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 – 1 to 7

Home IRF Forums Race Rules – proposed updates 2017/2018 Race Rule Changes proposed – 1 to 7

This topic contains 18 replies, has 15 voices, and was last updated by  IRF admin 1 year, 8 months ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #17119

    IRF admin
    Keymaster
    1. Residency approval – from S&C Com

      Rule B.1.c. says: If a Competitor wishes to compete for a Member Nation at an A- or B-Level Event and they do not hold a passport or official permanent residency in that nation, they must:
            i. provide proof that they are permanently domiciled in that foreign nation to the satisfaction of the S&C Com. “

      Change “S&C Com” to “Sec Gen” or “Residency Approval Com appointed by S&C Chair”

      Reason = Approval of residency requirements is an administrative issue that can be easily handled and approved by the Secretary General.  It is not necessary to convene the S&C Com to approve a change in residency.
      _________________________________________________________________
    2. National Selections – from Joe and Sue
      • Rule A.4.d says “It is highly recommended (but not mandatory) that national Competitions follow IRF Race Rules in order to ensure a high standard of racing.”

        Change to “IRF National Selections must follow IRF Race Rules.  It is highly recommended (but not mandatory) that other national competitions follow IRF Race Rules in order to ensure a high standard of racing.”

        Reason = so we can ensure member nations are running their national selections fairly and credibly.
      • To ensure this can work at D-level events make the following changes:
          • E.1.2.c “The start interval between Teams may not exceed 3 minutes (except, if necessary, at D-level events) and the duration of a single run should be from 1 minute to 3 minutes.”
          • E.4.d. Gate construction – some nations cannot build gates, so they use buoys or such.
            For i),  add For D level events, if it is not possible to set up gates then an alternative set up, like buoys, are acceptable. These will then be defined as “poles” for rule interpretations”.
            For vii) add For D level events the “gates” must be as clearly marked as possible to ensure visibility and prevent confusion of order to be taken.”
          • E.5.a.says “Training runs in the Downriver race are mandatory!”  
            add For D level events, if the majority of members per team are familiar with the section of river that team need not do the training run.
          • J.5. Safety requirements change to 3 months for A and B, 2 months for C and D-level events. (To fit in within notice time for national selections)
        • M.8. change to “Protest fee at A and B level events shall be $100 USD currency or the equivalent amount in Euros or the local currency. At C and D level events the Jury can set the amount in local currency.

    __________________________________________________________________

    1. National Selections – Sue
      • B.12.d says ”If the 1st place Team of a National Selection is unable to attend the WRC, then the 2nd place Team shall become eligible for an invitation to the WRC, and so on down the order.”

        Change to “If the 1st place Team IN ANY CATEGORY of a National Selection is unable to attend the WRC, then the 2nd place Team IN THAT CATEGORY shall become eligible for an invitation to the WRC, and so on down the order.”

        Reason = to make it clearer that this is for all categories.
      • Similarly Rule B.12.e is for ERC and also needs to be changed in the same way.

    ________________________________________________________________

    1. Original team members – Sue

      Race Rule B.12.d says  “To remain eligible, invited Teams cannot replace more than 2 Team Members of the original Team that participated in their National Selections (unless selections are more than 1 Event).”

      Change to “To remain eligible, invited Teams cannot replace more than 2 Team Members must have a minimum of 4 for R6 or 2 for R4 of the original Team that participated in their National Selections (unless selections are more than 1 event).”

      Reason = Needs to change back to original wording as it is confusing as to whether this is based on the team having 6 or 7 members, or 4 or 5.

    ________________________________________________________________

    1. Too few teams in a category at ERC – Sue
      • Rule A.1.b.ix, which is for WRC, says “If only 1 team in Y, J, M …”

        Move it to under F. General Rules.

        Reason = no rules for dealing with these situations at ERC and other level competitions.
      • Add rule under A.1.b.ix. “When categories are combined their bibs/names should still show their original category. In National Selection events these teams are the top teams in their categories then as per Rules in A.Notes e.

        Reason = so it is clear they came from a different category. (So if RUS U19W is the only team and they have to paddle in another category – they get called RUS U19W)
      • Too few Masters Women’s teams:

        Race Rule A.1.b.x. If any Categories are combined or cancelled, the following guidelines shall apply: point 2 says “If there is only one Team entered in the Masters Women’s Category, then this Team shall be moved into the Masters Men’s Category.”

        Change to “… into Master’s Open Women’s Category.”

        Reason = more fair match

    ______________________________________________________________

    1. Post event protest – from Sue and Eric

      Rule M. Protest, point 13 says: “If after an Event has ended, a National Federation wishes the IRF to investigate any part of the race because they believe a judging, procedural or technical error was made, ….”

      Change to: “If after an Event has ended, a National Federation wishes the IRF to investigate any part of the race because they believe a judging, procedural or technical error was made, ….”

      Reason = Needs to be clearer so teams don’t start protesting every slalom penalty.

    ___________________________________________________________________

    1. Contact – Jozef and Eric

      Rule F General Rules for Competition, point 3 says: “Intentional contact between paddle to paddle, paddle to person, paddle to raft, or person to person is illegal.”

      Change to: “Intentional contact between paddle to paddle, paddle to person, paddle to raft, or person to person and person to raft is illegal.”

      Reason = Person to raft contact not defined in rules so needs to be included.
    • 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.
  • #17153

    SueLC
    Participant

    I agree with the proposed changes in 1 to 7

  • #17168

    Fredi Maifredi
    Participant

    Hi and Happy New Year to All,

    OK,nice changes I agree with all, clears up the wording and fixes possible pit falls with the newish multiple category formats.

    I agree with 1 to 7, over.

    Blessings,
    Fredi.

  • #17169

    Tim Marshall
    Participant

    Hi
    I am trying to see any difference in the wording in 6,

    Rule M. Protest, point 13 says: “If after an Event has ended, a National Federation wishes the IRF to investigate any part of the race because they believe a judging, procedural or technical error was made, ….”

    Change to: “If after an Event has ended, a National Federation wishes the IRF to investigate any part of the race because they believe a judging, procedural or technical error was made, ….”
    Is there a difference here? Am I blind?

    Otherwise happy with all others ! 🙂
    Regards,
    Tim M

  • #17181

    Bert Kanora
    Participant

    Hi,

    I agree with the proposed changes 1 … 7
    for 6 it’s improved in the last few hours… Judging has been deleted

    Cheers,
    Bert

  • #17186

    Tim Marshall
    Participant

    Ok, 6, has changed now, happy with this
    Tim M

  • #17223

    Deb Cook
    Participant

    Hi all
    Agree with all changes / amendments
    Good work everyone and attention to detail
    Cheers
    Deb

  • #17265

    Martin Prochazka
    Participant

    Hi all,

    I agree with proposals 1,3,4,5,7.
    I don´t agree:
    2. proposal: The national nomination is fully on responce the local federations, that running according pre-defined valid rules. Each federation is responsible, that their selection is fair. IRF rules are defined for IRF competitions. If some federation doesn´t have own rules, after that could be used as standard for their national events. But mandatory regulation, that “national” selection must follow IRF rules is wrong. f.e. Our CZE nomination is the system several competitions. Our Czech format of competition is different that deffine IRF Rules. Our competitions are without H2H discipline, becouse we don´t have right places for this format of race. Our pointing is different etc. I don´t think, that due the the different race rules and different system of nomination is the reason, that our nominations are un-fair.)
    6.proposal: I don´t see the reason, why put out judging. Judging is standart part of event., like registration, organisation, prize giving ceremony etc. Everybody could possibility give protest for all parts of events.

    Martin

  • #17268

    Johana
    Participant

    Hello everyone
    I’m agree with proporsals 1 to 7
    I also have a comment/proporsal for B.12.f that say:

    “With regards to point d. and e. above, the decision as to whether or not an invited Team will attend the WRC or ERC must be made timeously (at least 2 weeks ahead of the event registration) so that alternate Teams may be invited with sufficient time and warning to prepare.”

    I think 2 weeks before registration close is too short for internationals teams really have the time to organice, find money/sponsors, etc.
    I think 4 weeks will be OK.

    Regards
    Johana

  • #17277

    Stan Hajeks
    Participant

    Stan Hajeks
    2. Proposal :IRF National Selections must follow IRF Race Rules. I DON´T AGREE WITH INTERFERENCE BOD IRF and Rules IRF to the National selections of this regulation.
    20 Years the Czech rafting has very good systeme of the nomination races. This systeme works not with one race in the Year only, but with 4 races R4 in each discipline ( TT, SL, DR )during the seasson.R6 nomination is similar to the R4, with only 2 races in each discipline. The achievements of this system are visible on each of the WRC and ERC or world cups. We need to veto this proposal, because the H2H is in the Czech Republic doesn’t run and drive. It is purely and only our issue, not the IRF.
    6. proposal :I dont agree with a the deletion of the words ” judging”, because it is judging an integral part of the races. Could not allocate space for protests only to the organization or transport ( for example ) . The possibility to lodge a protest must be on every part of the A or B level. Most of these protests is equally rejected, and the to IRF brings money in the amount of 300 USD for each rejected the protest
    7. YES, BUT WHAT IS INTENTIONALL ?? Rules :”Intentional contact between paddle to paddle, paddle to person, paddle to raft, or person to person and person to raft is illegal”
    The difference between intentional and unintentional obstruction is, for example, in the mere angle of holding the paddle. More vertical – it is not the intention to defend, the more horizontal – is the intent to hinder opponents. So who is it the eye of god, who knows right ?

  • #17278

    IRF admin
    Keymaster

    To Stan and Martin – with regard to National Selections:

    The reason behind these proposals as far as National Selections (NS) is that sadly not all federations are run democratically and fairly like yours. If they were we never would have added all these rules around proving that teams being sent to ERC and WRC were “fairly and credibly” selected.

    Over the years we have had many complaints from teams/paddlers because of things like:
    – winning teams not being sent to our ERC or WRC because the President of their federation sent the team his son was in and used federation funding for it.
    – federations forcing teams to register under different names for each selection race so their points could not be added up.
    – a team winning NS but then the majority of paddlers being replaced by friends and funded by their federation
    – NS races specifically being set at the last minute and / or on dates when the top teams could not participate
    – preventing teams registering and racing at NS races
    – rules being changed during NS so as to benefit certain teams against others
    – and many other things over the years.

    So we have been forced to put in these rules so as to protect the standard of our events and to ensure fairness for our athletes.

    Usually we accept all teams approved by member federations – UNLESS there have been complaints from teams in the country. Only then do we investigate to make sure the top team is being sent.

    As far as running National Selections per IRF Race Rules, maybe we could put in “unless prior permission has been approved by the IRF” and then those countries, like yourselves, who run their NS differently can carry on doing it like that – would this work for you?

  • #17340

    Goran Lolic
    Participant

    Hi All,

    I agree with the proposed changes in 1,3,4,5,7.
    Also I agree with Martin for 2. and 6.proposal.

    Cheers
    Goran

  • #17346

    Pieter Bekkers
    Participant

    I agree with the propose changes in 1-7
    Pieter

  • #17350

    Eric
    Participant

    All good and agreed form 1 to 7

    Eric Boudreau
    Canada

  • #17380

    Aleksey
    Participant

    Good day, dear friends!
    I agree with Stan and Martin in point 2.
    National selection for competitions of rank A and B in Russia, has its own peculiarities. And this is absolutely necessary for us, this is regulated by our internal documents on the rules. These rules are controlled by our sports government. We are preparing an official document and publish it on the official website of the Federation. We do not have an unfair game.
    I think it’s enough to submit these documents approved by the national federations to the IRF. By this we will achieve non-interference in internal affairs and control over fair play.

    I agree on p. 6. with Martin.

    Hooray

  • #17383

    John Anicito
    Participant

    Hello!
    1. Agree
    2. I feel that another line should be added to allow countries to use existing selection methods, assuming its fair and is proven to work. Countries without their own rules should follow IRF standards, when possible.
    3. Agree
    4. Agree
    5. Agree
    6. Disagree with removing the “judging”, but maybe it needs to be more clear that a protest after the event is not intended to review each disciplines results. Events should be protested at the event in a timely manner. If teams don’t protest results at the event they shouldn’t be able to protest later.

    Thanks,
    John A.
    US Raft Association

  • #17392

    Joe
    Keymaster

    Hello All,

    I agree with 1,3,4,5,and 6 as written.

    I understand the concern of some members of this committee about proposal 6: the deletion of ‘judging’ from this rule.

    However, I believe that ALL judging protests are BEST dealt with DURING the event by the Jury – not by a committee AFTER the event has ended and everyone has departed from the race and each other. Only when Judges, Jury, and team are physically together, is it possible to properly address a judging protest – while the action is still fresh in everyone’s memory, and it is possible to view any evidence together at the site. Almost ALL sports deal with judging protests in this manner.

    If post event judging protests are accepted, they would need to be handled virtually (email, skype, etc.) and it may not be possible to re-assemble all of the persons involved or fully re-examine the circumstances. This is far from ideal – and will likely introduce confusion and misunderstanding.

    My opinion is that post event protests should only be accepted if a technical or procedural error occurred (computer/timing error, mistake in transcribing penalty sheets, etc) which affected the race results, thus the affected team(s) could not possibly be aware of the error until after the event had ended.

    • This reply was modified 1 year, 8 months ago by  Joe.
  • #17394

    Joe
    Keymaster

    As Sue has already stated, proposal 2 was suggested because unfortunately we have had several instances where a national federation was not running events that could reasonably be accepted as a fair and credible IRF National Selection.

    I think this proposal (as written) is a little confusing, and I agree with Martin, Stan and the others that there is no need for the IRF to regulate a NS if a national federation is running it fair and credible. I think it would be more clear if we define what we are looking for in a NS (which is clearly a different type of race from other D-Level national races). I would like to change this proposal as follows:

    d. IRF National Selection events must be organised and run in a manner that is consistent with the applicable requirements of IRF World Rafting Championship (A-Level) or IRF Regional Championship (B-Level) events. The IRF Executive Committee may grant exceptions to these requirements on a case-by-case basis under the advisement of the IRF Judge’s Committee and the IRF Athlete’s Committee.

    e. It is highly recommended (but not mandatory) that other national competitions observe applicable A and B Level requirements in order to ensure a high and consistent standard of racing.

    I hope this change is agreeable with everyone!

    • This reply was modified 1 year, 8 months ago by  Joe.
  • #17398

    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.