Div 4 eligibility and harmonisation of rules

slink · Post by **slink** » Wed Sep 21, 2011 1:00 pm

The organiser should maybe have carte blanche to decide if they are racing in an inappropriate division and up them to the next division

But when would you do it, between runs? Based on the results on Saturday, we would have promoted our div 4 winner to div 2, but who knows how he'll paddle a slalom on moving water? We had a similar situation at the Strathallan event in May, a coach won div 4, and would have been 5th in div 3. But he too had never paddled slalom before, so there wasn't any indication that he would be any good in a pointy boat around the poles. It's difficult to say how best to do it, but if the're that good, they'll be promoted in one race and let the "real div 4's" fight it out again.

On the flip side, my daughter and 2 other CR Cats paddlers were div 2 K1, raced div 4 C1 and got promoted. At the next event, they raced div 3 C1 and got 1000 points both days. Last weekend, they entered div 3 C1, and got 1000 points, so they're now div 2 C1. The book says for C1 you need to be "higher than division 2" in any category before you must enter div 3...by those results, they should have entered div 2 C1 whilst they were in div 2 kayak! Again, three events, and they're out of the way of the "real div 3" paddlers...except there weren't any, as they were the only entries!

It's never going to be perfect, and it never has...when I raced in the 90's we were promoted on position in every event, none of this points stuff, so it meant that the high fliers could rocket up the divisions until they found their true level. Is this fairer...not sure, as it also meant some paddlers could choose their events carefully knowing they would stand a better chance on flat/big/fast/weir water, and perhaps artificially gain promotion that way.

But is it actually too easy to get promoted in the lower divisions? I certainly wouldn't want to have put any of them down Lee Valley in a C1, and yet they're now div 2...

Canadian Paddler · Post by **Canadian Paddler** » Wed Sep 21, 2011 1:02 pm

Quote
I always go 'by the book', if they say they have paddled div 4 before, and they are in the div 4 listings at the back of the yearbook, then they can paddle div 4, if not, the rules about current ranking apply.

But isn't that the point...where does it say that in the book, and what if they didn't race last season?

page 187 C2 Division 4 Competitors
I tried to say if they are not there, then they are not ranked, so go by the rules for a new crew.

Trying to be pragmatic, when I find that there is someone at Div 4 who wins by a large margin I try to find them before the results are finalised (usually after 1st rus) congratulate them, tell them they have done nothing wrong, show them the 'can apply' rule and OFFER (not force) them the chance to move their entry to the officials event (both days), giving them
- evidence that they are too good for div 4
- their entry money back (that hurts as anyone who knows me wil attest)
- allowing an, often junior, paddler prizes.
Oh and, of course, as it is Peterborough, they get a cake prize for sportsman like behaviour, or the best unranked official, or whatever excuse I can come up with.

The organiser does not have the right, or power to offer them ranking, been told off for that before

Rule B2.2 says in the middle (my bold caps)

Any NEW C2 pairings

So it is explicit that existing pairings stay where they are, and I use the competitor list to decide if you are new or not.

carealto · Post by **carealto** » Wed Sep 21, 2011 1:06 pm

Neil - This applied at a div 3/4 event I was at earlier this year - a div 4 entrant on Saturday was really fast and was promoted to div 3. On Sunday he was fastest div 3. He was also a member of the organising club, who knew he would be very fast.

But how would you charge such an entrant? Do you exclude them from entry at a div 4 only event? Or would you just promote them, but proceed with further promotions without including them if they have beaten the next placed competitor by more than x% or similar (this probably wouldn't work in a small class, where you could have 4 competitors who had barely been in a boat before and one who easilly beats them, but is not ready for div 3).

A rule might be workable for div 3/4 events I suppose - if a div 4 time would be in the top 2/3s of the div 3 times they are promoted without effecting other div 4 promotions, say. Presumably you would exclude them from div 4 prizes too?

slink · Post by **slink** » Wed Sep 21, 2011 1:10 pm

Fair point on the NEW pairings, and I like the idea about speaking to the paddler about entering an officials run instead.

The C2 still only works if they have paddled in the previous season though...how would I know if someone who is in div 1 K1 now had paddled div 4 C2 earlier this year whilst I am in the middle of a muddy field on event day with no internet access, so being unable to check the previous results? And it still poses a problem for paddlers who entered div 4 in 2009...or 1994!

carealto · Post by **carealto** » Wed Sep 21, 2011 1:11 pm

Canadian Paddler's approach sounds great - if it were universally offered and accepted where appropriate.

slink · Post by **slink** » Wed Sep 21, 2011 1:14 pm

Thinking about this, does it matter? If a C2 crew had entered div 4 before but have subsequently been promoted to div 2+ in another class, they have been gaining slalom experience. That puts them in the same situation as if they had just entered C2 for the very first time - and in fact they have an advantage as they have already paddled C2 together.

Therefore I would propose the word NEW is deleted for 2012!

<Find wall, duck behind it...>

Munchkin · Post by **Munchkin** » Wed Sep 21, 2011 1:46 pm

slink wrote:Thinking about this, does it matter? If a C2 crew had entered div 4 before but have subsequently been promoted to div 2+ in another class, they have been gaining slalom experience. That puts them in the same situation as if they had just entered C2 for the very first time - and in fact they have an advantage as they have already paddled C2 together.

Therefore I would propose the word NEW is deleted for 2012!

<Find wall, duck behind it...>

But if they are that good they will get promoted in any event...

"In fact they have an advantage as they have already paddled C2 together"

What an absurd thing to say... That's like say that a C2 crew who have done some training shouldn't race in Div 4 because that gives them an unfair advantage...

Perhaps as an organiser you should trust what the paddler is saying to you. If I say that I have paddled in Div 4 previously with a C2 partner then I expect the organiser to take my word for it. Its a very sad world when organisers are implying that they can't do that.

Neil H · Post by **Neil H** » Wed Sep 21, 2011 2:07 pm

carealto wrote:Neil - This applied at a div 3/4 event I was at earlier this year - a div 4 entrant on Saturday was really fast and was promoted to div 3. On Sunday he was fastest div 3. He was also a member of the organising club, who knew he would be very fast.

But how would you charge such an entrant? Do you exclude them from entry at a div 4 only event? Or would you just promote them, but proceed with further promotions without including them if they have beaten the next placed competitor by more than x% or similar (this probably wouldn't work in a small class, where you could have 4 competitors who had barely been in a boat before and one who easilly beats them, but is not ready for div 3).

A rule might be workable for div 3/4 events I suppose - if a div 4 time would be in the top 2/3s of the div 3 times they are promoted without effecting other div 4 promotions, say. Presumably you would exclude them from div 4 prizes too?

I simply don't know but think it is far from ideal at present. I have seen it happen one too many times. When paddlers have come in being polo paddlers or known to be cracking paddlers. I have seen Div 4's blasted out of the water and it is quickly obvious in the first few gates.

What do you do?

I've heard the argument before that they'll be promoted in one race but I think that whilst that is true it makes a bit of a mockery of it when the margin is so great in time. I'm racing Usain Bolt next week, he's in for a shock. Only because I'm wiring his starting blocks up to the mains - if that don't give him a start nothing will!
Gotta go now I'm gonna try on the lycra, I'm racing under the name Insane Dolt - look out for me.

I don't know the solution but just thought I'd throw it out there for a good old discussion.

slink · Post by **slink** » Wed Sep 21, 2011 2:27 pm

What an absurd thing to say... That's like say that a C2 crew who have done some training shouldn't race in Div 4 because that gives them an unfair advantage...

Ah the good old forum "let's take a quote completely out of context" game.
Let's try looking at the whole statement,

If a C2 crew had entered div 4 before but have subsequently been promoted to div 2+ in another class, they have been gaining slalom experience. That puts them in the same situation as if they had just entered C2 for the very first time - and in fact they have an advantage as they have already paddled C2 together.

In other words, they are in the same situation (divisionally and with experience in another class) as a crew who pitch up out the blue and have to enter div 2/3 having never paddled C2 together before, and I still stand by the fact that because the previous crew HAVE paddled before they are at an advantage, however small that may be, in both crew experience and race experience, so why should they be allowed to continue in div 4, when (in some people's opinion) a new crew is penalised by being made to enter div 2/3? I think I will get all my juniors to enter C2 as soon as they start paddling, then they can say as prem K1 (or C1!) paddlers "but we're already a div 4 crew"!

You already had a go at Anna Lou for putting words in your mouth, so saying that I am implying I do not trust paddlers is not strictly true - what I am saying is that there is not a way to check, as the yearbook only contains 1 years worth of div 4 entrants, so how long do we continue to allow a crew to paddle div 4? From my example above, I put a bunch of juniors in div 4 C2 at their very first slalom. 3 years later they will be at least div 1 if not prem, in K1 and possibly C1 too (check the ranking lists to see this is true!). Should I still let them race div 4 C2? It's not whether I believe them or not, it's more about the level playing field that the rule is there to try to create without crews finding ways around it...

The more I think about this, then more it seems that the rule should apply to all, as it does in C1, regardless of whether they are an existing crew or not...

Munchkin · Post by **Munchkin** » Wed Sep 21, 2011 2:34 pm

slink wrote:how do you as organiser know they're not just trying it on?

Sorry, but that does imply to me that you cannot take their word for it i.e. you don't trust them.

John Sturgess · Post by **John Sturgess** » Wed Sep 21, 2011 2:51 pm

(Rant coming)

You my read this twice: it answers threads both on Div 4 eligibility and on the burden on organisers.

People who do not go to lower-division slaloms do not notice these problems - and many who are there do not realise how much trouble and angst they cause both for organisers and for the paddlers involved. Organisers know, of course!

What we have done in the past is to try to solve them with little bits of sticking-plaster - additional little rules which make the whole thing even more complicated and opaque.

The problems arise from three sources, all to do with how the legislators see the sport. Firstly we assume that the aim of the ranking system is to make sure that we restrict the numbers promoted so that only the best/the most deserving go up. Secondly (and largely as a result of this) we assume that micro-fairness is terribly important even at the lowest level of the sport. And thirdly we assume that the only way to achieve these aims is through a rigid system of rules.

First answer: ‘Proper’ slalom takes place on rough water: say from Div 2 up. Clubs, coaches, parents - and paddlers - want to get paddlers there as soon as possible. The sport as a whole needs to adopt that as an aim - i.e. ‘put paddlers first’ - and as a measure of success - as with the SCA’s Performance Plan: ‘A key performance indicator of our success will be the number of clubs competing in Sprint and Slalom and the number of new junior athletes they have ranked in top divisions each year.’ Looked at that way, much of what we legislate for would become unnecessary.

Second answer: Notice that minor decisions on points etc make very little difference to speed of progress: paddlers go up when they have done enough races in a season; and when they go up it is usually by quite a large points margin (or score in Div 4). (Stats available if you contact me). And within that they go up when they are paddling fast enough (especially from Div 4): penalties have little effect.

Third answer: Decisions on what Division paddlers should start in are best dealt with at the event on the bank: I have as a Jury Chairman relatively often (and totally illegally) spoken to a paddler who leads Div 4 by 30 secs after first runs, and suggested that he/she competes in Div 3 and sorts out the ranking status afterwards. Nobody has ever refused.

Although I have done a lot of research for the Strategy Review (and proposed one of the ACM motions to set it up) I have not even been able to find out who is on it, so who will be making the decision on what goes to the ACM this year is a mystery to me.

However whatever the Strategy Panel decides there will be a motion proposed at the ACM to enact the Third Answer, as a pilot for 2012 so that it can be fully implemented in 2013, as part of a motion to make results published on the day official when signed off by the Chairman of Jury, and therefore web-rankings also official. At which stage most of the returns become redundant, slink.

The first two answers might take a little longer: they are about attitudes and beliefs rather than machinery.

anna-lou · Post by **anna-lou** » Wed Sep 21, 2011 2:54 pm

Dont know how to put in a quote thingy!!

Munchkin you posted on page 1- you are not propsing changes as the rules make sense to you- even though not written clearly.

So though probably not worded well what i was getting at is people such as you, me and others who are experienced in slalom/ disciplines and are ranked in the higher divisions are not generally the people that these rules are confusing and therefore need clarifying for.

Im not suggesting that the rules are either wrong or right just simply that maybe it is a good idea to have them in simple/understandable terms/language so that those trying to use them when entering can easily enter correctly avoiding confusion at events and mistakes with people in the wrong divisions.

Hopefully that makes more sense, wasnt intended to speak for you but to imply that with your knowledge/experience you can understand the rules but it maybe worth making them easier to understand for those who dont.

Munchkin · Post by **Munchkin** » Wed Sep 21, 2011 3:11 pm

Munchkin wrote:
carealto wrote:Munchkin, just to confirm, is your reply the new proposal, as the current rules say "new C2 pairings containing a
Competitor currently, or previously ranked in any category
in Division 2 or above, must compete in Division 2/3" i.e. Div 3+Div 3 can be div 4 but P-2+Div 3 must be div 2/3

Nope, trying to post too quickly. See modified post.

I am not proposing changes as the rules make sense to me (even if they are not written clearly!).

A-L That was in direct response to the query above my post asking if I was proposing a rule change (because there was an error in my original post). I stated that I was not proposing a rule change (a direct answer) because the rules made sense to me (a reason why I was not proposing a rule change).

That is VERY different to stating that "the rules are fine as they are and understood".

As for quoting, when you look at a post there is a "quote" button next to it on the right hand side. Press the button and the whole post is quoted. You can go into a text box and amend it to quote the bit that you want. I have not worked out the multiple quoting bit though!!!

Dee · Post by **Dee** » Wed Sep 21, 2011 3:50 pm

Notice that minor decisions on points etc make very little difference to speed of progress

Quite agree with this John, but they can have a big impact on morale. Several years back, I can remember one youngster (can't remember who - not mine!) being upset because he missed promotion from div 3 by a couple of points and felt that the "rogue" paddler, who was quite clearly way above div 3 standard, had robbed him. The rogue paddler may well have been well within the rules and, of course, life is unfair, but I did feel sorry for the youngster.

I also think there used to be (and may still be) an issue, at certain events, of paddlers previously promoted to div 3 recompeting at div 4 at the same event the following year. Said paddlers and the organisers are quite probably unaware that anyone is doing anything wrong (as paddlers hadnt sent in promotion certificates and not paddled slalom in the meantime they consider themselves unranked). It is demoralising for youngster chasing promotion from div 4 to 3, but difficult to police effectively.

John Sturgess · Post by **John Sturgess** » Wed Sep 21, 2011 4:10 pm

Dee

You are right about both issues: and both issues will be covered by the resolution that will be proposed (i.e. duties of the Jury Chair)