Annual Consultative Meeting and back to racing discussion

Discuss past and future events
Canadian Paddler
Posts: 1480
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 8:31 am
Location: Peterborough
Contact:

Annual Consultative Meeting and back to racing discussion

Post by Canadian Paddler » Sat Oct 10, 2020 4:39 pm

Hi all

Just a reminder that the ACM is taking place on Saturday 28 November via ZOOM.

Motions
As we are mid-season, the only motions that will be considered are motions that don't affect the rules. Please make sure that you send your motions to the secretary, signed by two members representing their clubs, no later than 29 October. As in previous years, motions can be submitted by email, with each signatory sending a separate email. The two proposers can be from the same club.
The agenda and ACM pack will then be circulated shortly after 30th October.

Elections
The officer positions due for re-election are:
1. Chair (currently Dave Spencer)
2. Treasurer (currently vacant)
Nominations for these positions need to be sent to the secretary by 29 October, in teh form of a motion (so signed by / emailed by two members representing their clubs)

There are three other co-ordinators up for election, nominations for these need to be made by the ACM. Those whose term is coming to an end are : Andy Neave (Coaching), Steve Linksted (Divisional Development), Karen Crowhurst (Participation), all of which are eligible for re-election

Return to racing
Following the business part of the ACM, we are hoping to facilitate a session "back to racing". Please have a think about what areas it would be useful to discuss.

Looking forward to seeing you on 28th November!
All spelling errors are intentional and are there to show new and improved ways of spelling old words. Grammatical errors are due to too many English classes/teachers.
Old. Fat. Slow. Bad tempered. And those are my good points

Dee
Posts: 1444
Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 8:34 pm

ACM Time!

Post by Dee » Sun Oct 18, 2020 7:12 pm

28 November 2020

OK, it has been a rather odd year for Slalom (and the world, come to that) and it is going to be a pretty weird ACM. For a start, the decision to extend the season over two years means that this ACM falls mid season, so rule changes will inevitably be minimal just to get us through the rest of the season. Main topic of conversation is going likely to be How on earth do we get racing running as normally as possible next year?

It's also going to be odd in that it will be virtual. Zoom is going to be our friend for the day I believe. OK this will make it odd and sadly we will all miss out on our free lunch. However, the advantage will be that you can attend from the comfort of your own home, so early start and no long drives. :D

For the formal bits, see Canadian Paddlers post under events
Last edited by Dee on Sun Oct 18, 2020 7:21 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Kit Washer, Entry Clerk, Chauffeur, Reluctant Organiser, Online Entry Advocate .....
Anything I post under this user is my personal opinion; I am not posting as a member of the Slalom Committee!

Dee
Posts: 1444
Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 8:34 pm

Re: ACM Time!

Post by Dee » Sun Oct 18, 2020 7:16 pm

PS. For those old enough to remember the expressions "be there or be square", I think this year it is "be there and be square".
... I'll get my coat!
Kit Washer, Entry Clerk, Chauffeur, Reluctant Organiser, Online Entry Advocate .....
Anything I post under this user is my personal opinion; I am not posting as a member of the Slalom Committee!

djberriman
Posts: 806
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 8:19 pm

Re: Annual Consultative Meeting and back to racing discussion

Post by djberriman » Mon Oct 19, 2020 2:47 pm

Other than getting back to racing the other big thing that needs resolving is lack of paddlers.

7 years ago we had about 1,500 which was bad enough, we are now down to just over 1,000. I can imagine we may see another big drop post covid.

2013 1431
2014 1504
2015 1404
2016 1379
2017 1364
2018 1331
2019 1255
2020 1014

These figures reflect ranked paddlers at the end of each season. The worst year appears to have been 2019 when it appears we lost 241 paddlers (they drop off if they don't race but can apply for reinstatement if they wish) so at the start of 2020 we only had 1014. There has been a steady decline of between 30 and 100 every year pretty much, on average we are losing about 60 a year from the sport who are not being replaced.

Dee
Posts: 1444
Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 8:34 pm

Re: Annual Consultative Meeting and back to racing discussion

Post by Dee » Mon Oct 19, 2020 2:54 pm

2020 is not the end of the season, so I don't think it should be compared as such.

Having said that your other figures show a fairly steady decline (except for the 2014 surge).
Is this across the board for P-3 and all classes?
Kit Washer, Entry Clerk, Chauffeur, Reluctant Organiser, Online Entry Advocate .....
Anything I post under this user is my personal opinion; I am not posting as a member of the Slalom Committee!

djberriman
Posts: 806
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 8:19 pm

Re: Annual Consultative Meeting and back to racing discussion

Post by djberriman » Mon Oct 19, 2020 4:20 pm

Good point I've removed 2020, makes thing a a bit more normal. I'd forgotten about all promotions and the div 4 promotees.

So here are the figures we can use.

2013 1431
2014 1504
2015 1404
2016 1379
2017 1364
2018 1331
2019 1255

Still about 30 a year but that's less shocking. Thanks for putting me straight Dee (honestly) that's still a worry but not so bad.

Mike Mitchell
Posts: 180
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2014 10:44 pm

Re: Annual Consultative Meeting and back to racing discussion

Post by Mike Mitchell » Mon Oct 19, 2020 8:24 pm

So can we have a good debate about the decline in paddlers at the ACM.

Hear is something starters.

The squads take all the good up and coming paddlers from Clubs, tell them that they will be Champions, then drop them when they don't make the grade.

The Club gets left with the ones that don't make it, but they feel rejected when there friend go off squad training.

The Club coaches get fed up with bringing new paddlers in and then witnessing the above.

Isn't it time we invested in strong Clubs. Make the payed coaches work for a living and support the Clubs.

I could go on all night but something needs doing before its to late.

Canadian Paddler
Posts: 1480
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 8:31 am
Location: Peterborough
Contact:

Re: Annual Consultative Meeting and back to racing discussion

Post by Canadian Paddler » Mon Oct 19, 2020 8:58 pm

Seems like a good topic to consider.
But we have to remember most paid coaches are funded by BC performance dept, principally funded by UK Sport, and as said in a TV documentary today UK Sport focus on medals. No medals = no money.
Then UK Sport just see Canoeing, so only qualifying 1 sprint place puts extra pressure on para and Slalom athletes to perform or the entire dept could be in trouble. Getting focus off olympics when Slalom Committee has no control will be a challenge.

So more thinking caps how do we retain paddlers as well as bring new?
How do we get parents back when they have paddle age kids?
All spelling errors are intentional and are there to show new and improved ways of spelling old words. Grammatical errors are due to too many English classes/teachers.
Old. Fat. Slow. Bad tempered. And those are my good points

Dee
Posts: 1444
Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 8:34 pm

Re: Annual Consultative Meeting and back to racing discussion

Post by Dee » Mon Oct 19, 2020 9:40 pm

What happened in 2014 to create the increase from 2013?
Kit Washer, Entry Clerk, Chauffeur, Reluctant Organiser, Online Entry Advocate .....
Anything I post under this user is my personal opinion; I am not posting as a member of the Slalom Committee!

djberriman
Posts: 806
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 8:19 pm

Re: Annual Consultative Meeting and back to racing discussion

Post by djberriman » Tue Oct 20, 2020 9:54 am

re 2013/2014 I think it may have been a bubble created by Kingston/Tees/Halifax and a few other clubs at the time, not totally sure it was that year but we all had quite large squads at that time. I remember we had some good turns outs at local events but it only lasted a year or two.

I've just compared clubs between 2013 and 2019 out of interest.

It appears a lot of clubs have lost between a quarter and a half of their slalom paddlers, surprisingly to me at least this is the same whether at a white water location or not. Its hard to do direct comparisons as club names were not as organised in 2013 and obviously new clubs or squads pop up or disappear and paddlers move around.

CR Cats seem to have had a good increase, as does Llandysul, Lee Valley, Pinktson & Manvers, Wydean appear, Tees Tigers virtually disappears.

SteveC
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2016 8:39 am

Re: Annual Consultative Meeting and back to racing discussion

Post by SteveC » Tue Oct 20, 2020 12:26 pm

What happened in 2014 to create the increase from 2013?

The British Canoeing Lee Valley Talent ID scheme started Aug/Sept 2013. Unlikely you would have got many paddlers recorded on your figures by the end of the 2013 season so it's likely that you would have got 20 paddlers from that year and another 20 the following year included in the 2014 numbers. If that was replicated at HPP and elsewhere that could be partly the reason for the increase.

James Hastings
Posts: 80
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:43 pm

Re: Annual Consultative Meeting and back to racing discussion

Post by James Hastings » Tue Oct 20, 2020 3:54 pm

The most likely explanation for the 2014 upturn in numbers of ranked paddlers was the significant tick up in entry level (div 4) participation in 2013, which led to a 45% increase in promotees to div 3, which would probably have fed through into ranked numbers the following year. I've assumed that the increase in entry level numbers in 2013 was due to the hosting of the Olympics the previous year, but there is no empirical evidence to support this as far as I'm aware. Interestingly, there was no entry level 'bounce' in 2017, despite Joe Clarke's success in Rio in 2016. The implication is that it's the hosting of the Olympics rather than the winning of medals that increases participation.

Duncan, the drop in numbers is even starker when you look at entry level numbers, something that I've banged on about in previous threads. In the 10 years from 2010 to 2019, entry level numbers have fallen by close to 40%, from a total of 773 paddlers participating in at least one div 4 race in 2010, down to 482 in 2019. This is inevitably having an effect on numbers higher up the food chain. Less div 4 entries = less promotees = less paddlers joining the ranking system, and from the look of your analysis there is now not enough to compensate for natural attrition. Unless something can be done to reverse this trend, then the sport will die in the UK, and UK Sport will lose any opportunity for medals in canoe slalom.

James

Dee
Posts: 1444
Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 8:34 pm

Re: Annual Consultative Meeting and back to racing discussion

Post by Dee » Tue Oct 20, 2020 4:51 pm

The reason I asked about 2014 was to see if we could use that information to work towards a similar uptick in 2021. Sadly I think that pushing to host the Olympics is probably outside of the Slalom Committee's remit. :D :D :D

The difficulty I see is that, whilst reasons for decline are regularly suggested, people often post that "something" must be done, but it is not clear what that "something" is! Mostly it seems to involve energetic individuals driving a club to increase its intake, but there are not enough of these to go around!

At the risk of having my ears boxed by CP :wink: - should we be looking at extending the season length. Why do we stop racing for several months of the year? It strikes me that there is a risk of those promoted to Div 3 late in the year drifting away before they get to compete at the new level. Further, potential Div 4s joining a club in early autumn might not get much opportunity to race and achieve Div 3 until the following summer - this seems a long time for a junior and they could move on before getting hooked into the system.

Should we be encouraging Div 4/Div 3 and maybe even Div 2s to run throughout most of the year. This could actually help the calendar too, as the lower divisions often can't be run against the higher divisions. At the very least, winter slaloms could become ranking slaloms for the lower divisions with a fun Open for those in the upper divisions. Would it pull more in/help keep them or would the cold put them off?
Kit Washer, Entry Clerk, Chauffeur, Reluctant Organiser, Online Entry Advocate .....
Anything I post under this user is my personal opinion; I am not posting as a member of the Slalom Committee!

Mike Mitchell
Posts: 180
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2014 10:44 pm

Re: Annual Consultative Meeting and back to racing discussion

Post by Mike Mitchell » Tue Oct 20, 2020 8:48 pm

[ Dee] Should we be encouraging Div 4/Div 3 and maybe even Div 2s to run throughout most of the year. This could actually help the calendar too, as the lower divisions often can't be run against the higher divisions. At the very least, winter slaloms could become ranking slaloms for the lower divisions with a fun Open for those in the upper divisions. Would it pull more in/help keep them or would the cold put them off?

I do really like this idea. Be good to get so early Div4 and 3 Slaloms to get any newcomers into the system.
I have a group of 10 that would be there.

JimW
Posts: 570
Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2015 2:17 pm
Location: Pinkston

Re: Annual Consultative Meeting and back to racing discussion

Post by JimW » Tue Oct 20, 2020 10:47 pm

Back to racing and the impact of not being able to change rules before the end of the 2020/21 season

How many organisers have started looking seriously at including Covid-19 in their risk assessments for next year, and what kind of mitigations have you all been considering?

The Scottish Champs that were planned and then cancelled due to increasing restrictions, included some mitigations which to put it bluntly would not have complied with all the rules relating to race organisation (which I assume is why it was advertised as not being run precisely to the rules, and why the trophies would not have been given out).

In our first run through of what we might be able to do, our thinking may have been guided by what we had seen of those proposals, some examples:

- Having competitors access the site in small batches (30 if similar national guidance as present exists in May), and get them to do their 2 runs almost back to back, including any additional classes if entered so the entire batch can pack up and leave before the next batch arrives. It will be difficult to to arrange this and to comply with rule 9.2.5.c particularly on sites where there are hire/water fees without making the entry fee considerably higher than normal.

- To reduce numbers in control, do away with penalty clerks and have judges keep their sheets to be entered after the event. This means results would be published much later in the day, or perhaps a different day. This creates a grey area in respect of rule 10.17.2 and causes major problems with 11.2.5, 11.2.6 and 11.2.7, but then thinking a bit harder, so would having competitors access in batches - most would be off site before the results are posted.

- To avoid competitors congregating around results boards, do not post results on site but make them available online after the event - this is a problem for all the rules listed in the previous point.

- Suggestion to try to arrange fixed cameras to record runs to aid in deciding protests - this is permitted under 11.2.7 but we would need more guidance about number and positioning of cameras to avoid this becoming a new source of complaint/argument - for example do we need to record all gates or just some, can cameras be set to show several gates or do they need to be optimally positioned for each gate... Realistically most of us cannot afford to do this.

- It is likely to be a legal requirement to collect contact details from each batch and hold them for a certain amount of time. Using online entries has enabled organisers to do away with the need to hold contact details, do we actually have authority to deny entry to anyone who refuses to submit details (which may be a statutory requirement), or can the details be held in the online entry system in a covid compliant way which still helps organisers comply with GDPR requirements?

We can of course hope that all restrictions on numbers will be lifted before each of our races, but if we need to start back with limited numbers and therefore have to have competitors attend in batches, I am not really seeing how this could be done without some temporary emergency changes to the rules for the rest of the season. Does anyone else have some better (slalom rule compliant) suggestions to mitigate these?

Post Reply