Page 9 of 10
Posted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 3:22 pm
by Nick W
2011 Slalom Calender has just been posted;
http://www.canoeslalom.co.uk/committee/ ... lendar.pdf
...looks like Shep's Div1 remains absent 
Posted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 4:46 pm
by Munchkin
carealto wrote:Is there generally a very low entry to div 4 women's events. Of the two events my daughter and I have entered there have been only 4 entries in one event and 2 (but only one actually eligible) in the other. Do such entries have to be quorate to get a promotion in div 4 k1w or can it be by comparison to the k1m times? I can't see anything in the current rules which covers this, but I may be missing it.
There are rules allowing for promotion if the event is inquorate. I don't have my rule book to hand but I believe it is dealt with in the same way as the Canadian classes where the time is compared to the K1M (possibly with an adjustment, thats the bit I can't remember) and if the time would have resulted in promotion in the K1M then the K1W wil be promoted.
Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 12:04 am
by davewaine
Why not just have a single division?
(as mooted by JamesH, implied by John S and suggested by others)
I have started a new topic "Only One Division?" to discuss this idea.
Posted: Mon Aug 02, 2010 7:11 pm
by djberriman
Provisional Slalom Calendar, total at bottom of Div 1 col says 16 events, but I can only count 13?
Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 11:05 pm
by John Sturgess
At the risk of repeating myself (Wot? Me repeat myself?) the complications on this and other threads that we are all wrestling with, arises out of one salient point.
We are assuming that we have to use a Divisional system to do four/five contradictory things:
1) Provide motivation for paddlers to progress (promotion, enabling them to compare themselves with other paddlers over a season, etc)
2) Ensure that there is a correct balance, spread, and quantity of races so that participants can race as often as they can/want to on the sort of water they want to race on.
3) Ensure that paddlers advance through the water-grades at a speed that means they are neither under-challenged nor over-challenged - and therefore do not give up as a result either of boredom or of fright
4) Execute our duty of care in terms of Health and Safety
5) Oh yes, and ensure a supply of judges at races.
I have news for you - there is NO SUCH SYSTEM
No other country even attempts this. And certainly those foreigners who I have heard express admiration for our system - it is because they assume that we have achieved some sort of magic trick.
So we need to turn the whole thing on its head, and ask ourselves how we would meet each of the in dividual needs listed if that was`the only need for us to look at. Then, provided with our five ideal models, see how they could be combined.
5) Judges.
(a) We could expect the last entries to judge - or expect all paddlers to judge - as we sometimes do/threaten to do now
(b) We could follow the French system - make each Club provide judges in proportion to their number of entries - and before someone raises the dreaded I-word, in France you cannot race if you are not a member of a Club: that is how you get yours FFCK card. Wouldn't work in England? Ask the Sprint paddlers ...
© We could follow the system used in most of Europe and the rest of the world, and make the provision of judges the organisers' responsibility
Whatever the system we choose, the same people would end up doing most of the judging as do now: largely paddlers' parents/significant others who have have had their arms twisted ...
4) If we were serious about Health and Safety we would hardly let Div 1 and Div 2 paddlers take Judges' runs at Prem races, while regarding them as not safe to race in the main event.
This one has the simplest answer: we have a slalom guide-book in the same way that river runners have river-guides, and climbers have climbing guides; and we grade the courses, with a suitable table of descriptors (Sowerby Bridge: Hard V Diff?)
3) No system can do this: but a slalom grading system would help parents and coaches to provide suitable guidance (you were OK at Sowerby Bridge - Matlock is also Hard V Diff - so Matlock would be OK)
2) This where the programme needs to be built up from the bottom, not imposed from the top - groupings of Clubs however constituted try to predict how many events on given standards of water their members need, and where. If nothing else, this would avoid nonsnse like those currently proposed for Shepperton and the Washburn.
1) Despite what has been suggested I am not an advocate of a single-division system: open entry is by no means the same thing.
But once we have liberated this point from its connection with a race programme, issues like a pyramid structure of divisions become non-controversial
We need to look at how other countries do their divisional numbers, and decide which one we prefer. In some case Divisional status governs entry to a few end-of-season races; in most countries divisional ranking has no effect on what races paddlers can do. But even where there are those 'confined' races, they are based on performance this year, not in previous years.
A suggestion: try the exercise outlined above, i.e. looking for separate solutions for each problem, and see where you get.
Posted: Sun Sep 05, 2010 1:45 pm
by Canadian Paddler
I am not in a position where I feel able to propose a motion on this subject, I am still undecided. Does anyone out there feel that they have a good enough vision that they want to put a motion to the ACM? ??? If so please speak up and get busy. I am happy to help with drafting, but do not have the critical view of how it will all work.
If that produces the normal tumbleweed moment, anyone feel like leading a discussion on this after the ACM? ??? (Not a committee suggestion, or approved, but I will propose this if there are takers). OR just leading one side of the discussion?
If no one will come forward, this will be left and we will continue with the status quo for at least another year. If you want to discuss get drafting help PM me, or post here, or email – my address is in the year book (For those who do not know CP = Colin Woodgate – Proteus/Slalom Committee 
).
After John's multiple posts on multiple threads, I will be putting similar please on several threads, apologies to those, who this irritates (like me)
Posted: Sun Sep 05, 2010 6:18 pm
by Nick Penfold
My own view is that the ranking system serves us well, but that some flexibility is called for. Here is a compromise proposal that goes some way towards meeting the aim of allowing earlier access to big water without wiping out the advantages of the ranking system.
“One-Up” Racing
A paddler ranked in any of divisions 1, 2 or 3 may enter a race designed for paddlers one division higher - that is, a Div 1 may enter a Prem event, a Div 2 may enter a Div 1, etc. This is to allow paddlers early access to experience at bigger water, more formal events, taking their present ranking as evidence that they should be able to cope with the water.
Paddlers ranked in the higher division will have priority entry until the closing date, two weeks before the event, and then entries from lower division paddlers will be accepted, in order of receipt, up to the limit of numbers published for the event. Paddlers ranked in the higher division and who enter on time should not be pushed out of their own events to accommodate lower-division paddlers seeking experience.
The entry fee will be the same as normally applies to the higher division.
Lower division paddlers in any class will race in the same event as that class for the higher division, paddling before the higher-division paddlers and in reverse bib number order. The whole class will be timed and judged to the same standard. Paddlers can enter events at any level, free, as judges, but sometimes get poorer judging, a bad spot in the programme or have to fit in runs back-to-back. This is to ensure they get a fair deal.
Paddlers racing “one up” will not earn points, but after two such events may apply to the Ranking Status Officer for ranking in the higher division. As a rule, achieving a place in the top two thirds of the results more than once at well-attended events would be considered as demonstrating competence to earn a place in the higher division. The assumption is that they are there for experience. Points taken back to their own divisions would be difficult to compare and would give them unfair advantage, but clearly a paddler who can consistently do well in a higher division should be considered for promotion.
“One-Up” entry is not allowed at events where the paddler’s own division is racing on the same day and the same course. However (for example) “one-up” entry would be allowed at a Prem/1 event where the divisions are racing on different days.
Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2010 4:05 pm
by Nicky
will this not reduce the number of people available for judging? what happens when people get demoted at the end of season? They attend the first two races and get reranked?
Or can they argue that they should get demoted if they attain two results in the top 2/3rds?
Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2010 4:54 pm
by Nick Penfold
All good points, Nicky. The entry fee might encourage some to race as judges, not "one-up". Your points about promotion I don't have the answers to. Raise the bar to three races or top half, or both? Scrap the promotion option and make people earn it in their own divisions?
Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2010 8:47 pm
by Canadian Paddler
Would seem sensible to include that if paddlers are to be asked to judge (due to lack of judges entries) they should be selected in the order of 1) Those 'paddling up' 2) late entries in division 3) Those who got their entry in in time
Less judges = more judging from those in the division (or their representatives).
Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:50 pm
by Nick Penfold
Now I would make that: 1) Late entries in division 2)Those 'paddling up' 3) Those (in division) who got their entry in on time.
"Paddlers up" are paying full entry fee, those in division should learn to get their entries in on time.
Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2010 1:07 pm
by Canadian Paddler
My only reasoning was that those going for points should be most protected, but . . . its your motion.
Remembering that it is the paddlers responsibility to cover the slot, they can get a stand in to do this.
Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2010 2:10 pm
by Nicky
I think I'd get rid of the promotion application bit i think, if you're in the ranking system, you need to just go to your races and get promoted, if you're good enough it won't take long. If it does, then you're not good enough!
if you put paddlers up at the bottom of the heirarchy, the decision to judge or paddle up is made for them, why pay if you are going to have to judge anyway!
I'd do it nick's way around.
Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2010 11:33 pm
by PeterC
Thanks Nick for picking up and improving on the one up idea. I think it could be made to work and would be some compensation for the reduced number of Div 1's.
I would however like to give them (the one ups) longer before hand to enter so that they can sensibly sort out accommodation etc. Coming down from Scotland for anything south of the wall requires us to book somewhere to stay and the cheap deals need to be booked earlier and are often not refundable. If the system truly led to Divisional paddlers entering at a reasonable time not getting to race because entries closed then it would clearly have to be reviewed.
My personal experience as an organiser is that there will be a significant number of late entries and we do want to discourage them. It is indeed they who should be at first risk of judging. As a compensation maybe we should introduce a rule that early entries who find themselves unable to attend will get a refund if they notify the organiser up to 48 hours before the race.
As to the worst first concept (on the one division thread) perhaps we could introduce the same as operates with Skiing where the top group go in reverse order and the rest then follow in number order. This would hopefully reduce a little the number of catch ups. The top 30% go in reverse order perhaps?
Posted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 2:06 pm
by Dee
Good motion Nick.
Just a thought, but a couple of possibles to add....
Something along the lines that it is the paddlers responsibility to check to see if they have a position on the startlist.
That rejected one-uppers have first call on judging slots, but only if they indicate on the entry that this is acceptable. (I've seen some events run out of judging slots)
And that where no slots are available the organiser will return the payment cheque only if an sae is supplied. Otherwise the organiser will shred the cheque.