Posted: Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:46 pm
I am puzzled by the way a rule appears to have been changed without a proposition being even discussed at the ACM - still less passed.
Why am I raising this? On the Sunday of the recent Stone Slalom (June 6th) the Div 4 C1 class contained 3 Div 2 KIM and 2 Div 3 KIM. The winner, a Div 2 KIM, was promoted on the 1/5 Rule. However had the Rule that was in force 1985 - 2009 still been in force, 2 of the Div 2 KIM who beat the K1M promotion score would have been promoted (although in fact the Sunday winner would have been promoted on the Saturday...).
From 1999 to 2009 Rule 5.5.1 (Promotion Canadian Men’s Singles) finished with the provision ‘(Promotion for Canadian Men Singles is achieved....) - in the case of Division 4, where a competitor’s score would have gained promotion in the corresponding Men’s event, including ties as in 4.1’. The same provision applied to Women’s Kayak (Rule 4.2).
There has not been a change for C1W and C2: in Canadian Women’s Singles (2009-10) (Rule 5.2) they have to finish ‘within 120% of the last promoted Division 4 Men’s Kayak score’. In Canadian Doubles (Rule 5.3) they have to finish ‘within 120% of the last promoted Division 4 Men’s Kayak score’ to get automatically promoted (2007 - 10); (2006) ‘within 125% of the winning Division 4 Men’s Kayak score; (1999 - 2005) where a competitor’s score would have gained promotion in the corresponding Men’s event, including ties as in 4.1’
For Canadians 1985 - 1998 (Ladies 1989 - 1998) the same rules existed for those three classes; but of course they referred to promotion from Division 5; and applied to all promotions that were possible at events.
This was entirely separate from the rather easier Inquoracy rule (Canadian Men’s Singles Rule 5.5; Women’s Kayak Rule 4.5; there does not seem to have been a separate Inquoracy Rule for Canadian Women’s Singles or Canadian Doubles).
However in the 2010 Handbook:
• Promotion has become easier at quorate events for C1W and C2 (120% of the last promoted KIM)
• There is no longer a provision for Men’s C1 and Ladies’ K1 to get promoted at quorate events, even if they beat the KIM promotion score.
There was no motion at the ACM to remove the parts of Rules 4.2, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3. The attempt to remove in-season promotion to Div 1 would specifically have left those parts of the Rules untouched. I assume, therefore, that this was a typo?
Had this come up at the ACM, I would have strongly supported the status quo on the grounds (a) of encouraging C1 paddlers (b) that the make-up of that C1M4 class was by no means untypical.
Why am I raising this? On the Sunday of the recent Stone Slalom (June 6th) the Div 4 C1 class contained 3 Div 2 KIM and 2 Div 3 KIM. The winner, a Div 2 KIM, was promoted on the 1/5 Rule. However had the Rule that was in force 1985 - 2009 still been in force, 2 of the Div 2 KIM who beat the K1M promotion score would have been promoted (although in fact the Sunday winner would have been promoted on the Saturday...).
From 1999 to 2009 Rule 5.5.1 (Promotion Canadian Men’s Singles) finished with the provision ‘(Promotion for Canadian Men Singles is achieved....) - in the case of Division 4, where a competitor’s score would have gained promotion in the corresponding Men’s event, including ties as in 4.1’. The same provision applied to Women’s Kayak (Rule 4.2).
There has not been a change for C1W and C2: in Canadian Women’s Singles (2009-10) (Rule 5.2) they have to finish ‘within 120% of the last promoted Division 4 Men’s Kayak score’. In Canadian Doubles (Rule 5.3) they have to finish ‘within 120% of the last promoted Division 4 Men’s Kayak score’ to get automatically promoted (2007 - 10); (2006) ‘within 125% of the winning Division 4 Men’s Kayak score; (1999 - 2005) where a competitor’s score would have gained promotion in the corresponding Men’s event, including ties as in 4.1’
For Canadians 1985 - 1998 (Ladies 1989 - 1998) the same rules existed for those three classes; but of course they referred to promotion from Division 5; and applied to all promotions that were possible at events.
This was entirely separate from the rather easier Inquoracy rule (Canadian Men’s Singles Rule 5.5; Women’s Kayak Rule 4.5; there does not seem to have been a separate Inquoracy Rule for Canadian Women’s Singles or Canadian Doubles).
However in the 2010 Handbook:
• Promotion has become easier at quorate events for C1W and C2 (120% of the last promoted KIM)
• There is no longer a provision for Men’s C1 and Ladies’ K1 to get promoted at quorate events, even if they beat the KIM promotion score.
There was no motion at the ACM to remove the parts of Rules 4.2, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3. The attempt to remove in-season promotion to Div 1 would specifically have left those parts of the Rules untouched. I assume, therefore, that this was a typo?
Had this come up at the ACM, I would have strongly supported the status quo on the grounds (a) of encouraging C1 paddlers (b) that the make-up of that C1M4 class was by no means untypical.