Race Entry

[harratts]

I fully concur with Dave Bradshaw and his ranking adjustment suggestions as this was the essence of my post "Is Div.1 K1 too big" back in February which drew many comments at that time.

People want to race so we should try to remove any barriers to them doing so but many Div.2 paddlers need and want to compete on more challenging water / venues.

A more important situation to resolve than the introduction of an alternative approach to gaining ranking points in my opinion.

Steve

[CeeBee]

It is financially more sensible for a club tun run a Div 1 event as the entry fees are higher than a Div 2 event. If you are hiring water, this is a big factor. Also, at a Div 1 and prem, you get help from the timing team and section judges provided for your event.

Have we asked clubs why they don't organise Div 2 events and what would encourage them to do so? Do we need to modify the entry fees to encourage more clubs to run Division 2 events? At the moment, we have junior and senior entry fees with the vast majority of paddlers being juniors. I think we could abolish the senior entry fees and have standard pricing for each Division.

We also need more clubs to volunteer to run events.

[Zog]

This year has been the first time we've had problems, probably as it's the first year I have a daughter in Div 1. We weren't aware that you needed to apply for Div 1 races with such advance notice, there is no obvious advice that tells a parent who isn't regularly visiting the sites that the done thing is to apply for all races then pull out last minute.

We waited for the school exam dates to be announced then worked out when we were free and sent in our entries for the first half of the year. To our surprise, and I mean suprise, we've not been accepted into any races. This means, my daughter can only race in four Div 1 races this year due to the times and locations of the races. 2016 she is unlikely to be able to compete at all due to going away in the Spring.

I have a few ideas that may be worth considering, or at least throwing into the pot:

I think a single race should be set up to cater for most if not all paddlers in that division if they choose to enter. Either the races take too smaller a field, or the field is too large. I suspect the field is too large as these races take the best part of the day as it is.

Dave has already suggested shrinking the size of Div 1, which as he says would increase the size of Div 2. The solution is to make enough divisions to cater for the number of paddlers, so why not extend to 6 divisions (or more)? Split Div 1 but then have Div 2 competing on the same types of water, you would then have your top prem paddles in one division, top div 1 paddlers in another (bringing prem/div 1 races into the mix), your lower div 1 paddlers go into div 2, then you can have div 1/2 as these are the same types of water, but also div 2/3 races. And so on - this therefore makes more races possible.

This is how other sports cater for growths in participation, so why not Canoe Slalom?

I a disagree with one persons point that there are too many Div 1 races, I believe there are too few Div 1 races for the number of competitors, especially for those where Canoe Slalom is not your single goal in life, or you find travelling to Scotland and Wales too much, or relying on parents being able to take you - I can't imagine how those in Scotland and Wales make so many competitions, I simply don't know how you can fit that around other kids, work etc.

For registrations and refunds/incorrect amounts - simple, introduce an online system. Some races have it already, why not extend it to all races? Would probably cost Canoe Slalom a few thousand pounds at the most and dramatically reduce the administration for races. I think it's simply ridiculous that the system is done so manually at the moment, understandable for the entry division, but not for the higher divisions.

Hopefully we will get on the water this year, but I'm not feeling optimistic at the moment.

Thanks for reading.

[stevepearson]

It would be interesting to know how many people applied for & didnt get into a Div1 race this year; as either Div1 or paddle up. If added to those who raced it would at least give a fair idea of how many paddlers wanted to race. Obviously it's not that simple as a lot of C1 paddlers also paddle K1 & some people may have left it too late & not entered as they saw a race was full. But there could be an understanding of what needs to be catered for then a number of solutions could be discussed??

Clearly there needs to be a way of those in Div1 getting to paddle regularly - they have earnt it after all!

[Sven]

I think Steve's suggestion is a good one - put some hard data into the mix so what is actually happening on the ground is clear.

Also this debate needs to be kept calm and focussed. If you have never been involved in either organising or volunteering at an event I think it is hard to comprehend just how much time and effort volunteers put into it. So while I fully understand the frustration that the current situation is presenting to some paddlers, saying systems being used are "ridiculous' is perhaps not the way to go to encourage sensible debate:D

There is no national on line system and for many clubs (even those who host higher ranking events) the costs of such things is likely to be prohibitive. Yes, entry fees could be raised again but I suspect there would be an outcry - so rocks and hard places come to mind.

I would suggest that a way forward would be - get the hard data, then look at the whole system from fresh - rather than working out bolt ons to the existing system.

One contributor talks about not wanting to make canoe slalom their life goal and I fully understand that but there also has to be an understanding that for some this is what canoe slalom is about. Trying to find a "one size fits all" system in such a minority participation sport, where outside funding is very small when compared to other sports, is always going to be very difficult.

Having said that I do think that the governing body should be lending more help to competitive events.

[davebrads]

I think Steve's suggestion is a good one - put some hard data into the mix so what is actually happening on the ground is clear.

It is going to be impossible to get this. I can tell you how many entries I have received that I wasn't able to accept, but I know of a few that haven't sent entries because they knew they were too late, and there will be a significant number that I don't know about.

Having said that I do think that the governing body should be lending more help to competitive events.

(Suppressing cynical laughter) The BCU has never helped, they only get involved in flagship events. I could go on but it would be difficult without being defamatory.

[Sven]

Ok would it be possible then for the British Canoeing Slalom Committee to send out a monkey survey to paddlers asking:

a which events they entered and how much time before the event did they submit their entry
b which ones did they get get an immediate place
c which races didnt they bother entering because they knew they were full
d which races were they put on a waiting list but didn't get to race
e which races were they put on a waiting list but did get to race

Monkey survey is FOC and can also collate the results.

that should give a better picture. You wont get a 100% participation but if the covering e-mail is worded correctly (and nicely!) explaining why the survey is being carried out then I would be prepared to bet you'd get decent participation.

I still think that hard facts are needed if this issue is going to be satisfactorily resolved.

BCU - supporting competitive events ? - I know exactly what you're saying, but wanted to keep neutral

[Canadian Paddler]

Ok would it be possible then for the British Canoeing Slalom Committee to send out a monkey survey to paddlers asking:....

Remember 'The Committee' are volunteers not paid, and already devote a fair number of hours /days to trying to do the job.

So yes a monkey survey could be set up, feel free to do it. 'Sending out' is more of an issue, but publish it here and ask Nick to put it on the web site and see how many responses we get.

[advert] Feel free to stand to be on the committee, or just contact the chair and ask if there is anything you can do to help. [/advert]

Ok Waldorf and Statler moment over (look it up if you do not know who they are ). Sorry if I upset anyone. Carry on folks, all suggestions will be listened to and considered.

[Sven]

CP - I suggested the slalom committee as I was under the impression there was access to a paid admin person, precisely because the rest of the committee are volunteers and because, judging by the listings in the back of the year book, the slalom committee have access to who are the race entrants nationally.

If not possible by the committee directly then I would have thought the slalom committee would be the correct channel through which to ask British Canoeing to help with such an exercise ?

I am sure I am not alone in my perception that when any suggestion as to how to garner factual data on any issue within canoe slalom so the ACTUAL situation can be looked at rather than anecdotal evidence and heresay - it is met with we are volunteers also etc etc

It is accepted by the majority that volunteers do a lot of work, and also everyone is short of time so .. I would suggest those who are PAID to manage and administer the sport need to be contacted in a business like way to discuss how they can support/ carry out such an exercise thereby hopefully facilitating the sport going forward. I always get a sense that there is a reluctance to ask for this kind of help/support and I am never sure why.

I have and do help with slalom matters on a very regular basis as do many tens if not hundreds of others. Suggestions that others do not help because they happen to make a suggestion here that involves the committee, even by implication is frankly not on. There are many, many people who help with slalom in a variety of ways who are invisible to the national discipline committee, that does not diminish their contribution to the sport.

[Canadian Paddler]

Firtsly appologies to all, my Waldorf/Statler moment is in danger of derailing a positive discussion about a serious subject that is affecting our sport.
1) There are MANY people who put in loads of hours to keep slalom alive in this country
2) Many of these have skills that are not held in the small number of people who commit to being on the committee
3) Any decisions are much better when backed by facts not hearsay thanks for the suggestion.
4) The slalom administrator is paid to work part time, and may not have the correct skills to create surveys.

I am sorry if you get the impression

any suggestion as to how to garner factual data on any issue within canoe slalom so the ACTUAL situation can be looked at rather than anecdotal evidence and heresay - it is met with we are volunteers also etc etc

It happens to be true the committee is (like 99% of you) volunteers, and, as Duncan Berriman proved, non committee members can develop initaitives that are useful and of great value to the sport.
It is my impression that there are people who put a lot of time and effort into the sport, and a number who like to stand on the sidelines and say 'someone else should do something'. Probably paranioa and not pointing the finger at ANYONE.

I do not have time to create a survey, anyone out there with time to spare to be do this? As Sven says better to have facts rather than impressions.

[BaldockBabe]

I think we are in danger of forgetting that the system will change next year. I agree with many of the points raised (particularly the size of div 1 and the standard of div 2 water) but if the system is changing next year are we not in danger of ring to come up with solutions to a problem that may become a different problem?

[davebrads]

I assume you are referring to portable points? I am also assuming that priority will be given to racers from the host division as with paddle up (although that is not stated in the motion). If that is the case then it won't change anything as regards division 1, only spread the problem upwards to include prem and downwards to division 2 at least. Perhaps the introduction of portable points needs to be reconsidered at the same time as balancing the divisions.

[BaldockBabe]

Yes, that is what I was referring too. I have to admit that my thoughts on portable points are the same as yours and I am yet to be convinced that they won't worsen the problem. However, people voted it in last year so we have to accept that it will happen and thus look for a solution with that in mind...

[Sven]

Given the issues that have come to light recently - oversubscription to races etc etc is there any mechanism to allow a revisit to the portable points motion?

I too agree with Dave that this problem could get worse, so if possible it would be better to be proactive? I suspect those who voted for portable points might revise their thinking in the light of what's happening on the ground?

CP - I was think more along the lines of help from British/GB Canoeing - I would have thought they have lots of paid admin's who could help with a survey

[harratts]

I wonder what people would think about getting rid of Official Practice at Div.1 races and make them like Prem. races?

This would automatically create many more entry slots that are currently required.

By the time paddlers get to Div.1 perhaps they should be able to read the water and plan their first run from a course walk.

Steve