ICF Rule Changes - To be ratified at next ICF Congress

Seedy Paddler · Post by **Seedy Paddler** » Tue Sep 02, 2008 3:29 pm

Run through the revised ICF Slalom rules, a lot of the changes are interrelated so I will try to summarise, however I suspect the document is available on the ICF site (I got it sent to me) and the changes are clearly marked if you want to check out.

Change in representation, remove the limitation of 3 boats/class representation. Allowed up to 5 boats, however at least 4 must be qualified from previous years ranking.

Slight change in entry process for ICF events.

Ranking to be based on best 3 results from World Ranking series, removed the limitation of 5 events

Return to best Run counts in competition, ties decided by 2nd run. In Semi-Final/Final runs, qualification on best run, top 20 to semi-final, top 10 in semi qualify to Final. Final position determined by Final run.

Teams based on 1 run qualify; 1 Run final, top 50% (min 5) qualify to Final

Change to allow single pole gates

Change to rationalise for Bibs and revise spec for Bib numbers

Intl courses to have 2 designers, 1 from Host; 1 designated by ICF

Propose to amend World Champs to be based on minimum 5 federations starting (currently 6), remove requirement for 3 continents to be represented

Rule 30.1.1 amended to have red bat/disk for 50 penalty marker

Rule 31.1 amended that any Judge should whistle off, removing decision from section judge

Rule 34.4 extended to include crossing the finish upside down.

Rule 39.1 extended to include paddlers equipment as opposed to their boat

International Protest Fees raised from 25 Euro to 75 Euro

So in that time honoured fashion - Please debate ???

Mark Shaw · Post by **Mark Shaw** » Tue Sep 02, 2008 9:15 pm

Hi Seedy,

You forgot the most important change - the introduction of C1 Women at the Senior World Champs from next year and the possibility of introducing C2 Women as a class sometime in the future assuming the demand materialises.

Mark

John Sturgess · Post by **John Sturgess** » Tue Sep 02, 2008 11:23 pm

A few points on this

You are right: all the proposals - and a full set of rules if amended are on the ICF website (Link from Slalom website - click on Congress and follow)

I think that the increase in entries from 3 to 5 boats per class applies to World Cup events, not to the World Championships.

Single pole gates: will obviously eliminate double-entry penalties (no gateline)(a good thing in my view) but I can't find anything on what will happen about the 50 for going through a gate upside down when there is no longer a gateline

on your comment on rule 31.1: this is tidying up an anomaly left over from last year, not 'removing decision from section judge', as the ICF abolished Section Judges at the 2007 Congress - it's just that we haven't noticed yet! Look at the list of officials required to run an International: Chief Judge & Deputy, and Gate Judges - some gate judges are given he job of collecting penalties from other Gate Judges, but each Gate Judge is fully responsible for their gate(s)

I am currently analysing (I do boring things like that) what difference these rule changes would have made to who won medals etc in this year's major races - although it will be regarded as suspect on the grounds that some paddlers who paddled conservatively would have paddled all-out in qualifying and semis - and maybe in 2-run races as well

I will share this when complete

Seedy Paddler · Post by **Seedy Paddler** » Wed Sep 03, 2008 10:54 am

OOps I did notice that bit on C1W, just forgat to transfer from my notes - thats what happens whjen you are reading ICF rules and posting on tinterweb when you should be reviewing a tender and providing Man & Eng pricing! ???

CD

Canadian Paddler · Post by **Canadian Paddler** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 8:33 am

Not sure I agree that C1W is more important than a reversion to best run counts, but then I am not a lady (OK some peoplke say I am a bit of an old woman, but that will not allow me to compete!)

A little concerned about single pole gates, got to be careful to make it obvious which side you have to go. Perhaps we will have a return to black gates soon - how many can remember those? :rock:

Spiderman · Post by **Spiderman** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 10:25 am

My two penneth for the debate concerns just two points.

1. Raising the protest fee seems pretty scandalous. Its a bit like the UK parking fine that effectively doubles if you wish to dispute its issue. I do not see how the imposition of a fee is actually justified never mind it trebelling! I understand that by having a fee it will possibly deter some from protesting and this will probably reduce the number of protests made. But is this sporting? If a paddler has spent good money travelling to and residing at an event only to feel they have been wrongly judged, then surely they will protest no matter what the cost (reasonably). To suddenly treble the fee, seemingly an arbitrary increase, seems to be using the high amount selected to deter paddlers from protesting in the first place. If a paddler feels they have been wrongly judged, it should not be a question of should I pay to find out or can I afford to find out but more a simple question of have I been wrongly judged or not. I consider that a modest protest fee probably does deter all and sundry lodging protests and giving organisers a huge problem with the related administration but I do not consider that increasing this is in any way reasonable nor necessary.

2. Best run counts? Much better

Slalom is one of a small group of unique sports in which the skill, mental and physical fitness of the competitor is pitched not only against a specific task but against a specific task whilst variables are in play care of Mother Nature herself. Furthermore, you are not racing any other competitor head to head - you are independently racing against the clock and not at the same time or in the same course conditions either. Many other sports do not include such variables. When a sprinter leaves the blocks the track is exactly the same as it was the day before and exactly the same as it will be tomorrow. Even sports where Mother Nature is involved, like sailing for example, it is a matter of who crosses the line first and not the time taken to complete the course. As the recent Olympics so very clearly demonstrated many times, no matter how brilliant a slalom paddler is, it is very possible for them to have a bad run.

Given the variables that slalom uniquely incorporates, I consider that it is reasonable, fair and sporting to allow all slalom paddlers a bad run at a competition that they have worked so hard to compete in. We all know that a bad run is most certainly not an indication of a paddlers actual ability and a good run should properly be rewarded rather than cast aside because it is added to a bad run. After all, the competition is over 20(ish) gates not 40(ish). By totalling both runs it is saying each run is only half the course and this is not the case at all. The task is to complete the course as fast as possible and as clean as possible. At present, it is to do this twice. The race results show only those who have been "fortunate" enough, not "talented" enough, to do this. And this is proven at subsequent events when the finishing orders changes as one persons "fortune" improves and the others lessens. To have just two chances to show how really tallented a paddler is on one run is in the spirit of the sport and, most importantly for the competitor, will greatly reduce (ideally remove) the pain and disappointment of all that hard work for no result. To be the fastest/cleanest on a course on one run but to finish mid order due to a split second problem on the other run is not right. If you are the fastest and cleanest over the course distance, that should rightly be your result. I applaud this change

jjayes · Post by **jjayes** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 3:28 pm

Hi John,

while you are doing some analysis, you might want to look at the Olympic ladies results from the point of view of percentages. It would appear that the 3rd place lady would not have made made the British team had this been a GB selection event. Even though she was good enough to win a Olympic bronze medal. I may be wrong but it may go to show how messed up a principal percentages are when applied to slalom racing. Please take a look at the figure if you have the time or inclination.

Cheers,
Jim.

jjayes · Post by **jjayes** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 3:42 pm

Spider-man,

I accept what you say and could not agree more with your sentiments. But because the final position determined by Final run the problems you mention will still exist. The way to train for this is to do many single runs and get very good at doing so. One way to get a jump on the competition is to train that way now. In many ways there is no change.

"Return to best Run counts in competition, ties decided by 2nd run. In Semi-Final/Final runs, qualification on best run, top 20 to semi-final, top 10 in semi qualify to Final. Final position determined by Final run."

Dave Royle · Post by **Dave Royle** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 5:34 pm

Final position determined by final run is far from being best run counts. It means time made on semis counts for nothing at except to qualify for a particular place in the final.

As Jim says it becomes a one run counts race, with all the mind games that come with it.

No problem with that. That's sport.

Imagine, though, if we said that in Div 1 you have two runs, but only the second one counts. They'd be queuing up to slag off the Exec for that

Mark Shaw · Post by **Mark Shaw** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 8:19 pm

They would be better to make it a series of either 2 or 4 races with points awarded for position achieved in each and then either least or most points wins depending on whether you adopt the World Cup or World Series ranking system.

Mark Shaw · Post by **Mark Shaw** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 11:00 pm

Does anyone know who the two GB representatives actually attending the ICF Congress will be? Are they actively trying to find out what the slalom community actually want in terms of rule changes?

I know the BCU provided an initial response to the rule changes but I don't know if anyone has asked for a final response ahead of the vote. Not knowing how the ICF works, is it actually possible to change the proposal at this late stage or is it just a simple vote for or against?

quaker · Post by **quaker** » Fri Sep 05, 2008 1:45 pm

I'm probably stating something here that may be in the full proposed changes... but:

HOW DO WE KNOW WHICH WAY TO NAVIGATE A SINGLE POLE GATE?

Sounds a little stupid I know... but are we all assuming that a single pole gate will the just be a double pole gate with one pole missing and the top bar still present to show navigation route.... if so do the proposals show this.

Or are we getting to the stage where a single pole will be present in an eddy and the paddler has to perform a 360 round it with them choosing the direction?

I'm guessing that a single pole gate will still have a number board connected to a spacer bar allowing navigation... will the spacer bar act as a gateline?

Talking about gatelines how will we know if we pre-navigate a single pole gate? (So many questions and only 7 months to get clarity!)

Before I finish.... I'm guessing that the 23 runs stated in the pdf is a typo... (that would be value for money at an event!)

Spiderman · Post by **Spiderman** » Sun Sep 07, 2008 1:03 am

Quaker, I spoke with Jim Croft about the "gate line" on a single pole gate yesterday. He said it was the same line at the overhead line that the pole was suspended from.

I must say that I really do not see the benefit of a single pole to negotiate over a conventional gate. As a designer, I tend to introduce changes when there is some clear reason for doing so. I simply cannot envisage what good reason exists for this proposed change when the present system is entirely workable.

djberriman · Post by **djberriman** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 11:02 am

"the same line at the overhead line that the pole was suspended from."

Yikes, thats going to require good placement of the judge not to mention many are wire or black (to lessen environmental impact) and are often hard to see or can be very high up. It also means that the suspension wire will have to be in exactly the correct spot to dictate the gate line. Sounds a bit of a nightmare for course builder and judge.

The idea of retaining the "spacer bar" sounds better as at least its is very visual and can retain the number board giving a clear indication of direction of travel and position of gate line and allows for better positioning relative to the suspension wire.

Guess judges are all going to need some training or at least very clear instructions on single pole gates.

djberriman · Post by **djberriman** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 11:11 am

Spiderman - "Even sports where Mother Nature is involved, like sailing for example, it is a matter of who crosses the line first and not the time taken to complete the course. As the recent Olympics so very clearly demonstrated many times, no matter how brilliant a slalom paddler is, it is very possible for them to have a bad run. "

Don't think this is true, sailing was over a number of heats where points were gained thus building to the overall result. Remember the Ben Ainslie saga, sailed the guy who could beat him to the back of the fleet to ensure he won gold, as I remember Ainslie was last in the final heat/run but he did enough to ensure that his competitor could not get enough points to take gold from him.

I guess the difference is with Slalom is that a 50 effectively puts you out of the running whereas in sailing a poor result can be overcome. Perhaps canoeing at the olympics should have more runs with the best 3 out of say 5.