Race Results

WRC 2018 All results EC 2018 Series final results: R4 MenR4 WomenR6 WomenR6 Men EC Proboj, Serbia Results; Photos ERC 2018, Slovakia All results, photos, videos, etc more archived Race Results

Race Rules proposed changes – 9 to 12

Home IRF Forums Race Rules – proposed updates 2018/2019 Race Rules proposed changes – 9 to 12

This topic contains 21 replies, has 11 voices, and was last updated by  Joe 2 months ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #19456

    IRF admin
    Keymaster

    9.Prize Giving and Awards – only medals for Overall (from Bert and Belgian Rafting Fed)

    Race Rule O.5.b. states: “In each discipline, medals must be awarded to each Competitor – 4 medals for R4 and 6 medals for R6.”

    Remove this rule so that only Race Rule O.5.c. is in effect:For the overall titles, medals must be awarded to all Team Members – 5 medals for R4 and 7 medals for R6. “ meaning ONLY Overall medals are given out.

    Add in as O.5.b instead:As part of Overall Medal Ceremony – winners of each discipline in each category are called to stage and acknowledged as the champions in that discipline. Certificates to each team member are also welcome.

    Reason: Medal ceremonies are often longer than the race itself! They are very, very time consuming now with 8 categories, very, very hard to schedule, very costly, very draining on organisers as they are very logistically challenging (have to have podiums, flag poles, all flags, sound system, all anthems, medal presenters, special transport schedules set up, etc, etc). Preferable this money is spent on other things like reducing costs for teams. And the time it will save will be put to better use by everyone. Plus these medals end up in the waste in a few years – environmentally not a good option. (A small test … who was the Bronze Medalist in Sprint in OM in WRC 2017? After five years you barely remember the Gold medal winners … and it looks nice but after ten years it lays somewhere in the house and after twenty years you can buy it on the Flea Market.) If something is needed then let’s switch to certificates.

    10.Sprint discipline to become time-trial for H2H and points combined or not to have medals for Sprint: (from Sean)

    Race Rule E.1.a states: “Rafting Competitions consist of four (4) disciplines: – Sprint, Head to Head (H2H), Slalom and Downriver.”

    And Race Rule G.3. states the maximum points per discipline are: “Sprint = 100; H2H = 200;

    Change to:  “Rafting Competitions consist of four (4) three (3) disciplines: – Sprint, Head to Head (H2H), Slalom and Downriver.

    AndSprint = 100; H2H = 2 300;”

    OR – Leave above rules as is and change Race Rule O.5.b. to: “In each H2H, Slalom and Downriver disciplines, medals must be awarded to each Competitor – 4 medals for R4 and 6 medals for R6.”

    Reason: Sprint medal ceremonies tend to take as much if not more time than the actual Sprint races (dependent on number of teams) and is already a time trial for H2H anyway. As said in Proposal 13 above – reducing number of medal ceremonies has huge benefits for the overall organising of the event. The Sprint points combined with the Head-to-Head points reflects that the H2H is now harder and more about tactics. More teams may stay around for H2H medal ceremonies.

    11.Points allocation – H2H, Slalom, DR: (from Sean)

    Race Rule G.3. states the maximum points per discipline are: “Slalom = 300; Downriver = 400; Total out of 1000.

    Change to: “Slalom = 300 350; Downriver = 400 350

    Reason: a hard Slalom course is as challenging or even more challenging as any Downriver we’ve had since racing on the Gauley or Futaleufu. e.g. DR on a flattish course like Brazil lasting 25 minutes does not deserve more points than a challenging 14 gate slalom. (BTW – the rules already allow that exceptions can be made if applied for – so if a DR is on a more challenging river or the Slalom on less challenging river the DR can be changed to 400, and/or the Slalom changed to 300 for that race.)

    12.Points allocation – percentages: (from Sean)

    Race Rule G.3. states: “1st place – 100%, 2nd place – 88%, 3rd place – 79%, 4th place – 72%, 5th to 18th place – less 3% each place, 19th to 32nd place – less 2% for each place. (32nd place will therefore receive 2% of points (and so do all teams below this)

    Change to: “1st place – 100%, 2nd place – 88% 92%, 3rd place – 79% 86%, 4th place – 72% 82%, (This is a drop of 8, 6, 4), 5th to 18th place – less 3% each place, 19th to 32nd place – less 2% for each place, 32nd to 39th place – less 1%, 39th place down get 1%.(32nd place will therefore receive 2% of points (and so do all teams below this)).

    Reason: Tightens the differences at the top so brings more teams in with a chance to win Overall and so that winning H2H, Slalom or DR can put team in good position for Overall. Current allocation means winner of DR will almost always win a medal in overall – usually Gold or Silver.

    On its own it wouldn’t change the results from 2018 WRC but it makes the points allocated tighter at the top and gives the impression of a closer field when analysing all teams.

  • #19462

    IRF admin
    Keymaster

    My (SUE) personal response to the proposals is:

    I agree with all the proposals and their reasoning.

    • This reply was modified 3 months, 2 weeks ago by  IRF admin.
  • #19469

    IRF admin
    Keymaster

    From Kianoosh via email:

    ” 9- I do NOT agree

    There are a few strong teams who get medals in most disciplines. For these teams, it is ok to grant them only overall medal.

    But there are many teams which may be winner in one discipline only, so they cannot get medal, because the medals go to overall winners. And it is not good for many teams, so they feel like losers from the beginnings.

    Example: I still remember in 2009 BiH WRC, USA team got Silver medal in H2H. I am sure it is very valuable to them, because it is the only medal they could get and it may never happens again.

    This is a great proposal with good reasoning but only good for very strong teams. So weaker teams may lose their hope from the beginning and will have less interesting competitions.   

    10-      I agree

    11-      I agree

    12-      I agree”

  • #19474

    Eric
    Participant

    I am comfortable with all proposals..

    for the medals…keep this in mind guys:

    if we have let say 60 teams ( 60x 5 paddlers= 300 athlete) at an R-4 event: 4 races 4 members X 3 positions x 8 categories = 384 + overall medals=120 = 504.

    504 medals for 300 athletes….for me this is kind of a participation event where everyone wins…seriously i understand this way of doing when we had OM and OW only…but with 8 categories this is getting ridiculous…

    Sponsors and federations wants good results…all they need is result sheets…i am sure i am not the only one that has a BOX filled with medals forgotten in the back of a dark room ….

    Think also of the ECO minding The IRF is trying to get into…this is huge waste..why not just a nice mention on the IRF FB and web site…of all top 3 teams in each race each category..that is for me the most important aspect…

    Also such a waste of precious time teams could be resting or training having a beer with their pals..(whatever they prefer to do)….

    Finally i am sure all organizers would be happy to invest their money elsewhere..

    cheers

  • #19476

    IRF admin
    Keymaster

    From Pieter via email:

    “9 to 12 = I Agree with all proposals.

    9. It is an expensive affair, I think that in the current situations we are in, we can better pay attention to what expenditure is really important and which is less, and indeed I agree with Eric.”

  • #19479

    Goran Lolic
    Participant

    I am OK with all suggestions and proposals.

  • #19483

    Sean
    Moderator

    9) disagree – if 10 is approved this should alleviate some of these problems
    10) agree – though British Rafting does not agree
    11) strongly agree
    12) agree

  • #19484

    Rado Orokoky
    Participant

    Hi,

    Point 9. Disagree – This step is demotivating for many teams. Someone is good in slalom, someone in downriver and they have no power to get overall medals.
    I think that medals from each discipline is more than overall. With the old scoring system was enough to win the downriver and you became overall winner only with medal from one discipline.
    If we agree with rule number 10. we save one set of medals.
    We can cancel the Overall medals. This is the main extension of prize giving ceremony especially on last day of competition.
    Strongly agree with each discipline, medals must be awarded to each Competitor – 4 medals for R4 and 6 medals for R6. Only overall results can counts with reserve. Not 5 or 7 in each competition. (Example – Argentina 2018 – always 5 medals.) Maybe another proposal to save number of medals.

    Point 10. – 12. Agree

    Rado Orokocky

    • This reply was modified 3 months, 1 week ago by  Rado Orokoky.
  • #20077

    Sean
    Moderator

    Email from Fredi (Australia):
    I have read thru all changes …they seem pretty straight forward. Agree with all rules changes.

  • #20078

    Sean
    Moderator

    Email from Fredi (Australia):
    I have read thru all changes …they seem pretty straight forward. Agree with all rules changes.

  • #20238

    John Anicito
    Participant

    Hello,
    9. disagree with the change especially if teams will still be called on stage as winners, doesn’t save time just the cost of medals. Teams train all year long to get a bit of recognition and something to show for it and this excludes many paddlers. Sorry Eric but not everyone is as good as you to have a box full of medals but I know there are a lot that have competed for years without any medals (including me) 🙂
    I would also disagree that sponsors are fine with just the final score sheet, they want photos and videos,”content” from events and being on the podium always looks best.
    Maybe, we rethink the closing ceremony timing… there could be just one ceremony for all medals… just before or during the closing ceremony leading up to the overall medal winners. There could be a side stage rolling through the other events but at least have a podium where teams can get photos.
    Also, as others have pointed out, if 10 is approved then we can save some time and money for one less award.

    10. Agree with the idea that H2H is now harder and should be higher points but if (11) is approved for lowering downriver points, why not go with H2H-300, Slalom-300, Downriver-300 and keep Sprint(100).
    Just a few thoughts,
    What is the real benefit of this, just no medals? We still have to have run the sprint event but with no points…does this really get us closer to the goal of simplifying and shortening the event schedule?
    Would there still be a sprint race the day before the H2H? or would we try to fit it all in one day? If the Sprint went away, then we may have time to adjust the H2H bracket to double elimination..?

    11. Agree that the point spread really favors the downriver winners so an adjustment is probably in order. What if we vote to combine H2H and Sprint for 300? would it be best to make all 300? All 3 are equally as important.
    12. Tightening the point spread would make it more interesting especially if we approve 10 and or 11 and tighten those point spreads.

  • #20285

    Stan Hajeks
    Participant

    Stan Hajek
    9.-strongly disagree.

    there are many teams which may be winner in one discipline only, so they cannot get medal, because the medals go to overall winners. And it is not good for many teams, so they can not promote your results and medals in home TV, radio,in the Press.
    No medals – no promote, no moneyfor a training.Many teams are preparing for WRC and ERC long months. How will say at Home- We are the champions, without the medals ? From results in the internet only ?? What do You meante?
    If is for organizers problem with to long time of celebration, have to separate Open men,women and masters from U19 and U23. Or we have to go back for Cencellation division U19. But in this time the figt WRF agains IRF – not good timing.

    With the point 10 and 11 I agree without the objections. Until 2088 we had 3 disciplines only. And the discusion about point comparison we have done 5 and 10 years ago too.
    Point 11. – I think that winner is winner and should be a minimum 10 – 15 % more that second team.
    Stan

  • #20308

    Martin Prochazka
    Participant

    Hello all,
    9. Disagree, medals are really very importent for competitors. It´s their memory on event, good race, good results, which could present to all friends, sponsors etc.
    10. Agree
    11. Agree
    12. Agree

  • #20356

    IRF admin
    Keymaster

    Reply to John re medal ceremonies:

    The is the procedure for every single medal ceremony:

    Set up = podium, sound system, flag poles, flags, anthems, people to hand out medals, backboard for sponsors.

    Preparation = move set up to where it is needed as often not practical to do in same place, try get teams there on time, get and explain to people handing out medals how it must work, ensure announcers have all the correct info, ensure all anthems, flags, etc are correct AND that you use the correct one! Ensure transport back for all people involved. Remove set up to next location if needed.

    Actual ceremony – call out and get 3 teams (between 12 and 21 paddlers) up onto the stage, hand out that many medals individually, play the national anthem (most time consuming part), have photos taken (essential), and then get them off so can do next category. With 8 categories this takes AT LEAST an hour!

    So this means every disciplines medal ceremony takes at least an hour (for 8 categories). So four disciplines plus Overall = 5 hours MINIMUM on medal ceremonies. We also find the only ones that stay are the podium teams as they others say it is too long and boring.

    The above is what has prompted the call to reduce medal ceremonies. Organisers are always shocked at the price of medals – but that is not the big reason it has been proposed to reduce the medal ceremonies as we know medals are precious to paddlers – it is the massive logistics around each of the 5 medal ceremonies which have to be squashed into a tight schedule over about 4 racing days.

  • #20357

    IRF admin
    Keymaster

    After reading other people’s points my personal view is now that if 10 is approved then I also disagree to 9.

  • #20369

    IRF admin
    Keymaster

    From Gunther via email:

    “9. I do not agree. I propose to make ecological medals and see how to make the most dynamic awards.

    10. I do not agree.

    11. I do not agree.

    12. I do not agree.”

    • This reply was modified 2 months, 1 week ago by  IRF admin.
  • #20374

    IRF admin
    Keymaster

    From Taku via email:

    “I do not agree with 9 to 11.

    For No9 >The ceremony is for the athletes, not for the organizer.Organizer and IRF must show respect for all the athletes.Ceremonies can be shortened by ingenuity.

    For No10 >Sprint remains an important event as well.

    For No 11> I can not say that Slalom is more difficult than Down River. I can not be as hard as either. It can be said that the No 12 proposal is more appropriate for making the overall game more fun.

    I agree with No 12.”

  • #20375

    IRF admin
    Keymaster

    From Tim via email:

    “9, I understand awards take time, but I do think there should be awards for each discipline. Award ceremony for Sprint, H2H, Slalom and DR could all be brief and not major awards with national anthems. Only over all awards have national anthems.

    10, No. Keep the 4 races and point system as is. As above in q 9, drop national anthems for discipline awards and just keep that for overall. I think keep the award or medal for Sprint

    11,  No Keep as is. I do feel like it is not broken. Just the challenge laid down for great course design and selection and use the exception rule to change points if the DR section is lame! Hopefully not.

    12, Sounds like a good idea, it would be good to trail this at a World Cup event and see if it works. All though I can not see how it wont work”

  • #20396

    IRF admin
    Keymaster

    Athlete’s Com input via email:

    “1  Better to keep all medals for each discipline to respect winners for each discipline as much as possible

    2  Sprint should be remain as independent discipline with some points.

     the system “To be awarded no points just a seeding for head to head” is old system we had before. I think some of you guys still remember it.

    At that time, I remenber that lot of team who won Sprint with no points felt unfair and many people said Sprint winners should get some point even they get good position for H2H.

    I think Sprint is the one to decide the team who has the fastest speed in the world.We should respect it as athlete.

    3  I agree with that slalom to the same amount of points as the down river.

     if sprint remains as independent discipline with some score points.

    My suggestions of scoreing to each disciplines is:

     Sprint-100(200)
     H2H-200(200)
     Slalom-350(300)
     Down River-350(300)

     If sprint to be awarded no points just a seeding for H2H:

     H2H-300
     Slalom-350
     Down River-350

    will be fair enough??”

  • #20410

    Johana
    Participant

    Hello all
    Many different point of view and most with good justification.
    I’ll say:

    9-At the beginning I was agree with Bert and the proposal.
    As race organizer, I understand very well the problem of timing and the cost $$ of doing well. As racer I also agree with the important for teams to have a IRF WRC medal!!

    Just to add extra info in Eric´s comment: 504 medals with a cost of $20 each, average, is a total if $10.080 … Definitelly this amount can be used in more efective ways and in benefit of the teams.
    According with my opinion of the other changes, I’ll say NOT AGREE

    BUT it is definitely important to summarize the process of awarding medals … make it different, without hymns, eliminating unnecessary processes … less protocol, short and effective … let’s be creative !! As Taku said

    10- Agree with Athlete’s Com, the faster teams in the world have to receive recognition. NO AGREE. Keep as is

    11- The challenging part of the DW is the long period of time paddling and for me, is the event that keep the “original spirit” of rafting races … Is not about more or less rapids, it’s about the long-term endurance of the athletes and this is the only event that evaluates that. I’m DISAGREE that the DW have the same points that Slalom

    12- AGREE.
    I also would like to suggest that in case of a tie in overall, the winner is decided by the highest score in the down river and not in the slalom.

  • #20425

    Aleksey
    Participant

    9. Absolutely not. It’s impossible.
    We know how expensive each WRC is. And the main thing that the team can show the sponsor – a medal. Cut medals – cut teams. I think so, I am sure of it. Each medal, a memory for teammates and a tool for finding money.
    Each additional medal, the 5th or 7th, goes to gifts to sponsors. I think it would be better if the organization fee is more expensive than we will save on the medals.
    10. For many years in Russia, Sprint is not a discipline. And we know how bad it is. Every discipline in sport is a unique competition. Now we are finally arranging Sprint as a discipline in the government of sports of Russia. And rejoice that in rafting 5! disciplines I think that the destruction of discipline will not be better for rafting in the world.
    12. I think that the Russian points system is the most optimal. And has established itself for many years as the optimal sports summing up system.
    Sprint H2H Slalom DR %
    1 100 200 300 400 100
    2 95 190 285 380 95
    3 90 180 270 360 90
    4 85 170 255 340 85
    5 80 160 240 320 80
    6 75 150 225 300 75
    7 70 140 210 280 70
    8 65 130 195 260 65
    9 60 120 180 240 60
    10 55 110 165 220 55
    11 50 100 150 200 50
    12 45 90 135 180 45
    13 40 80 120 160 40
    14 35 70 105 140 35
    15 30 60 90 120 30
    16 25 50 75 100 25
    17 20 40 60 80 20
    18 15 30 45 60 15
    19 10 20 30 40 10
    20 5 10 15 20 5

  • #20437

    Joe
    Moderator

    9. From an administrative and organiser point of view, I agree that the cost and time dedicated to medals and ceremonies is very difficult. But in the end the reason for medals is to recognise an athlete’s efforts and those of their sponsors, club and national federation so I believe the cost and time spent is justified. I will side with the athlete’s committee and disagree with this proposal.

    10. I agree that the sprint should revert back to its original designation as ONLY a time trial for the H2H, and that the 100 points that are given to the sprint should be given back to the H2H. I agree that dropping sprint as a medal discipline will help lower cost and time for ceremonies and thus partially address the concerns raised in proposal 9. And I agree that the new H2H format deserves more points – at least equal to the slalom.

    Also, I want to note that from the spectators viewpoint, the sprint is quite boring. Over the years, I have watched a lot of people come to see a raft race for the first time, and grow disinterested and leave after watching the sprint. I believe that if the H2H is the first event, that this will not happen. As a sport, if we are to grow and gain interest and viewers, we must consider this aspect.

    11. This is a tough call, but I disagree. If 10 is accepted, then my preference is 300, 300, 400. Rather than reduce points for all DR’s because the whitewater on a DR course may not be challenging enough, I believe it would be better to adjust the points for those specific occurrences, or consider innovative ways to make the DR more challenging. More so than the whitewater, often the most challenging aspect of the DR is the required endurance.

    12. I agree this should be changed – I think that a tighter scoring system will be much better for the event and more fair, however I do not have a specific opinion on whether this proposal offers the best way to accomplish this. I am open to hearing ideas.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Comments are closed.