Race Results

Ibar, Serbia 2019 Results; Video; Photos EC 2019 Series Results: R6 Overall; R4 Overall EC Devil's Stream Results; Photos; Video; EC British Open Results; Photos Canada Nationals Results; Photos: -1-, -2-, -3-. Video H2H. Pre-WRC, Ziyuan Results: Men, Women; Photos: Trng, SP/OC, SL, H2H, DR; Videos: D1, D2, D3, D4; ERC Vrbas, Bosnia Results and media EC Results so far R6: OM; OW. R4: OM; OW. EC Trnavka Results: Sprint; Slalom. Photos. WRC 2019, Tully Results, Photos, press releases, etc EC Wildalpen Results: OM, U23M, OW; Photos EC Priboj, Serbia Results; Photos EC Nottingham Results, Photos: -1-, -2-, -3-. H2H Video EC Romania, Dracula Race Results; Photos WRC 2018 All results more archived Race Results

Race Rule Changes proposed – 13 to 17

Home IRF Forums Race Rules – proposed updates 2017/2018 Race Rule Changes proposed – 13 to 17

This topic contains 13 replies, has 13 voices, and was last updated by  IRF admin 1 year, 8 months ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #17147

    IRF admin
    Keymaster
    1. Methods of starting races – Pieter

      Race Rule F.9 says: “In every discipline, the timing begins when the Chief Starter or specified delegate gives the command “GO” and the Pre-Starter(s) simultaneously release the raft(s) OR when first part of raft crosses the Start Line. Where the start is not measured electronically, the Chief Starter or specified delegate can ask for paddles to be out of the water until he/she gives the command “GO”.“

      Change to: “In every discipline, the timing begins when either the Chief Starter or specified delegate gives the command “GO” start signal and the Pre-Starter(s) simultaneously release the raft(s), OR using a photocell /manual timing so when first part of raft crosses the Start Line, OR a sailing or Le Mans start is used. Where the start is not measured electronically, the Chief Starter or specified delegate can ask for paddles to be out of the water until he/she gives the start signal command “GO”. For Sprint it must be a start sound or photocell; for H2H a start sound; Slalom a start sound or photocell; Downriver start sound or sailing start. The start method will be announced in the Captain’s meeting before each discipline.

      Reason = give full options

    _____________________________________________________________

    1. Protests – Pieter

      Rule M. Protest:

      Add: Protests from one Team against the run of another Team is not allowed. Only protests for the Team’s own run will be considered.

      Reason = better, less time consuming, more sporting

    _____________________________________________________________

    1. Proposal : Demonstration run for slalom – Czech Boat Union

    Section of rules:    E. Race Format 4. Slalom c. Slalom Course Design

    Add rule:  “viii. In A- and B-Level Events the event organizer is obliged to organize a demonstration run on the race (already inspected by the Jury) slalom course before the slalom race begins. The demonstration run has to be done by a raft team that has not been registered to this specific Event (any person from the forerunner boat). The demonstration run should be done as a full-length run.”

    Reasons:

           no disadvantage for the first competitors on the course

           no advantage for later competitors

           fair conditions for all – all can see difficulties of the slalom course

           better orientation on the slalom course

           visible height of slalom gates

           increase the sport level of slalom

           more safety for less experienced teams

           junior teams can get more experiences.

           closer format to the Canoe slalom – Olympic discipline

    _________________________________________________________

    1. Change of seeding position in H2H race format – Czech Boat Union/li>

    Race Format, 3. Head-to-Head (H2H), c.   “the H2H Race Order Form”, f.e.:
    Current seeding to H2H format for 8 teams:  

    1-5, 2-6, 3-7, 4-8

    Change to: 1-8, 2-7, 3-6, 4-5 (So seeding of position in H2H forma is the winner opposite the last team. See attachment)

    Reasons:

           higher attractiveness – the teams in the middle of results list have smaller differences,  it will bring more balanced/attractiveness duels

           advantage for sprint winner

           more sports philosophy and more fairer, a lot of other sports follow this philosophy

           the easier/better understanding seeding to H2H format for spectators and media people

    ________________________________________________________________

    1. Change rule for safety equipment – Czech Boat Union

    (This proposed Rule Change will be debated by the IRF GTE Committee as they are the qualified persons to assess safety issues.)

    Rule J. Event Safety, point 4 says: “On artificial course venues, Team safety equipment will be defined by the Safety Director. On natural river venues, it is compulsory in all disciplines that at least one Team Member carry the following minimum Team safety equipment:

    1. Flip line.
    2. River knife. River knives should be accessible with one hand.
    3. Throw bag. Throw bags must be stored safely, and must be a minimum of   15 meters in length unless otherwise specified by the Event Organisers.”

    Change to: Proposal format:  

    1. On artificial course venues, Team safety equipment will be defined by the Safety Director. On natural river venues, it is compulsory in …….”

    Reasons:

           the equipped rescue team is available on artificial course venues

           in the past is never happened, that teams needed these equipment on artificial course venues

           current definition of rule is automatically request these equipment and safety director doesn’t have reason cancelled this duty on his response

    • This topic was modified 1 year, 9 months ago by  IRF admin.
    • This topic was modified 1 year, 9 months ago by  IRF admin.
    • This topic was modified 1 year, 9 months ago by  IRF admin.
    • This topic was modified 10 months, 3 weeks ago by  IRF admin.
  • #17155

    SueLC
    Participant

    Proposal 13: I find this confusing – I will wait until others who are more experienced with this have commented.

    Proposal 14: Disagree. Sometimes there are very good reasons a team has protested against another team.

    Proposal 15: This is not always easy to organise – to find 4 or 6 people that have the right equipment, are correctly indemnified to run the river, and have the experience to actually make it worth while for the teams to watch is quite difficult and time consuming. I suggest making this a request initially and not an obligation.

    Proposal 16: 1 – 8, 2 – 7, 3-6, 4 – 5 seeding. When i look at this it seems to me that the team who comes 4th gets a very big disadvantage as they are now against a team only 1 place down from them. Whereas 5th placed team has a big advantage now as they are against a team only 1 place above them. The 1st placed team has a huge advantage as they now paddle a team 8 places below them, and that 8th placed team has a massive disadvantage – this all puts a HUGE amount of weight onto the Sprint placements. In the present system (1-5,2-6,3-7,4-8) all teams are paddling against a team 4 places below them or above them – they all have the same advantage or disadvantage. I prefer to see teams being given an even advantage at the start of each discipline.

  • #17171

    Tim Marshall
    Participant

    13, We have to be careful here, if these rules are compulsory for National selections around the world, many may not have electronic timing systems, and countries should not be forced into this and forced in to big debates between competitors and organizers.
    ? just voicing an thought here
    14,Big call here? not sure which side of the line I sit on..
    15 happy with, can be done and should be done
    16, I think this is a good idea
    17, happy with artificial being exempt from carrying rescue ropes but not flip lines and knives !
    I would debate that all competitors wear a knife in their pfd’s
    Regards,
    Tim M

  • #17188

    Rado Orokoky
    Participant

    point 14. disagree. The slalom show us that the protect against other team is successful/helpful.
    point 15. OK, but we must define who can do the demonstration run.
    point 16. If we count 1-16, 2-15, … , 7-8. It looks different. The winner has big advantage and teams in the middle will have strong fight. But the time shows us if it is good or bad change.

  • #17225

    Deb Cook
    Participant

    13. Seems ok
    14. Disagree – I think sometimes it has been proved to be valuable that a team can protest another team
    15. A great idea and I would
    Like to see this. I remember the event team doing a demo in Korea when lots of teams questioned if the course was possible!! I think it should be encouraged but not mandatory as it could be problematic
    In some locations
    16. Not sure about this – seems less fair across the board and gives bigger breaks to the top teams
    17. Not sure I am clear on what the change is here, but would agree that all paddlers should have a knife in their B/A on a river

  • #17267

    Martin Prochazka
    Participant

    13.OK for IRF competitions, good point by Tim, again with mandatory following IRF rules for “national” selection.
    14. Nice to have..:-), but we need have in rule possibility for this type of protest.- Disagree
    15.Agree
    16.Agree, I see this change as much more chance for teams in midlle. Team on 17th place oposite th 1st team… boring H2H, no chance for the second half of teams. 16-17, 15-18… still chance for all off them win their H2H run.
    17.Agree

  • #17271

    Johana
    Participant

    13. Agree, but as Sue say in confusing. Maybe change the drafting
    14. Disagree
    15. Agree with the proposal, but it should be not mandatory
    16. Disagree
    17. Agree

  • #17275

    Stan Hajeks
    Participant

    Stan Hajeks
    13.Ok like a Martin Prochazka
    14. I agree with Pietr. Protests against another team is unfair especialy in slalom.
    15. Demonstartion run in slalom – a good idea
    16. I have not idea, but I support the Czech proposal
    17. I agree

  • #17347

    Goran Lolic
    Participant

    Hi All,

    13.proposal:partly agree, for sprint and slalom on start we must have photocell. In case that different type of start need to be used than Jury need to approve that.
    Also agree with Tim and Martin for national competition.
    14.proposal: do not agree
    15.proposal: agree
    16.proposal: agree
    17.proposal: do not agree

    Cheers
    Goran

  • #17348

    Pieter Bekkers
    Participant

    13. I agree
    14.Difficult situation like Time says, maybe between proposal. Example: slalom 2018 Japan, there are many wrong slalom judgments, teams have make a protest minimum 8 times for mistakes from other teams, what’s happen than !!!!!
    15. I agree with the proposal, but it should be not mandatory
    16. I agree
    17. I agree

  • #17352

    Eric
    Participant

    13.Disagree….ok to be flexible for national selection but at A-level we need to keep the floating start mandatory for Sprint and Slalom.
    14.I am 50/50 on this one….the advantage on this proposal is that teams can focus on themself and stop overjudging all the teams…at the end it is judged the same way for everyone and yes some mystakes can happen…but it can be also very frustrating for other teams when they see something wrong has occured concerning another team…so i will not vote on this one.
    15.I am ok but let’s not have it mandatory since this can be complicated sometimes…also not sure of the purpose of this if it is not a high level team that tries it…
    16.NO…For me the safety director should always have the last word on safety issues…even on a artificial river…he can also get some demands by the local owner of the site or local laws.

  • #17376

    John Anicito
    Participant

    13. Agree that A&B events should be photocell, maybe wording should say “preferred” photocell for A&B event but keep the options for manual starts for National selections.
    14. Disagree; slalom is just one situation but what about protesting another teams intentional contact in H2H or Downriver? I think we need to keep this option for now. Maybe we need to focus on better judging in the slalom events..so there are better calls from the start.
    15. Agree, this would be nice to have but who does it? maybe a top junior team can run it as demo..? In Japan, the demo boat was not able to make all the moves and didn’t give a great view of the course and moves.
    16. Agree with this change; top seeded sprint teams should get the advantage, otherwise why put so much effort into the sprint event. With the new H2H format it should be exciting.
    17. Do we really need to edit this one? why not keep it and let the event organizer make adjustment at event. Maybe wording should be adjusted to say at the end ” artificial courses may require less personal safety equipment”

  • #17382

    Aleksey
    Participant

    Friends!
    p.13 is good.
    p.14 – do not agree. There are times when we can see the error of the judge’s decision, or a violation of the team. We can influence this situation. In competitions of rank A and B, as in all other cases, this happens, and it is very important to be able to influence.
    p.15 I completely agree! It must be so.
    p.16 – do not agree.
    Honestly, I can not even imagine races 1 and 8 of the boat.
    We call this principle “circular” when 1 – 5, 2 – 6, 3 – 7 and 4 – 8. He showed himself in many sports. I see no reason to change it.
    Thank you.

    p.17 on the river – the law, even on a simple river.

    Alex Shirokov

  • #17399

    IRF admin
    Keymaster

    The time for input about these proposed rule changes is now closed.

    According to the above discussions the Race Rules will be updated and the updated version will be sent to S&C Com members who participated in the discussion for the final approval.

    Thanks all!

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Comments are closed.