ICF Rule Changes - To be ratified at next ICF Congress
I am keen to see the wording for the negotiation of gates.
I can see certain scenarios where current rules could be by-passed to gain an advantage on a single pole gate. E.g. single pole upstream and then cutting back through the non existent gateline to exit the eddy from where you arrived rather than taking a trip out of the top of the eddy.
Also to avoid the pre-touch on a single pole gate the judges will have to be sat exactly on the gateline to prove that the paddler has passed through it (otherwise benefit of doubt) and this will mean having at least 20 judges (Div1 before a Prem event may attract enough judges).
I agree with you on the single pole gates that they seem pretty pointless (although I can see why people want to move to them).... why don't we just start for a season with gates set to the full 4m width instead (effective single pole gates) and see how the courses develop or any lessons that could be learnt...... or am I just being sensible now?
I can see certain scenarios where current rules could be by-passed to gain an advantage on a single pole gate. E.g. single pole upstream and then cutting back through the non existent gateline to exit the eddy from where you arrived rather than taking a trip out of the top of the eddy.
Also to avoid the pre-touch on a single pole gate the judges will have to be sat exactly on the gateline to prove that the paddler has passed through it (otherwise benefit of doubt) and this will mean having at least 20 judges (Div1 before a Prem event may attract enough judges).
I agree with you on the single pole gates that they seem pretty pointless (although I can see why people want to move to them).... why don't we just start for a season with gates set to the full 4m width instead (effective single pole gates) and see how the courses develop or any lessons that could be learnt...... or am I just being sensible now?
-
djberriman
- Posts: 806
- Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 8:19 pm
My suggestion for more runs was for big 'TV' events. There is also nothing to say they couldn't be run over a number of days just like other sports (like sailing) to make the sport more interesting at such events, get more coverage etc., not as a general rule for the rest of us.
Quaker - you are being far to sensible - sounds a good idea to me.
I guess single poles will be used sparingly so I would be very suprised to see more than one or two on a course - surely.
Thinking how a single pole would be used, down gates would be pretty easy as it would be used in a stagger so the other pole is really of little consequence, as an up one could surely word the ruling that the pole must be circled thus ruling out the chance of cutting back - doing so would be an 'imcomplete' passage.
Quaker - you are being far to sensible - sounds a good idea to me.
I guess single poles will be used sparingly so I would be very suprised to see more than one or two on a course - surely.
Thinking how a single pole would be used, down gates would be pretty easy as it would be used in a stagger so the other pole is really of little consequence, as an up one could surely word the ruling that the pole must be circled thus ruling out the chance of cutting back - doing so would be an 'imcomplete' passage.
I’m all for any changes that make it easier to erect/take down a course, make the sport more exciting and which also make less of a requirement for judges and fewer controversial decisions. Single poles – right through the course – would do all of this.
Negotiation of the course could be made clear by using three colours. Two colours could be used for down-stream gates, red negotiated on your right, green on your left. Use a third colour – say all white – to replace the present ‘upstreams’; these have to be encircled [In either direction ? If the paddler wants to take the slow route, that’s up to them].
Course construction will be much easier. 20 poles to keep set up instead of 40. We all know that it is the requirement for a spacer bar that causes most of the construction problems with the present gate set up. This especially true for training gates, which, as s single pole, will be much easier to move to the side at the end of the session and less likely to be wrecked by t***s in rafts thinking it’s funny to wallop them over the ropes.
In respect of judging;
1. 20 poles to keep an eye on instead of 40 !
2. Rules requiring visualisation of a gate line – I can’t see why the new system would need an individual judge for each gate any more than the old. Even with two poles, you would need to be sat directly in line to be absolutely sure.
Could we do without rules requiring a ‘gate line’?.
Why not just judge if someone has missed a gate by whether or not it has been negotiated by the time they have crossed the finish line. If they have gone past a subsequent gate and have to go back, the time lost is enough of a penalty in itself without slapping on an extra time penalty. It would mean that we would have to change from the idea that the poles are taken in a prescribed order. It is unlikely that anyone will deviate much from the general downstream route, but it could be an added variation to course design if the paddler occasionally had options for ‘gate’ order.
Negotiating the gate upside down – again, surely this is enough of a time penalty in itself: definitely at the top level and for learners a 50 is just bloody mean when you only have 2 runs and being able to roll back up and finish your run should be given some credit at that level.
As for excitement, a single pole will allow those who are able to, to use the full pivoting power of today’s slalom boats. At the same time it would make slalom easier for learners. I understand the argument that two poles demand precise paddling, but it’s restrictive. I suppose it depends on what you prefer. Single poles could be used to enforce some precise moves, however: because there will be no need for a minimum gate width, they could be placed tighter against natural obstacles. Also the dramatic moves we’d encourage by using one pole would also mean that we could get rid of the move that brings about many controversial decisions: the pole height could be dropped and so not tempt paddlers into ‘necking’; one less decision for a judge to make.
These are just some ideas from someone who hasn’t been involved for long enough to be afraid of drastic changes to the sport. I’m sure I’m not the only one who thinks there are too many rules for paddlers and judges to learn and too many excuses to give 50s.
Negotiation of the course could be made clear by using three colours. Two colours could be used for down-stream gates, red negotiated on your right, green on your left. Use a third colour – say all white – to replace the present ‘upstreams’; these have to be encircled [In either direction ? If the paddler wants to take the slow route, that’s up to them].
Course construction will be much easier. 20 poles to keep set up instead of 40. We all know that it is the requirement for a spacer bar that causes most of the construction problems with the present gate set up. This especially true for training gates, which, as s single pole, will be much easier to move to the side at the end of the session and less likely to be wrecked by t***s in rafts thinking it’s funny to wallop them over the ropes.
In respect of judging;
1. 20 poles to keep an eye on instead of 40 !
2. Rules requiring visualisation of a gate line – I can’t see why the new system would need an individual judge for each gate any more than the old. Even with two poles, you would need to be sat directly in line to be absolutely sure.
Could we do without rules requiring a ‘gate line’?.
Why not just judge if someone has missed a gate by whether or not it has been negotiated by the time they have crossed the finish line. If they have gone past a subsequent gate and have to go back, the time lost is enough of a penalty in itself without slapping on an extra time penalty. It would mean that we would have to change from the idea that the poles are taken in a prescribed order. It is unlikely that anyone will deviate much from the general downstream route, but it could be an added variation to course design if the paddler occasionally had options for ‘gate’ order.
Negotiating the gate upside down – again, surely this is enough of a time penalty in itself: definitely at the top level and for learners a 50 is just bloody mean when you only have 2 runs and being able to roll back up and finish your run should be given some credit at that level.
As for excitement, a single pole will allow those who are able to, to use the full pivoting power of today’s slalom boats. At the same time it would make slalom easier for learners. I understand the argument that two poles demand precise paddling, but it’s restrictive. I suppose it depends on what you prefer. Single poles could be used to enforce some precise moves, however: because there will be no need for a minimum gate width, they could be placed tighter against natural obstacles. Also the dramatic moves we’d encourage by using one pole would also mean that we could get rid of the move that brings about many controversial decisions: the pole height could be dropped and so not tempt paddlers into ‘necking’; one less decision for a judge to make.
These are just some ideas from someone who hasn’t been involved for long enough to be afraid of drastic changes to the sport. I’m sure I’m not the only one who thinks there are too many rules for paddlers and judges to learn and too many excuses to give 50s.
-
djberriman
- Posts: 806
- Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 8:19 pm
I've not been involved long enough to be afraid of change either but probably long enough to start appreciating the sport I have joined. I'd be dead against single pole courses and that will probably surprise a few people.
Take Washburn this weekend as an example.
Quite a few top end paddlers messed up the two down gates on the drop, over cooked it and either struggled to get through the lower gate or missed it river left on their first run. A single pole course would have meant they would have completed the course with ease.
Similarly I would have gained less touches on a single pole course resulting in a much higher finish.
Slalom is about speed and precision, move to a full single pole course and you remove a lot of the latter.
I can see a use for them in some situations but as others say simply mounting the other pole out of the way would achieve much the same thing.
Off to do some more practice....!
Take Washburn this weekend as an example.
Quite a few top end paddlers messed up the two down gates on the drop, over cooked it and either struggled to get through the lower gate or missed it river left on their first run. A single pole course would have meant they would have completed the course with ease.
Similarly I would have gained less touches on a single pole course resulting in a much higher finish.
Slalom is about speed and precision, move to a full single pole course and you remove a lot of the latter.
I can see a use for them in some situations but as others say simply mounting the other pole out of the way would achieve much the same thing.
Off to do some more practice....!
I suppose that I better declare that I not a newbie... in fact I think I started just after they switched from the old red and green poles on the same gate... anyway onwards.
I agree with some of what mwilk is saying... but I see them as a leap of faith... somewhere possible we should be heading. We couldn't really just take some bits of the suggestions and try and blend them as the wouldn't integrate. I guess that your vision is something similar to that of the skiing but with white upstreams.
I don't agree that the courses would be easier to setup as you would still probably need a top bar to hold the gate in place... and unless we wipe out gatelines then we would need someone on each gate to watch for pre-navigation.
There is of course no reason for us as a slalom nation to adopt the rules for domestic competitions (oooooh I here some people cry) except that it would prepare our international paddlers better for their competitions.
I agree with some of what mwilk is saying... but I see them as a leap of faith... somewhere possible we should be heading. We couldn't really just take some bits of the suggestions and try and blend them as the wouldn't integrate. I guess that your vision is something similar to that of the skiing but with white upstreams.
I don't agree that the courses would be easier to setup as you would still probably need a top bar to hold the gate in place... and unless we wipe out gatelines then we would need someone on each gate to watch for pre-navigation.
There is of course no reason for us as a slalom nation to adopt the rules for domestic competitions (oooooh I here some people cry) except that it would prepare our international paddlers better for their competitions.
-
djberriman
- Posts: 806
- Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 8:19 pm
-
Canadian Paddler
- Posts: 1480
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 8:31 am
- Location: Peterborough
- Contact:
OK so I am not a newbie either, I remember further back,to before our UK chair was racing a C2. . .Soi here is some random thoughts.
I too believe Ski Slalom has two poles, it is just that the course is a series of staggers, so the good guys always hug the inside pole and we do not see the outside pole.
Single poles only would be a nightmare on weir slaloms, I believe that we need to keep this option, not throw it away ditto numbers at such events.
Even if single poles are not accepted, a 4m wide gate will always seem like a single pole, e.g. a break out gate with one pole in the eddy, the other 4m away tied to a convienient tree. Simialr gates have been in place for many years and will continue. My understanding is that there is a gate line for single poles, so if you go up an eddy passed a pole, then turn round and go back down to exit at the bottom you have to have a 50 as you either did not cross the line, or went through it the wqrong way. The only way for a paddler to be sure is to go round the pole, and if that does not happen the judge can give a 50 from current judge positions. Much harder will be necking and deciding if head and boat were on teh line at the same time, but thats an issue now, (see other threads/videos). I suspect that there will be more benefit of doubt for single pole breakouts, and staggers beign necked will eb as contorversial as now
I keep wittering about the old black poles, they were almost analageous to the white poles suggested above, must go round up to you which way, or were they does not matter if forwward or reverse, the memory is failing me, can one of the more mature paddlers with a better memory remind me.
I am VERY glad they seem to have dropped the idea of reducing penalties further, and the idea of doing away with them!
Why can I not trype properly in my replies?
I too believe Ski Slalom has two poles, it is just that the course is a series of staggers, so the good guys always hug the inside pole and we do not see the outside pole.
Single poles only would be a nightmare on weir slaloms, I believe that we need to keep this option, not throw it away ditto numbers at such events.
Even if single poles are not accepted, a 4m wide gate will always seem like a single pole, e.g. a break out gate with one pole in the eddy, the other 4m away tied to a convienient tree. Simialr gates have been in place for many years and will continue. My understanding is that there is a gate line for single poles, so if you go up an eddy passed a pole, then turn round and go back down to exit at the bottom you have to have a 50 as you either did not cross the line, or went through it the wqrong way. The only way for a paddler to be sure is to go round the pole, and if that does not happen the judge can give a 50 from current judge positions. Much harder will be necking and deciding if head and boat were on teh line at the same time, but thats an issue now, (see other threads/videos). I suspect that there will be more benefit of doubt for single pole breakouts, and staggers beign necked will eb as contorversial as now
I keep wittering about the old black poles, they were almost analageous to the white poles suggested above, must go round up to you which way, or were they does not matter if forwward or reverse, the memory is failing me, can one of the more mature paddlers with a better memory remind me.
I am VERY glad they seem to have dropped the idea of reducing penalties further, and the idea of doing away with them!
Why can I not trype properly in my replies?
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
-
Nick Penfold
- Posts: 338
- Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 8:21 pm
I'm just a judge, and I'm hoping someone will explain single pole gates to me.
If only one pole, there's no gate line (sorry Jim, the bar and bearer don't count). If no gate line, can't go through it the wrong way but maybe can't go through it right way either...
It's probably sensible (someone understands the concept) but there is quite a lot of the rule book to be rewritten for it to work.
If only one pole, there's no gate line (sorry Jim, the bar and bearer don't count). If no gate line, can't go through it the wrong way but maybe can't go through it right way either...
It's probably sensible (someone understands the concept) but there is quite a lot of the rule book to be rewritten for it to work.
It is my understanding that this rule change has been specifically requested by the team that sets senior international courses on behalf of the ICF. I can only assume therefore that they have a specific need for this rule change.
This doesn't mean we have to apply this rule here in the UK if we don't want to, and so I can't understand why we are that bothered about its introduction.
I don't know how many were present at the course setting for the recent Div1 at HPP but this rule change would have reduced the course re-construction time by at least half an hour, so I can actually see some benefit in having this rule, although it would have forced all Div1 paddlers to attempt the more difficult move in the looping pool as the easier route would no longer have been available to them!!
This doesn't mean we have to apply this rule here in the UK if we don't want to, and so I can't understand why we are that bothered about its introduction.
I don't know how many were present at the course setting for the recent Div1 at HPP but this rule change would have reduced the course re-construction time by at least half an hour, so I can actually see some benefit in having this rule, although it would have forced all Div1 paddlers to attempt the more difficult move in the looping pool as the easier route would no longer have been available to them!!
The above is the personal opinion of Mark Shaw and does not reflect the views of either the BCU or England Slalom Committees.