole height and instead the course designers decide whether or not it is at fair height OR deliberatley set poles at different heights to add a little extra challenge to the course, although thats a bit stupid really...

newideas · Post by **newideas** » Tue Apr 17, 2007 7:11 pm

Wouldn't it be best to have the races in the UK follow the same rules as for internationals?
That way when athletes compete abroad they will not have to change any techniques etc. to comply with different rules.

Dave Royle · Post by **Dave Royle** » Tue Apr 17, 2007 11:30 pm

UK races generally have pole heights in line with those at Internationals. Around 25 to 30cms. The problem is that the rule said 15cm and now says 20cm. So even though the official height has been increased, the actual height will be reduced if the rule is enforced.

quaker · Post by **quaker** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 10:44 am

True.... but the last time I saw poles at 15cm was back in the 90's. So why haven't we changed the UK rule in the yearbook to be something more like 20-25cm? Is it for fear that the courses will have an increase in pole height by a further 100% like they do at the moment and we end up with 50cm high gates? Is it because we realise that we should actually have courses with 15-20cm pole heights?

I'm now beginning to wonder what other rules we ignore in the yearbook!

Train2Win · Post by **Train2Win** » Tue May 08, 2007 10:03 am

Tully is a hard race for pole heights due to the fact that the lines are really long and that if it rains then the poles tend to get lower as the lines get wet. Also its hard to judge pole heights from the bank due to the width of the river. I agree that high poles are annoying and make racing and judging harder (its hard to judge your line into an upstream sometimes with a high pole) but I would say that almost everyone prefer high poles to low ones. As for 15 vs 20cm, the pole heights at selection were 20cm and I thought they were perfect.

Nick Penfold · Post by **Nick Penfold** » Sun May 27, 2007 4:44 pm

So somebody propose a change to 20cm to the next ACM - it's rule 27.3.

Sorry - I said 40cm originally. Not a good idea. NP