Is a 50 second penalty enough for missing a gate?

Username · Post by **Username** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 11:52 am

I'm very interested in other people's views - is a 50 second penalty enough for missing a gate?

I am quite willing to admit that the reason I've been wondering about this, is because at the first 2 races of the season there have been 2 or more people who have finished above me, who have missed gates, when I haven't missed any. Obviously the major cause of this is how incredibly sloooooow I am! But I also feel that on certain courses, if it is a break-out that is missed, you can save as much as 20 seconds, which means that the 'penalty' itself is only 30 seconds. Paddlers who paddle back round for the missed gates - sometimes eddy-hopping up from a long way below - will often take more than 50 seconds in doing so, but as the idea of slalom is to go through the gates, surely they should be rewarded, not effectively penalised, for doing so. I know that paddlers are supposed to 'try' for all the gates, but that is pretty difficult to police!

My opinion, for what it's worth, and I know it's biased because I'm sloooow but can (generally) make all the gates, and often put in stack loads of effort paddling miles back up rivers to go through gates, is that the penalty for a missed gate should be sufficiently high that there is NO possibility of beating people who have done all the gates; or even setting a rule, that people with missed gates should not be able to come above people who have got them all (or if you've missed 3, you can't come above someone who's missed 2, etc), regardless of times.

The advantages of this, as I see it, would be:
- It would mean that paddlers are rewarded for making all the gates, thus demanding a higher level of technique/skill and preparing people better for bigger water as they move up the divisions.
- It would mean that it was ALWAYS worth going back for gates, if possible, so that paddlers don't think 'oh I can't be bothered, it'll take longer than 50 seconds anyway'.
- It would mean that if paddlers missed one gate, it would still be worth them going for all the other ones, eg where there is a pair of break outs opposite eachother on the flow - often if people miss one, it isn't worth going back for the 2nd one, even if it is possible to.
- It would make it easier to set courses on weirs, like Shepperton; at present, they cannot set only one gate on one side of the flow, because for many it would be quicker just to miss out that gate than to do 2 crosses to get to it - indeed, even with 2 gates, if you dropped right to the bottom on each cross, it still might be quicker to miss them out!

I'm sure some people will think that gauging when to/not to go back for gates is part of the skill of slalom, but I can't agree - slalom is about progressing towards the top level, and at the top level no gates should be being missed. It would raise skill levels from lower down in the divisions, rather than just speed.

Cat

djberriman · Post by **djberriman** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 12:52 pm

Sounds like a good solution to me - seen this a lot - particularly in lower divisions and even means people get promoted having missed gates. I don't think missing a gate on purpose can be deemed to be part of the sport, in fact I'd say it was very unsporting and in most sports you would be disqualified.

Major problem will be getting changes made to the results software clubs use. Suggest you put this forward well in advance of the next ACM and publicise it so it can get voted on and hopefully adopted.

Perhaps the easier option will just be to increase the penalty as that will have the same effect. I guess you could look through old results and see what points value would give a 'fair' result.

Spiderman · Post by **Spiderman** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 3:20 pm

"Disqualified". Thats a great word

And probably the best penalty too. Div 1 and Prem understand that a 50 is generally equivilent to a disqualification anyway as the result is trashed. I made a simple slip up on the 5/6 stagger at The Graveyard yesterday and as soon as I took a handful of seconds to paddle round the back of 6 to retake it I knew my attempt to improve on my first run time was trashed. Getting a "50" is a very dated throwback form decades ago and I am surprised this has never been revised as the 10's and 20's were over the years.

At Sheppers, many of those who paddled round the flow THREE times to take two gates would definately have got a better result to just not bother doing the two gates in question. The course design should consider this "attractive" option to some and try and prevent it being available. Disqualification would resolve this of course. So, you asked for an opinion, here is mine. No. 50 is not enough. Disqualification is

As pointed out above, other sports (downhill skiing for example) require you to stay on course or....sling yer hook laddie! (or lassie!)

PP

PP

Username · Post by **Username** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 3:47 pm

At Shepperton, they did try to take it into account - the original course plan had just one gate where 10 and 11 were (on Saturday), and this was changed for the express reason of avoiding people not going for the gates.

I don't think disqualification is necessarily fair - because sometimes even if you try really really hard you can miss gates (lots of people dropped off below 10 and 11 at Graveyard, and there's no way back up).

oldandslow · Post by **oldandslow** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 11:39 pm

What about C2 splits and half heads and going through upside down? Are they going to stay as 50s in your proposals? Because they can't be undone even if you go back for them.

djberriman · Post by **djberriman** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 11:41 pm

I wasn't suggesting disqualification its just what other sports do, given the cost of attending an event it would be very harsh, and often it is just simply a matter of missing a gate and not being able to get back.

Thus a suggestion, how about the minimum being a 50 but the rules being changed to allow the organiser to increase this. When such a gate exists it an extra board is hung on the spreader indicating the penalty.

it wouldn't happen often but a little like single pole gates where it is need it could be used.

This would be fairly easy to operate, the gate judge just having to give say a 100 rather than a 50 and work in a similar manner to say a team gate where you know you have to achieve it.

Thus courses could be designed to challenge paddlers and make best use of the water without the chance of someone gaining an unfair advantage by simply missing a gate.

Dee · Post by **Dee** » Tue Mar 24, 2009 10:30 am

At first glance I quite like this idea - we could have stuck with one gate for the double cross at Shepperton and put a penalty of 150 points for gate 10. However, if we had done this we would just have driven the problem elsewhere. Some paddlers could have elected to just miss 7,8,9 and beaten paddlers that tried and failed to get 10.

Making the organisers/course designers responsible for deciding on what a particular gate penalty would be is asking for trouble - I can hear the grumbles and complaints already!!

80-1219672301 · Post by **80-1219672301** » Tue Mar 24, 2009 10:54 am

Not quite sure where I stand on this topic but here's what happens in my own sport (I'm NOT the paddler in the family

)

If you're in a swim race lets say you're swimming an individual medley (4 different strokes) on a 400m race - say you swim perfectly - great technique, you're swimming fast. BUT .. you fail to put 2 hands on the end wall on a breastroke turn - guess what - you're disqualified! or if you take an extra kick under the water when you've dived in - you're disqualified, you're deemed to have put in an extra stroke at the back stroke front crawl transition you're disqualified, if your breastroke kick is skewed - you're disqualified, if your arms don't fully fly over the water in butterfly you're disqualified and so on an so forth - pages of rules and regs (you thought slalom was techical). All of these measures to try and make it a level playing field and no added advantage by doing something incorrectly ranging from swim technique to turns to dives. At times it makes for very unhappy swimmers (especially juniors) but I have to admit is does improve the swimmers.

So the discipline is as important as the speed and technique.
However I would qualify this - this imposes HUGE pressure on the swim judges - they HAVE to get it right every time - absolutely no room for error or hesitation - in a pool environment its pretty tricky where you're standing over the swimmers - 4 x side judges - a lane judge at either end and a referee so I'm wondering if a disqualification rule would deter people volunteering to be judges at slalom races? The various wimming bodies insist that all pool judges receive training before they can judge - mainly because protests very rarely succeed

djberriman · Post by **djberriman** » Tue Mar 24, 2009 12:20 pm

Good point Dee, its never easy is it!

JamesH · Post by **JamesH** » Tue Mar 24, 2009 1:14 pm

I think that Cat/Username has already hit on the easiest way to police this - if you get a 50 then you can't come above someone who has got all the gates. It should be relatively easy to adapt the relevant software to do this - all you need is to add a field that asks 'how many 50s were obtained' or something similar, and if any were, this automatically drops the competitor below those for whom the answer was 0.

As someone who has been present at slaloms where competitors have been promoted while deliberately missing gates, over and above those who have done/attempted to do the course properly, I think such a change is long overdue as organisers seem to be reluctant to disqualify even those who have obviously decided not to attempt a gate.

Spiderman · Post by **Spiderman** » Tue Mar 24, 2009 3:12 pm

Excellent example Paddlemum, thanks for that. Disqualify them. Your race is over anyway so no big deal. And even Premsters get two bites of the cherry nowadays

At Bala Mill Falls selection event for the Youth Team in the 70's, I missed the same gate on the falls on my practice run, both team runs and both individual runs! Worst competition of my life and found myself "non-travelling reserve" Hmph! 50 has always meant the same thing to a true racer - game over.

Munchkin · Post by **Munchkin** » Tue Mar 24, 2009 4:10 pm

I am not sure what my thoughts are on this, I believe there is a rule that says that a competitor should make a genuine attempt at a gate but maybe I am wrong? If I am wrong then the rule should be implemented if I am right it should be enforced. I think purposefuly missing a gate goes against the spirit of the competition, but I think accidentally missing a gate is also part of the competition and that 50 seconds is probably punishment enough.

I took some juniors to an event where they ended up coming last and second last having tried to get all the gates whereas they were beaten by juniors that had missed around a third of the course because they would not cross the flow. I can conmpletely understand why they made that choice and don't blame them at all. Perhaps that is an example where the rule I think exists should have been enforced BUT then again, we should be encouraging them to paddle at events.

Ummm, that is why I am confused!

chauffeur · Post by **chauffeur** » Tue Mar 24, 2009 4:41 pm

JamesH wrote:I think that Cat/Username has already hit on the easiest way to police this - if you get a 50 then you can't come above someone who has got all the gates.

This might be possible. I know the issue was talked about at weekend. What you can't do is have a decision by the judges as whether it is deliberately missed to cut time, missed through lack of experience or tried for and missed - some are obvious and some aren't.
Having those with 50's below those with no 50's is an interesting idea.

Username · Post by **Username** » Tue Mar 24, 2009 5:03 pm

Wow, obviously something that has struck a few people!

Munchkin, I totally agree that people should be encouraged to compete, hence I don't think disqualification should be the penalty; I just think that ability to get gates should be rewarded more highly. I think paddlers are supposed to 'try' for the gates but as someone else has said, that's very hard to police (not so much on a course like Shep, where if someone doesn't even try to cross the flow/paddle round, obv they aren't going for gates) but on some courses where you can easily miss gates accidentally, because they're hard, but equally might miss them intentionally - how do you judge?

I really think that limiting it so that people with 50s cannot come above those who have made all the gates is the way forward - probly much more simple to implement than changing the whole slalom system by changing the 50 second rule.

Also, I find it hard to imagine what the objections to this could be - apart from the admin side obviously - as if you're a paddler who is unable/too nervous to make all the gates on a given course, you will (or at least should) accept that you will be beaten by everybody who is good/brave enough to get all the gates - people who miss gates aren't generally the ones winning the races, so on the whole it'll be bottom end of the table that'll be more affected not 1st/2nd place.

It wouldn't affect a huge number of races anyway - as Spiderman pointed out, at the top level a missed gate is tantamount to coming last anyway, but it's lower down where it's really frustrating to slog your way round a difficult course, going through every gate, spending hours going back up for missed gates, be really pleased to have made them all, and look at the results to find you're being beaten by people who missed gates.

I fully appreciate speeding up a bit would be the other solution to this problem (It's happened to me at Washburn, Tully and Graveyard over the last season) and I'm working on it - only my brain doesn't work very fast, and if I paddle quickly I forget where I have to go and what strokes I need to do to get there, and by the time I've remembered I'm miles down the course; I need to go slow to ensure I make every gate!

Sorry for long post!

Dave Royle · Post by **Dave Royle** » Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:48 pm

We have just spent the last 10 years with the lower divisions paddling to different rules than the ICF. Surely we don't want to start all that again.

The rule is 50 seconds for missing a gate. The course designer has the job of setting a suitable standard of course for those racing. Let's leave it at that.