Page 1 of 1
Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2011 9:04 pm
by boatmum
I wonder if someone can tell me please the rules for promotion to div 3 from div 4
We had a paddler win an event in div 4 k 1 women but promotion was not given as the class was inquiorate - only 4 women and assumed becaue promotion is 1 in 5 this was correct.
Looking at orton div 3 / 4 event ( sorry guys) women's k 1 3 paddled winner was promoted ?
Hope Orton is right but clarification gratefully received 
Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2011 10:29 pm
by Slapdash Sal
Yes I have queried this too, as at Div1 Tully it was 5 paddlers to make it quorate in the K1 women. Is it different for Div 4?
Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2011 10:57 pm
by GreenPeter
Could be down to one of 3 reasons;
1 Senility on my part.
2 We are alot kinder in the south, probably something to do with only drinking half pints of shandy!
3 Or we have misinterpreted rule UKC5.1 page 68 in the year book. Last bit says "3 Competitors or 3 Teams in Division 4 start in that category"
Have we got this right?
Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2011 11:06 pm
by boatmum
Ah ha! Quite right that man, for div 4 its three but - then my question is - for promotion from Div 4 to Div 3 it says (p56 of handbook B4.1) 1 in 5 competitors (or part thereof if quorate)
So ....?? does the part therefore mean if you have 3 competitors - ie its quorate - you can have 1 promotee?
Me thinks we should use 21st Century English
Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2011 8:00 am
by Ken Trollope
Explanation coming up.
Quorate
Division 4 - 3 competitors or more. Other divisions - 5 competitors or more.
Promotion in Div 4 K1M, K1W, C1M
1 in 5 (or part thereof if quorate)
i.e. 3 to 5 paddlers 1 promoted, 6 to 10 paddlers 2 promoted, 11 to 20 paddlers 3 promoted.
Plus for K1W and C1M
If any competitors score is equal or better than the last placed promoted K1M they are promoted.
The above applies for inquorate K1W and C1M.
C1W and C2, quorate or inquorate, are worked out on a modified score compared to the last place promoted K1M.
Advert Simply Slalom will do all the calculations for promotion and points for you, including all the modified total lookups, in a fraction of a second.
Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2011 9:08 am
by Neil H
Is it because the meaning of quorate is not clear?
Is the definition of quorate included in the year book, or could it be expanded/clarified as per your description in future editions Ken?
Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2011 9:45 am
by Ken Trollope
Rule UKC5.1 page 68 defines quorate numbers.
Rule UKC5.2 will be amended at the ACM to read ...3 or 5
Points and promotions are calculated on the number of starters not the number of finishers.
Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2011 10:45 am
by boatmum
Many thanks Ken
As ever the voice of knowledge and calm sanity
Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2011 10:49 am
by Neil H
boatmum wrote:As ever the voice of knowledge and calm sanity
second that
Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2011 2:20 pm
by mwilk
Come on then, tell us - will she now be promoted or not - the suspense is killing me !
Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:39 pm
by boatmum
OH yes she will 
Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2011 9:11 pm
by CeeBee
Promoted. Results being amended to reflect this.
Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2011 11:14 pm
by John Sturgess
CeeBee/Boatmum
At the risk of being accused of interference - presuming that you are talking about Emma Murray on the Sunday at Alva - Duncan Edwards should have been promoted in C1 on the Saturday - divide his score by 1.08 and he beats the last KIM promoted (Rule B 5.5 p.58)
Posted: Sat Jun 18, 2011 3:35 pm
by Ken Trollope
John
The 1.08 divider does not apply to Div 4 C1M nor does the 1.12 apply for Div 4 K1W.
Its on the ACM list.
Posted: Sat Jun 18, 2011 8:56 pm
by John Sturgess
I crawl away in unmitigated shame: not only interfering, but also wrong.
However in my defence I would argue that the change in the Div 4 C1M inquoracy rule was neither debated by nor passed by the ACM: so I suppose I did not notice it!
The problem seems to arise from the section in the ACM Minutes Motion 5.2 headed:
This amendment was debated, and duly adopted nem con. The first part of the motion (ranking on 1,000 points) was duly passed nem con. Amend Section B.4 and B.5 (page 57 ff) as follows:
There was nothing in the Motion about removing the inquoracy provisions from Men’s Div 4 C1, nor do I remember it being debated: the motion was about ranking all classes on 1000 points, which clearly does not involve Div 4 C1M or any other class. But that is what was done in the amendments to B.4 and B.5 mentioned above: the last 2 lines of the 2010 Rule 5.1 were changed.
So we seem to have ended up with a situation where Ladies KI (all Divisions), Ladies’ C1 (all divisions), C2 (all divisions), and C1M (Divisions 3 upwards) are all assumed to be c. 20% slower than KIM, whether or not the class is quorate; but Div 4 C1M have to actually beat the last promoted KIM to get promoted if the class is inquorate.
Also, the arrangement of the Rule in the Handbook is in itself ambiguous. Is ‘Calculating points - Canadian Men Singles (except Div. 4)’ the heading for Rule B5.4 only, or is it the heading for Rules B5.4 and B5.5. If the latter, then the B 5.4 should be moved down 2 lines to sit opposite ‘points will be calculated’.
Colin?
Incidentally the ‘ACM List’ does not seem to be on the web-page any more