I am hesitant to classify this as either a rant or a rave, but I do think that it is an issue worthy of some discussion and resolution – especially in view of imminent selection events at which a Jury decision can profoundly affect a dedicated competitor’s future.
Re-run Review
At the General Discussion following the 2006 Slalom ACM those present requested the Slalom Committee ‘to provide guidance to Organisers and Jury members as to the circumstances and conditions under which re-runs can be granted’. This request was overlooked and so at the 2007 ACM the request was repeated.
The Minutes of the Slalom Committee meeting on the following day (2.12.07) report that ‘the committee discussed the re-run situation and concluded that the existing Rule 31 is adequate’. I suggest that this statement does nothing towards providing the guidance requested at the 2006 ACM.
The problem for Jury members is that they often have to resolve differences between disappointed competitors and pressurised judges in a minimum of time (multiple protests, limited water, scheduled prize giving) and with minimal information (no video or consultation with spectators, pressurised judges). As a sometimes Jury member/Chair working under the current Rule 31 (applying to the overtaking situation) my guiding principle has been: did we give this competitor as fair a run at the designed course as others in the same class, within the limits of the prevailing conditions over which we have no control. If there is any doubt that his/her attempt at the designed course has been hindered by obstruction of the competitor’s intended line, either by the obstructing paddler’s equipment or the movement of a relevant gate pole by the paddler who is being overtaken, then this constitutes a hindrance worthy of a re-run under Rule 31.
I should be interested to hear comments or proposals from others interested in contributing to the guidance requested following the 2006 ACM.
Don Raspin.
Re-Run Resolution - for discussion
-
Don Raspin
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 12:42 pm
- Location: 28 Cotswold Drive, Skelton TS12 2JN
-
Don Raspin
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 12:42 pm
- Location: 28 Cotswold Drive, Skelton TS12 2JN
I assume from the lack of any comment on this topic that there is general agreement with my understanding of the phrase 'hindered by another' in Rule 31.3 and trust that this interpretation will provide the future guidance requested at the 2006 ACM.
I should also like to point out that this was not the meaning of 31.3 adopted by the Slalom Committee at its Sept 07 meeting when the decision of the Jury Chair at the Sept Washburn Prem was over-ruled.
I should also like to point out that this was not the meaning of 31.3 adopted by the Slalom Committee at its Sept 07 meeting when the decision of the Jury Chair at the Sept Washburn Prem was over-ruled.
-
youngatheart
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2008 9:39 am
- Location: England
-
Don Raspin
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 12:42 pm
- Location: 28 Cotswold Drive, Skelton TS12 2JN
Now that's an interesting concept - the infallibility of Judges. It calls into question the need for a Jury and the competitor's right to the benefit of doubt.
The dispute about the re-run at Washburn last Sept was a consequence of the Section Judge's failure to appreciate that a violently swinging pole can seriously hinder a competitor's intended line through a split gate. Such refinements do not feature in the Judges exam. Hence the need for guidance requested at the 2006 ACM, without which we will not achieve the consistency in judging which our dedicated competitors are entitled to expect.
The dispute about the re-run at Washburn last Sept was a consequence of the Section Judge's failure to appreciate that a violently swinging pole can seriously hinder a competitor's intended line through a split gate. Such refinements do not feature in the Judges exam. Hence the need for guidance requested at the 2006 ACM, without which we will not achieve the consistency in judging which our dedicated competitors are entitled to expect.
-
youngatheart
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2008 9:39 am
- Location: England
But how can the jury make a decision without considering specific input from the person on the spot at the time??? In my experience if a judge feels a re run is indicated they will most likley have indicated anyway!
Also how can further guidance be given when so many different cenarios can crop up. Surely a sensible and fair decision should be made by the jury advised by the judges/section judges as in all other protests a jury cannot override the judges even if they may want to! They must go by what the judges have seen.
Also how can further guidance be given when so many different cenarios can crop up. Surely a sensible and fair decision should be made by the jury advised by the judges/section judges as in all other protests a jury cannot override the judges even if they may want to! They must go by what the judges have seen.
-
Dave Royle
- Posts: 178
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 11:02 pm
Re-runs should be the absolute last resort. For example if both main and backup time fail.
We all know that occasionally one paddler will catch another but it is up to the section judge to blow the whistle so there is no hinderence.
A swinging pole does not count as hinderence. Rule 28.4 deals with a swinging pole. If we wait for poles to stop swinging after every competitor we will be asking the judges to sit there for a long time.
Where there is limited practice, such as Washburn, a re-run is a significant advantage. The Jury have a difficult role to play. They have an agrieved paddler in front of them who wishes a re-run and by granting it the Jury feel they have given the paddler a fair chance at the course. But what about all the other paddlers who haven't had the opportunity of a third run down the course?
We all know that occasionally one paddler will catch another but it is up to the section judge to blow the whistle so there is no hinderence.
A swinging pole does not count as hinderence. Rule 28.4 deals with a swinging pole. If we wait for poles to stop swinging after every competitor we will be asking the judges to sit there for a long time.
Where there is limited practice, such as Washburn, a re-run is a significant advantage. The Jury have a difficult role to play. They have an agrieved paddler in front of them who wishes a re-run and by granting it the Jury feel they have given the paddler a fair chance at the course. But what about all the other paddlers who haven't had the opportunity of a third run down the course?
-
Don Raspin
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 12:42 pm
- Location: 28 Cotswold Drive, Skelton TS12 2JN
re Youngatheart's contribution:
Surely the guiding principle must be 'did we give this competitor as fair a run at the designed course as others in the same class, within the limits..etc'. Video clips of the Washburn event clearly show the swinging pole which had been forcibly hit by the previous paddler. This was the basis of the protest made to the Jury Chair, whose inquiry of the Section Judge showed a failure to appreciate the significance of the swinging upper pole on split gate 17. Even Section Judges are not infallible and one can be just plain arrogant.
re Dave's contribution:
Slalom is a competition requiring the competitor to demonstrate competence over a designed course. If the competitor catches up another the system has failed (in international finals there is usually only one competitor on the course at a time and I don't recall seeing a catch up on Ski Sunday). This discussion is not about the general problem of swinging poles as in UK 28.4.1 but the specifics of Rule 31, which deals with 'overtaking'.To the best of my knowledge there were no other protests involving overtaking at the Washburn Prem - this one was a result of the unwise placement of an unsheduled paddler between scheduled runs.
Surely the guiding principle must be 'did we give this competitor as fair a run at the designed course as others in the same class, within the limits..etc'. Video clips of the Washburn event clearly show the swinging pole which had been forcibly hit by the previous paddler. This was the basis of the protest made to the Jury Chair, whose inquiry of the Section Judge showed a failure to appreciate the significance of the swinging upper pole on split gate 17. Even Section Judges are not infallible and one can be just plain arrogant.
re Dave's contribution:
Slalom is a competition requiring the competitor to demonstrate competence over a designed course. If the competitor catches up another the system has failed (in international finals there is usually only one competitor on the course at a time and I don't recall seeing a catch up on Ski Sunday). This discussion is not about the general problem of swinging poles as in UK 28.4.1 but the specifics of Rule 31, which deals with 'overtaking'.To the best of my knowledge there were no other protests involving overtaking at the Washburn Prem - this one was a result of the unwise placement of an unsheduled paddler between scheduled runs.
-
djberriman
- Posts: 806
- Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 8:19 pm
[quote="Dave Royle"][/quote]
"Re-runs should be the absolute last resort. For example if both main and backup time fail."
In the ideal world!
"We all know that occasionally one paddler will catch another but it is up to the section judge to blow the whistle so there is no hinderence."
But in my experience they seldom do and its often done too late.
For instance in the last year. I was hindered at Tully, came down the drop going to gate 2 on the plateau, as I came down the drop, the previous paddler had been allowed to paddle back up to gate 2 as he missed it (and gates 3,4 and 5). I was not only put off as I came in to gate 2 but then obstructed in gate 3.
No Whistle (that I heard anyway)!
I was then put off on my re-run as despite having ok'd it with control and the starter he then called me over at the last second to quiz me about it and then started me.
Ditto the interclubs.
Our C2 was hindered to the extent one paddle had to miss a stroke because it would have been through the deck of the other C2. There was no whistle from the section judge.
There seems to be a distinct lack of training in the judging exam/course as to when a whistle should be used (and how to blow it hard!)
I've only had a couple of re-runs in three years that I can remember, one was at Tully (above) and the other was at Matlock in similar circumstances when I came thru a down gate to surf a wave to the next up gate, the other paddler was exiting the gate crossing in my path. No whistle. Was then sat in the next gate eddy and allowed me to pass.
"Re-runs should be the absolute last resort. For example if both main and backup time fail."
In the ideal world!
"We all know that occasionally one paddler will catch another but it is up to the section judge to blow the whistle so there is no hinderence."
But in my experience they seldom do and its often done too late.
For instance in the last year. I was hindered at Tully, came down the drop going to gate 2 on the plateau, as I came down the drop, the previous paddler had been allowed to paddle back up to gate 2 as he missed it (and gates 3,4 and 5). I was not only put off as I came in to gate 2 but then obstructed in gate 3.
No Whistle (that I heard anyway)!
I was then put off on my re-run as despite having ok'd it with control and the starter he then called me over at the last second to quiz me about it and then started me.
Ditto the interclubs.
Our C2 was hindered to the extent one paddle had to miss a stroke because it would have been through the deck of the other C2. There was no whistle from the section judge.
There seems to be a distinct lack of training in the judging exam/course as to when a whistle should be used (and how to blow it hard!)
I've only had a couple of re-runs in three years that I can remember, one was at Tully (above) and the other was at Matlock in similar circumstances when I came thru a down gate to surf a wave to the next up gate, the other paddler was exiting the gate crossing in my path. No whistle. Was then sat in the next gate eddy and allowed me to pass.
-
david wilson
- Posts: 17
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 9:52 am
Not sure what is happening in this thread at the moment.
We seem to have started to debate the issue of "re-runs", with examples of what happened to me or him or her etc etc.
I will add this to that debate. Paddler A set off before paddler B. At the bottom of the course Paddler A is paddling upstream to negotiate the final gate having missed it on first attempt. Simulataneously Paddler B is arriving at the final gate.
Paddler B protests claiming impediment by paddler A. Paddler A does not protest as Paddler B caught up and Paddler A gave way.
Paddler B gets a re run.
How did paddler B catch up so quickly?
Answer - because they missed two gates on their run.
Guess what Paddler B does very well in the re run negotiating all the gates and beats Paddler A in the race (This was a selection race by the way at HPP a couple of years back).
On the issue of Re Runs, the Jury in these circumstanmces should look at why the paddler B caught up and if missed gates are the reason then they should not allow the re run.
Paddler A could be offered a re-run if the Jury thought it fitting given that Paddler A gave way, but only after considering the whole of the run and why this paddler missed the final gate.
However as I said earlier we seem to be dragged into a debate as to when we should get re runs.
I THINK THE THREAD RELATES TO THE LACK OF RESPONSE BY THE COMMITTEE IN RELATION TO A REQUEST FOR GUIDANCE.
Don,
I'm still waiting for a response to a letter I wrote to the committee about the Selection Race at HPP a few years ago. The one which was cancelled after First Runs because of high winds when your friend Peter was struck in the face by a kayak tossed by the said wind. We should never have started that race and the authorities, Met Office, etc etc had warned the country of the impending bad weather and told everyone to stay at home unless absolutely necessary to travel. I know why the committee ran the first runs and I'm sure many people reading this will draw their own conclusions but the committee has failed to respond to me in writing. Putting their reasons in writing will expose them to one or another error of judgement on that day, so I'm still waiting. I wonder if anyone will comment now.
Don't hold your breath waiting for a response mate, I'm still waiting.
We seem to have started to debate the issue of "re-runs", with examples of what happened to me or him or her etc etc.
I will add this to that debate. Paddler A set off before paddler B. At the bottom of the course Paddler A is paddling upstream to negotiate the final gate having missed it on first attempt. Simulataneously Paddler B is arriving at the final gate.
Paddler B protests claiming impediment by paddler A. Paddler A does not protest as Paddler B caught up and Paddler A gave way.
Paddler B gets a re run.
How did paddler B catch up so quickly?
Answer - because they missed two gates on their run.
Guess what Paddler B does very well in the re run negotiating all the gates and beats Paddler A in the race (This was a selection race by the way at HPP a couple of years back).
On the issue of Re Runs, the Jury in these circumstanmces should look at why the paddler B caught up and if missed gates are the reason then they should not allow the re run.
Paddler A could be offered a re-run if the Jury thought it fitting given that Paddler A gave way, but only after considering the whole of the run and why this paddler missed the final gate.
However as I said earlier we seem to be dragged into a debate as to when we should get re runs.
I THINK THE THREAD RELATES TO THE LACK OF RESPONSE BY THE COMMITTEE IN RELATION TO A REQUEST FOR GUIDANCE.
Don,
I'm still waiting for a response to a letter I wrote to the committee about the Selection Race at HPP a few years ago. The one which was cancelled after First Runs because of high winds when your friend Peter was struck in the face by a kayak tossed by the said wind. We should never have started that race and the authorities, Met Office, etc etc had warned the country of the impending bad weather and told everyone to stay at home unless absolutely necessary to travel. I know why the committee ran the first runs and I'm sure many people reading this will draw their own conclusions but the committee has failed to respond to me in writing. Putting their reasons in writing will expose them to one or another error of judgement on that day, so I'm still waiting. I wonder if anyone will comment now.
Don't hold your breath waiting for a response mate, I'm still waiting.
-
Don Raspin
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 12:42 pm
- Location: 28 Cotswold Drive, Skelton TS12 2JN
I am pleased to see that we re now getting the debate which I think this issue deserves. In the interest of clarity I suggest that initially contributions relate to re-runs in the Premier Divs - since, as Dave has pointed out there are no practice runs, hence a re-run gives a competitor a considerable advantage. Also the consequences, particularly in Selection Events, can be more significant. The reasons for re-runs outside the 'overtaking' remit of Rule 31 are usually fairly clear cut - such as being hit by a 'rescue boat' or a the collapse of a gate etc - so I also suggest that most contentious issues concern overtaking or catch up situations as they relate to Rule 31.
As an ex member of the Sla Com I can appreciate David's comment re their reticence to tackle contentious issues. In their defense: Sla Com only meets about 4 times/yr so each meeting has a crowded agenda leaving little time for debating issues which the Chair feels may rouse strong feelings and expose the prejudices of some members ! This is why I felt that a more public debate could highlight the issues and lead to a constructive motion being put to the 2008 ACM. Re David's case of paddler B missing gates, I think that it is now dealt with in Rule 31.2, although it does not mention paddler A's right to a re-run.
I think dj's point about 'whistling off' is very relevant. 'Catch ups' should never occur in Prem Divs if competitors are set off in reverse order of ranking at 1min intervals over a 2min course with the starter having authority to amend the interval in anticipation of catch up problems. If a competitor in a Prem event gets within a gate (needs defining) of another s/he should be given the option of a re-run, since the presence of another paddler on the course has hindered her/his focus on the designed course. I realize that this will be contentious in the current situation, but I hope that the proposed reduction in the number of competitors in the Prem Divs will enable us to reach the ideal of one competitor on the course at a time - as in international finals.
As an ex member of the Sla Com I can appreciate David's comment re their reticence to tackle contentious issues. In their defense: Sla Com only meets about 4 times/yr so each meeting has a crowded agenda leaving little time for debating issues which the Chair feels may rouse strong feelings and expose the prejudices of some members ! This is why I felt that a more public debate could highlight the issues and lead to a constructive motion being put to the 2008 ACM. Re David's case of paddler B missing gates, I think that it is now dealt with in Rule 31.2, although it does not mention paddler A's right to a re-run.
I think dj's point about 'whistling off' is very relevant. 'Catch ups' should never occur in Prem Divs if competitors are set off in reverse order of ranking at 1min intervals over a 2min course with the starter having authority to amend the interval in anticipation of catch up problems. If a competitor in a Prem event gets within a gate (needs defining) of another s/he should be given the option of a re-run, since the presence of another paddler on the course has hindered her/his focus on the designed course. I realize that this will be contentious in the current situation, but I hope that the proposed reduction in the number of competitors in the Prem Divs will enable us to reach the ideal of one competitor on the course at a time - as in international finals.
-
youngatheart
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2008 9:39 am
- Location: England
These few examples is why the re run guidance needs to be as open as possible as rarely are two incidences the same! With 2 jury members considering a protest and the evidence of the judges it should be possible to give an informed and correct decision. As already said, if a judges feels a paddler has been impeded on a gate line they will more often than not suggest a re run!
There will always be times when whistles are blown a bit too late - I am sure judges try to wait as long as possible to give both paddlers the best opportunity of completing the course without interference, but occasionally it will go wrong.
Looking at the number of races and how few re runs actually happen they get it right most of the time!!!!!!!!! Unfortunately these are contensious issues and someone every time will not be happy with the decision made that's life!
As for the committee not responding I cannot comment but I do know that most have stopped reading this forum as they are sick of being slagged off and criticised when trying their utmost best.
If you want to help improve the sport volunteer instead of criticise there would then be less pressure on the few that work so hard to for all competitors.
There will always be times when whistles are blown a bit too late - I am sure judges try to wait as long as possible to give both paddlers the best opportunity of completing the course without interference, but occasionally it will go wrong.
Looking at the number of races and how few re runs actually happen they get it right most of the time!!!!!!!!! Unfortunately these are contensious issues and someone every time will not be happy with the decision made that's life!
As for the committee not responding I cannot comment but I do know that most have stopped reading this forum as they are sick of being slagged off and criticised when trying their utmost best.
If you want to help improve the sport volunteer instead of criticise there would then be less pressure on the few that work so hard to for all competitors.
-
Don Raspin
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 12:42 pm
- Location: 28 Cotswold Drive, Skelton TS12 2JN
Youngatheart seems to be saying that the judges are always right and if the competitor doesn't like their decision it's tough luck 'that's life'. Is that the only guidance we are to get from the members of Sla Com who as yet have not responded to the 2006 request ?
I should also like to add that I find the final comment personal and offensive. I did not expect a serious debate to stoop to this level. I am at least prepared to put my name to any contributions and not hide behind a pseudonym.
I should also like to add that I find the final comment personal and offensive. I did not expect a serious debate to stoop to this level. I am at least prepared to put my name to any contributions and not hide behind a pseudonym.
-
youngatheart
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2008 9:39 am
- Location: England
I am not saying the judges are always right after all they are only human and errors of judgement happen, we have to accept that, learn from it, and move on. However the rules as they are allow the jury, and by the jury I would undertand that to mean at least 2 jury members to look at the evidence the judges give and act on that. There cannot be a free for all for the Jury to make their own decisions, ignoring and over ruling the judges otherwise what is the point of having judges! This would leave Jurys open to all sorts of criticism.
This is not the slalom committee talking, i am just agreeing with what the committee stated in the minutes and to try and expand it would be imposible as not every scenario could be covered.
I suggest Don you are very careful trying to point a finger via e-mails - you could have a lot of egg on your face when you are wrong!
The final comment was not aimed at Don as I know he has put many years into the sport but there are a small number of people out there that continually criticise the cpmmittee but are unwilling to do anything to help.
This is not the slalom committee talking, i am just agreeing with what the committee stated in the minutes and to try and expand it would be imposible as not every scenario could be covered.
I suggest Don you are very careful trying to point a finger via e-mails - you could have a lot of egg on your face when you are wrong!
The final comment was not aimed at Don as I know he has put many years into the sport but there are a small number of people out there that continually criticise the cpmmittee but are unwilling to do anything to help.
-
Nick Penfold
- Posts: 338
- Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 8:21 pm
On the slightly off-topic subject of whistling, from a judge: getting the whistle right is difficult. It's too easy for a judge to whistle early, or unnecessarily, because it's hard to cope with more than one boat in a section at a time. We are human too.
On the other hand, in the effort to give both paddlers the best chance we will hang on, because very often if the paddler ahead clears just one breakout he may be able to get right to the finish without hindering the paddler behind at all. Sometimes we get it wrong and the whistle is late.
But in the Washburn case behind this thread I don't think the whistle had anything to do with it.
On the other hand, in the effort to give both paddlers the best chance we will hang on, because very often if the paddler ahead clears just one breakout he may be able to get right to the finish without hindering the paddler behind at all. Sometimes we get it wrong and the whistle is late.
But in the Washburn case behind this thread I don't think the whistle had anything to do with it.