Billaut World Champion
-
- Posts: 119
- Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 5:26 pm
- Contact:
If this is correct then I am not sure how this works.
I was under the impression that the judges decision was final and once the results were posted, that was it.
I think we all agree that the video evidence showed that Campbell was robbed of a gold medal due to some dodgy judging decisions.
I know Anne said that the debate went on for quite some time before the results were confirmed, but they were confirmed and the guy was crowned world champion.
Now the ICF appear to have changed their minds and called it a draw, which means that both paddlers run times must have been identical in time and penalties. What was used as evidence for this decision, I can only assume that they must have used video evidence as the basis for this decision.
It appears to make a mockery of the sport. Does this now make a case for the BCU Slalom exec to appeal as well and get Campbell a gold medal.
I think one word sums it up FARCE.
So where does this leave us now. A paddler gets a fifty given to him, the judge is adamant he got the fifty and has written something down. His parent/coach/friend or someone has a video clearly showing that he did not get a fifty and the video has a time and date on it which corresponds with the run in question. Are we going to allow the video to be considered before the final decision is made.
The ICF appear to have shown us the way forward.
Maybe this is something which could be debated through the year and voted on at the AGM.
I was under the impression that the judges decision was final and once the results were posted, that was it.
I think we all agree that the video evidence showed that Campbell was robbed of a gold medal due to some dodgy judging decisions.
I know Anne said that the debate went on for quite some time before the results were confirmed, but they were confirmed and the guy was crowned world champion.
Now the ICF appear to have changed their minds and called it a draw, which means that both paddlers run times must have been identical in time and penalties. What was used as evidence for this decision, I can only assume that they must have used video evidence as the basis for this decision.
It appears to make a mockery of the sport. Does this now make a case for the BCU Slalom exec to appeal as well and get Campbell a gold medal.
I think one word sums it up FARCE.
So where does this leave us now. A paddler gets a fifty given to him, the judge is adamant he got the fifty and has written something down. His parent/coach/friend or someone has a video clearly showing that he did not get a fifty and the video has a time and date on it which corresponds with the run in question. Are we going to allow the video to be considered before the final decision is made.
The ICF appear to have shown us the way forward.
Maybe this is something which could be debated through the year and voted on at the AGM.
-
- Posts: 119
- Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 5:26 pm
- Contact:
At the moment video evidence is not admissable in UK slalom, whilst the ICF obviously allow it.
With the amount of video's on the bank these days and the quality available, is there not a case for video being allowed, especially at the higher divisions.
What do other people think, maybe it would be a good discussion point for the slalom conference in Febuary.
With the amount of video's on the bank these days and the quality available, is there not a case for video being allowed, especially at the higher divisions.
What do other people think, maybe it would be a good discussion point for the slalom conference in Febuary.
-
- Posts: 178
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 11:02 pm
I don't think the ICF have particularly taken into account the video evidence. I think the ICF may have waivered under extreme legal pressure from the French Federation and it may be a decision they come to regret in the future expecially in the light of the disputed water touch where they clearly haven't taken into account video evidence. I think in the context, "Farce" would be the most appropriate word that you can use in front of the children. The whole thing puts our sport in a bad light. Television isn't going to be very interested in a sport where we have to wait 6 months to find out who the winner is.
If video evidence were to be allowed by the ICF it is very likely it would have to be independantly filmed and watched by a video judge (like rugby etc). So, four cameramen and a video judge all the time. (Therefore, at least an extra ten people)
Taking this to domestic events in the UK. I don't see Jonny's dad waving a camera at the Jury Official as independant. So, where is the independant filming going to come from? Well, it isn't, is it? We struggle enough to get enough officials to time the race never mind run about filming it all.
If video evidence were to be allowed by the ICF it is very likely it would have to be independantly filmed and watched by a video judge (like rugby etc). So, four cameramen and a video judge all the time. (Therefore, at least an extra ten people)
Taking this to domestic events in the UK. I don't see Jonny's dad waving a camera at the Jury Official as independant. So, where is the independant filming going to come from? Well, it isn't, is it? We struggle enough to get enough officials to time the race never mind run about filming it all.
-
- Posts: 30
- Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2005 1:42 pm
- Location: Egham
This is a load of crock if you ask me..... Anyone know if the french have an equivilent to April Fools day?
The two times were seperated by 2.47 secs, so there was no way you could call it a dead heat even if you did add on a penalty for a touch.
oh and there is nothing on the ICF web site to either confirm or deny the story. Anyone seen any press releases etc about it?
The two times were seperated by 2.47 secs, so there was no way you could call it a dead heat even if you did add on a penalty for a touch.
oh and there is nothing on the ICF web site to either confirm or deny the story. Anyone seen any press releases etc about it?
Yester Years Kayak wrote:Anyone seen any press releases etc about it?
There are some french press releases about...
http://www.sport.fr/autres....11.shtm
which basically says the french 'protested' for the 50 at the time but the italians counter protested it, and it just vaguely says that the iCF changed their minds on their decision after the FFCK kicked up a fuss about it!
it also says that the FFCK have kicked up a fuss about the fact that 5 members of the competition commitee (?) were also members of the directors commitee, and so the decision could not be impartial.
hmm.
ive no idea how the iCF came to this decision. He either got the 50 or he didnt. ie hes either 10th (or wherever that would of put him) or hes hes 1st. ???
-
- Posts: 119
- Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 5:26 pm
- Contact:
Dave
I agree that there should be no increased burden on the organisers part.
I also agree that a parent or a coach waving a camera in front of a Jury is not the way to review the evidence.
But if a paddler gets given a 50 for missing a gate and the judge has written it down so there is no room for doubt based on the judges evidence. Would you not be annoyed if there was video of the paddler clearly negotiating the gate correctly and you were told sorry its not admissable.
All I am saying is that I think its worth considering and asking for other peoples opinion.
I agree that there should be no increased burden on the organisers part.
I also agree that a parent or a coach waving a camera in front of a Jury is not the way to review the evidence.
But if a paddler gets given a 50 for missing a gate and the judge has written it down so there is no room for doubt based on the judges evidence. Would you not be annoyed if there was video of the paddler clearly negotiating the gate correctly and you were told sorry its not admissable.
All I am saying is that I think its worth considering and asking for other peoples opinion.
<!--Flash 200+200+http://video.google.com/googleplayer.sw ... --><OBJECT CLASSID="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" WIDTH=200 HEIGHT=200><PARAM NAME=MOVIE VALUE=http://video.google.com/googleplayer.sw ... -GB><PARAM NAME=PLAY VALUE=TRUE><PARAM NAME=LOOP VALUE=TRUE><PARAM NAME=QUALITY VALUE=HIGH><EMBED SRC=http://video.google.com/googleplayer.sw ... 9&hl=en-GB WIDTH=200 HEIGHT=200 PLAY=TRUE LOOP=TRUE QUALITY=HIGH></EMBED></OBJECT><!--End Flash-->
<!--Flash 200+200+http://video.google.com/googleplayer.sw ... --><OBJECT CLASSID="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" WIDTH=200 HEIGHT=200><PARAM NAME=MOVIE VALUE=http://video.google.com/googleplayer.sw ... -GB><PARAM NAME=PLAY VALUE=TRUE><PARAM NAME=LOOP VALUE=TRUE><PARAM NAME=QUALITY VALUE=HIGH><EMBED SRC=http://video.google.com/googleplayer.sw ... 0&hl=en-GB WIDTH=200 HEIGHT=200 PLAY=TRUE LOOP=TRUE QUALITY=HIGH></EMBED></OBJECT><!--End Flash-->
<!--Flash 200+200+http://video.google.com/googleplayer.sw ... --><OBJECT CLASSID="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" WIDTH=200 HEIGHT=200><PARAM NAME=MOVIE VALUE=http://video.google.com/googleplayer.sw ... -GB><PARAM NAME=PLAY VALUE=TRUE><PARAM NAME=LOOP VALUE=TRUE><PARAM NAME=QUALITY VALUE=HIGH><EMBED SRC=http://video.google.com/googleplayer.sw ... 0&hl=en-GB WIDTH=200 HEIGHT=200 PLAY=TRUE LOOP=TRUE QUALITY=HIGH></EMBED></OBJECT><!--End Flash-->
Dutch Geezer wrote:But if a paddler gets given a 50 for missing a gate and the judge has written it down so there is no room for doubt based on the judges evidence. Would you not be annoyed if there was video of the paddler clearly negotiating the gate correctly and you were told sorry its not admissable.
Yes as this has happened to us, I had a video clearly showing that a gate was negotiated clean but the judge had given a 50, there were also some 15 other paddlers saying it was clean as well but the jury would not listen. Cost us an extra trip to Wales when it was not needed for promotion.
Video evidence should be admissable I have been saying it for years, I know it is difficult to have independant people filming, but surely if the date/time mark is on the video does it matter what the source is as long as it can prove the point? I am sure we don't all have editing suites in our pocket during a race?
Paddle fast,,,Paddle safe Yorkshire Canoe Coaching
'de toute façon le champion du monde c'est Campbell Walsh, entre autres
félicitations à julien aussi'
'D'accord avec Pakoo, le vrai Gentleman de cette triste histoire :
Campbell Walsh '
'Bon, sinon, ben bravo a Julien, je suis content pour lui. Et quand même bravo à Cipressi, il a bien joué le coup, et puis, comme ça a été dit, bravo à Walsh, parce que bon, c'est vrai que l'attitude anglaise n'a pas manqué de classe.'
Basically acknowlegding that campbell is the rightful winner, that hes the real gentleman in this story and that the attitude of the english hasn't be short of class.
....amongst other things said on the general matter @ eauxvives of course.
félicitations à julien aussi'
'D'accord avec Pakoo, le vrai Gentleman de cette triste histoire :
Campbell Walsh '
'Bon, sinon, ben bravo a Julien, je suis content pour lui. Et quand même bravo à Cipressi, il a bien joué le coup, et puis, comme ça a été dit, bravo à Walsh, parce que bon, c'est vrai que l'attitude anglaise n'a pas manqué de classe.'
Basically acknowlegding that campbell is the rightful winner, that hes the real gentleman in this story and that the attitude of the english hasn't be short of class.
....amongst other things said on the general matter @ eauxvives of course.
-
- Posts: 1480
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 8:31 am
- Location: Peterborough
- Contact:
My concerns over video evidence are:
- Fairness - not all paddlers are video'd, so admitting evidence will give more of an advantage to those lucky enough to be coached and have people on the bank to provide such services.
- OK it should be easy to tell if a paddler missed a gate completly, but how about the 'half head decisions' Judging posts are set up to try to ensure that there is a gate or section judge in teh right place for this decision, the camera angle will be different.
- How far do we go? The video clearly shows water hitting the left (nearer ) pole, but the judge saw a small touch with the right hand paddel blade, masked from the camera by the body. Result upset paddler but the penalty stands. But if the video does not show the touch (on a 3 inch screen), but the judge saw a small touch (full size), what do we do?
I MUST declare my interests. I have been known to drift down courses, have not been (knowingly) videoed this century - unless someone was doing a bloopers reel, and have been known to section judge and be on the jury.
If we could get eveyrone videoed to the same standard, I woudl be happy to use video as PART of the Jury investigation, but it must be secondary to what the judge actually saw.
(ps, bet teh section judge at the worlds will not be running an international section again, wonder where his position was that he was so unsighted?, BUT judges tend to be river left at Prague, and the camera was river right.)
- Fairness - not all paddlers are video'd, so admitting evidence will give more of an advantage to those lucky enough to be coached and have people on the bank to provide such services.
- OK it should be easy to tell if a paddler missed a gate completly, but how about the 'half head decisions' Judging posts are set up to try to ensure that there is a gate or section judge in teh right place for this decision, the camera angle will be different.
- How far do we go? The video clearly shows water hitting the left (nearer ) pole, but the judge saw a small touch with the right hand paddel blade, masked from the camera by the body. Result upset paddler but the penalty stands. But if the video does not show the touch (on a 3 inch screen), but the judge saw a small touch (full size), what do we do?
I MUST declare my interests. I have been known to drift down courses, have not been (knowingly) videoed this century - unless someone was doing a bloopers reel, and have been known to section judge and be on the jury.
If we could get eveyrone videoed to the same standard, I woudl be happy to use video as PART of the Jury investigation, but it must be secondary to what the judge actually saw.
(ps, bet teh section judge at the worlds will not be running an international section again, wonder where his position was that he was so unsighted?, BUT judges tend to be river left at Prague, and the camera was river right.)
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
Old. Fat. Slow. Bad tempered. And those are my good points
-
- Posts: 178
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 11:02 pm