Paddling Up

[lesf]

Interesting comments from Dee based on experience at Shepperton. For the Washburn event I'm probably going to give 'paddle up-ies' a unique bib as I would the open and judges - fortunately we have bibs in the region with 800' and 900's that I can use and only a few people wanting to 'paddle up'

Les

[Dee]

CP
To be fair major discrepancies (multiple 50s vs a few touches) are usually a bit easier to resolve!
I know that duplication of numbers has always been a potential risk, but adding in paddle-uppers turns a manageable low risk into a much higher risk.

Les
Given that (from our experience) most of the div 3s will turn up without bibs this does make sense. The only thing is that I think you need to make sure that on the results list the paddlers are given their div 3 bib numbers (prefixed appropriately) to allow tracking of results. (This will be particularly important if we ever have an online system). Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong anyone.

I'm looking forward to the Washburn (get to stay in my favourite hotel )

[PeterC]

I have a number of paddle ups this coming weekend.

They will be in a separate class running adjacent to the main class.

They will not be using their own bibs - too confusing with identical numbers.

I hope it works - we have a huge entry and possibly snow forecast!

[oldschool]

can anyone clarify please?

if a div 3 paddles up at a div 2/3 does he still get div 3 points?

what fee do they pay?

what fee do the club running the event pay to the bcu?

is there a specific portion of the return form to accomodate this?

cheers

Tonksie

[lesf]

Hi

I think it is like this (feel free to correct me):

At a Div 2/3 event the Div 3 paddler just enters their normal divisional race, paying the normal fee (and the organiser pays over the normal fee for a div 3). They would be included in the results for that division and get the usual points.

In terms of paddle up, all the paddler has to do is compare their result to those in the higher division - if they would have been ahead of 40% of the paddlers they use the result as one of their 3 'paddle up' results to claim promotion.

Eg At the Washburn I slotted 'Div 3 paddle-upers' in the Div 2 classes as non-ranking paddlers. If it had been a Div 2/3 event they would hav been in Div 3 - no extra work for me and they check where they would have been in Div 2 and keep track of their paddle up results themselves.

Note: this only works this way if both divisions are racing on the same course on the same day - usually the case at 2/3 events.

I guess at a 2/3 event the div 3 paddler gets two way of chasing promotion through normal points and by paddle up comparision - but if they are quick enough to get a counting paddle up result they are going to be getting good points in div 3 anyway

Les

[Jaytee]

Les, I'm pleased to say I entirely agree with your comments.
The system has been running for a few races now & broadly appears to be working okay I think.
From paddlers' perspective, I understand at least 1 K1M & 1 K1W have gained promotion from Div 3 already; so no doubt they think its working.

[Jaytee]

I thought paddling up was clear.
However, at Bala Mill, K1W Div 2, 6th May, there were 23 ranked starters. One paddler-up achieved a score better than 9 of them. However, 40% of 23 is 9.2. I was asked the question whether she could claim a 'paddle-up point'; i.e. whether there was rounding involved.
I don't know, but suspect her score had to be better than at least 40%, so she'd have had to have beaten 10.
Anyone care to comment?

(Just to confuse matters the lowest scorer had 1 DNF & 1 DNS, but as she started I believe she counted).

[Neil H]

if you enter in the division and then have a good run presumably you can't claim a retrospective paddle up

[Dee]

I thought paddling up was clear.
However, at Bala Mill, K1W Div 2, 6th May, there were 23 ranked starters. One paddler-up achieved a score better than 9 of them. However, 40% of 23 is 9.2. I was asked the question whether she could claim a 'paddle-up point'; i.e. whether there was rounding involved.
I don't know, but suspect her score had to be better than at least 40%, so she'd have had to have beaten 10.
Anyone care to comment?

(Just to confuse matters the lowest scorer had 1 DNF & 1 DNS, but as she started I believe she counted).

Assuming that the lowest scorer was a div 2 ranked paddler and started at least one run then she counts.

Assuming 23 div 2 ranked paddlers, I would agree that a paddle upper would need to beat 10 of them

[Dee]

if you enter in the division and then have a good run presumably you can't claim a retrospective paddle up

If by this you mean entered in div 2, say, and have a good run compared with div one paddlers on the same course then you can use this as a paddle up run ( no need to pay higher fees). So in that sense it is sort of retrospective

[Jaytee]

Dee, seems our views are the same - that's reassuring!
NeilH - hope your question answered? If 2 divisions racing on SAME course, paddler enters lower and can retrospectively claim paddle up 'point' in higher. Two bites at cherry.
If only 1 division racing or (2 on different courses), paddlers must enter the higher division race to be considered for paddling up.
Thanks, Jaytee.

[Nick Penfold]

However, at Bala Mill, K1W Div 2, 6th May, there were 23 ranked starters. One paddler-up achieved a score better than 9 of them. However, 40% of 23 is 9.2. I was asked the question whether she could claim a 'paddle-up point'; i.e. whether there was rounding involved.
I don't know, but suspect her score had to be better than at least 40%, so she'd have had to have beaten 10.
Anyone care to comment?

I think, given experience this year, that we must refine the Paddling Up rules for 2013, and one change should be to define that 40% as "would have achieved 400 points or more". We can't put the paddlers into the division to calculate this, and I don't want to have to do "what if" versions of the points, so I'd suggest we use the same principle as for non-quorate calculation: if the paddler's time falls between two paddlers in the division, you apply the points of the higher-placed paddler.

In this case I've ruled (as Ranking Officer), giving benefit of the doubt to the paddler.

A much more important issue came up at Bala Mill: the course set for the Div 3 was different from the course set for the Div 2. That means that Div 3 results could not have been claimed as "paddle up" results. Several paddlers raced both as Div 3s and separately, on the Div 2 course, as "paddle uppers". That's the right solution - full marks to the paddlers and the organiser for handling an unforeseen issue.