Proposed ICF rule changes

[John Coraor]

Alden:

Part of what you're hearing is concern for change being driven by elements other than the natural evolution of the sport and the racers themselves. However, I'm sure some of it is just "geezer grumbling" by us old school racers who remember what it was like "back in the day."

I miss reverse gates because I spent a good portion of my racing career practicing them and was proud of my ability to slam dunk or 360 spin a reverse gate in C-2 without causing more than a momentary pause in my descent down the course. However, there is no denying that they were a gate-judging nightmare.

I think that changes such as the reduction in penalties, first from 10 seconds PER POLE, to 5 seconds PER POLE, then 5 seconds PER GATE, and perhaps even 2 seconds PER GATE did represent natural evolution of the sport as equipment and techniques advanced and total run times got shorter. The same argument can be made for dropping to one second, but I would like to see a statistical analysis that compares the impact of penalities on race results just prior to each of the above changes in comparison to the current 2 second penalty. A reduction to maintain a balance between total run times and the impact of a gate penalty is one thing, a reduction to increase emphasis on pure speed and decrease the importance of staying clean is quite another. Unfortunately, I do see one pole gates and more of the latter.

As Nate notes, the original intention of slalom was to compete on a course that artifically simulated a more difficult river by defining "chutes" (gates) that one must manuver through. The penalties were meant to mirror the effect of hitting a rock on the side of the chute (touch penalties) or completely missing the chute (50 seconds).

Alden, your statistics about number of boats contesting a class at team trials is quite interesting and, I must admit, surprising. How have those numbers been holding up through recent years?

While I can take some consolation in those team trial participation numbers, it is undeniable that, despite what you might see at the top of the pyramid, the bottom of the slalom pyramid is horribly undercut and teetering on a toothpick. The number of beginner and intermediate races is probably less than half what it was in the mid-80s and the leap in difficulty between intermediate level races and national and international races at the top of the pyramid is huge. Numbers of racers participating in beginner and intermediate races is now tiny and growing smaller, with the too few younger paddlers to balance us greybeards.

Part of my concern about these changes is that they might further separate elite racing from the beginner and intermediate races at the bottom of the pyramid. While a one second penalty may be appropriate for an 80 second run down an international race course by Scott Parsons, it would be a mild slap on the wrist to the beginner or intermediate paddler taking 200 seconds or more to descend the course at the Punch Brook Slalom. Use of one pole gates in the midst of a wicked series of offsets at Charlotte might make functional sense. It is more difficult to make the same practice work on a Class I stream. The technology for a safe rigid gate allowing the elimination of gate penalties altogether is unlikely to filter down to the Esopus Slalom or the Blackwater.

I guess what I and perhaps others fear is that these rule changes have a danger of further fracturing a sport that already has an elite level that operates with only a tenuous connection to its developmental foundation.

BTW: Regarding early to mid-80s rules changes happening without influence of the Olympics, remember that, as Jamie McEwan will remind you, slalom's involvement in the Olympics began in 1972.

John

[KNeal]

Here is the requested rule change:

3) The penalty and gates requirements will be changed. Most notably, the
penalty for touching a gate will be reduced to 1 second, with a gradual
phasing out of touch penalties altogether with the appropriate gate
technology. In addition, the introduction of single pole gates will simplify
organisation and judging at events without loss of the challenge inherent
in slalom.

Thanks for asking about which rule change, Alden. I found a requested rule change that I think CAN increase participation with slalom racing. I hope it actually takes effect:

2) The Format of the World Cup, World Championships and Olympics will
include an additional “Extreme” slalom race. This format is shorter (6-10
gates) and more difficult than the current format. The format of
progression through these competitions (both classic and extreme) will
also be changed.

That's true, but I think it's a myth that slalom in the US peaked in the 1980s.

I'll point out that I did not mention when I thought slalom peaked. I didn't become interested in slalom until I watched the '92 Olympic games and watched the c-2 racers. I thought that was just the COOLEST! In the spirit of contributing ALL of my 2 cents, I say slalom peaked at the Atlanta Games in '96.

"Recently, it's been on boatercross."

That's not true.

You gonna argue me on my opinion?

Could I be wrong? Certainly NOT!

BTW. Hey, Alden. I found a video of a righty c-1 slalom racer doin' head-ducks under some "up" gates. That style of gate runnin' has got a name, doesn't it? Anyway, is that you? That was awesome to watch!

I'll be rootin' for ya at the trials next weekend.
KNeal

[Alden]

John, you make a lot of good points about the dangers of the proposed changes. I tend to agree that I wouldn't support one pole gates. It feels insulting that they would think about changing something that has been so fundamental to our sport for so long.

Every year there are these rumors -- oh, the ICF is getting rid of C-2s, or, boats are going to be shortened. I guess it's a tribute to our developing, fluid sport, but at the same time, I hate it that they're tinkering with the rules all the time! Why can't we just be a sport with established rules? Of course, any sport has its rule changes. You see it in the NFL (most recently in the rule that keeps the QB from getting hit late) or in the NBA (they never call moving screens now). But still!

Kneal, That doesn't sound like my style, but you never know. See you at Charlotte.

[Craig Smerda]

As for the "mass marketing" of slalom... I think having electrified razor wire rather than poles and piranhas in every eddy would liven it up a bit. I also think releasing 20-25 hungry crocodiles within 10 seconds of the padder breaking the start beam would truly push competitors to hurry things along. The course should be no less than a 5K and spectators get to swing bowling balls secured to overhead timbers along the course at the paddlers as they navigate amongst flaming barrells of Arab oil. The highlight of the run is just before the finish and the paddler enters into a dark tunnel where a catapult from a Nimitz class aircraft carrier grabs the bow loop and launches them at an eleven degree angle out of the barrell towards the finish line.

1 second penalties??? That's just plain crazy.

In open canoe slalom... we have 10 second penalties for touching a gate.


EDIT; Didn't Kaz hang an "all upstream" course one time???

[old and in the way]

Alden:

I'm sure some of it is just "geezer grumbling" by us old school racers who remember what it was like "back in the day."

these rule changes have a danger of further fracturing a sport that already has an elite level that operates with only a tenuous connection to its developmental foundation.

John

No one could have put things more eloquently, John. Since denial is the first indication of a problem, I'll raise my hand and admit to "geezer grumbling".

I fully agree with the last extracted quote above, and will go one further with my heretofor unmentioned disdain for combined run scoring. I suppose it is appropriate, perhaps, at the elite level, but it has no place at the "citizen" races. I am grateful that the local affairs (for the most part) utilize better of two runs scoring, especially for young'uns just trying to learn slalom. What beginner wants to swim and find out there is pretty much no need to take a second run (except for the practice, of course)?

[Al Greve]

Are all these changes bad.....I see alot of talk about the single pole and the one second changes but no no has mentioned WC1 &WC2 to C class races..... or the move to add WC1 to the Worlds in 2010. The sport needs to evolve, I tink its great that the sport has been opened up to the ladies!

More ladies in the sport......means more spectators!

One other thing........ has the number of spectators increased at the Olympics....... yes....its one of the biggest attended venues at the games.

Anyway....I'm off to the river.....my 11 year old daughter needs to practice in her Lizard 350 C1...... sweet!!!!!!!

[bigspencer07]

As for the "mass marketing" of slalom...(snipped)...piranhas in every eddy would liven it up a bit. I also think releasing 20-25 hungry crocodiles within 10 seconds of the padder breaking the start beam would truly push competitors to hurry things along.....

...Elimination of the "Better luck next year.." attitude...eh' Craig!?
Yeah, what we need is more time when this is televised...for commercials!...

...ROTFL

[TomAnon]

I have thought about the rule changes quite a bit. In general I favor them for one reason, it will remove much of the human judging element. Every year is seems the river side lawyering gets worse with more and more protests every race. The big races practically have a waiting line for people to get at the chief judge. Protests and inquiries abound. I cannot blame the racers because for the most part a protest will work and two seconds can have a profound change on your run. The benefit of the doubt should go to the racer, always. I have seen way to many arguments over penalties come close to fights.

[old and in the way]

And if the protest arena comes to fights, what does that say about the athletes nowadays?

Anyone remember the 92 Olympics? Lugbill's barely a touch that was called and Pollart's clobber of the pole that was not? I don't recall hearing about protests and arguments then (maybe there was, I just don't recall hearing about it). Oh, there I go again, dredging up the old days

If we're going to follow the tact of taking the human judge element out of elite sports, how do we handle figure skating and the like? Not to argue with you, Tom, it would be great if human error did not cost someone a medal (or a Super Bowl, or a World Series...) but that's how it goes.

[TomAnon]

"What does that say about atheletes today?"

Jim I am with you about the protests and inquiries. I do not remember that. I always thought you took medicine and tried to make sure you did not make the same mistake again.

Another thing, I do not remember people 50'ing a gate, giving up and just drifting out the run in the old days either, yet, I have seen that happen to much these days as well. To me, that is really poor sportsmanship and begs a DQ.

Never, ever quit!

[androooo]

http://www.bobdylan.com/songs/times.html
... something to think about.

I'm not sure if the "dumbing down" of the sport isn't more to accommodate the judging of slalom rather than to make it more simple for the easy viewing of tv observers and network television.(like others have said especially about reverse gates.)
Even though i do believe it's true that the generation we live in now is very demanding with an "immediate" and quick attitude. Everything is highspeed and immediate results are expected and desired over the quality and appreciation that requires patients or the longer route.

[Alden]

It would be nice to remove the human element from judging. There have been some famous mistakes (like the aforementioned Lugbill/Pollert controversy), and some controversial calls which seemed to cost deserving athletes (Rich Weiss, 1989 Worlds, Rebecca Giddens, 1999 Worlds). So it would be nice to do away with the "human element" in judging.

On the other hand, Pollert's touch illustrates one of the difficulties that no system could easily eliminate: what if the judges fail to call a penalty? Is there any recourse? And if so, who makes that decision? Coaches? Athletes? That would never happen in other pro sports.

And if there is such recourse, do we ALL need to be self-reporting on our own touches? Or should such recourse only apply when an Olympic medal is in contention? That hardly sounds fair.

One advantage of single second touches might be that they are less fought over because they are less important to race outcomes. I don't know.

As far as just having single poles:

Keep in mind too that this would still not eliminate many tough calls. For example -- Rich Weiss's famous touch/non-touch was on the inside pole of a downstream gate. So was Pollert's.

And as for having the proper "technology":

It's hard to imagine an electronic gate system of the kind that has been hinted at which would be able to monitor touches automatically. I believe that Rich's justification in 1989 was that he had a "water touch," as he put it. I can't imagine a computer understanding the difference.

Tom wrote:
"Another thing, I do not remember people 50'ing a gate, giving up and just drifting out the run in the old days either, yet, I have seen that happen to much these days as well. To me, that is really poor sportsmanship and begs a DQ."

The most famous instance of this, to me, was probably Danko Hercig in the 1996 Olympics. But I also remember Elena Kaliska 50-ing a gate in the 2002 Worlds and spending all that time trying to attain back up to get it, only to fail. Even the Canadian announcers were talking about how classy it was of her to do that. When she won the 2004 Olympics two years later, after a disappointing 2000 Olympics, I certainly thought that maybe it had a little to do with karma.

Old and In the Way wrote:
"Anyone remember the 92 Olympics? Lugbill's barely a touch that was called and Pollart's clobber of the pole that was not? I don't recall hearing about protests and arguments then (maybe there was, I just don't recall hearing about it). Oh, there I go again, dredging up the old days."

I always wondered about that too, until someone told me that Lugbill himself felt that one of the French C-1s (I believe it was Emmanuel Brugvin) was given an unfair touch at that race.

So if things had been "right," Lugbill still would have been fourth, behind Brugvin, Marriott, and Avril, and Pollert should have been fifth. That might partly help to explain why there might not have been a lot of complaints coming from Jon. I don't know for sure though.

Alden

[John Coraor]

As I understand it, simplification or increased drama for TV audiences was one of the primary reasons behind the switch to combined scores from better of two runs. It's much easier and more "exciting" to have a clock running as the camera follows a racer down the course and then be able to instantly disclose whether the combined time has beaten the competition - as opposed to the announcer having to explain, "well this run by racer A was slower, but his first run was better than anyone else's run."

However, I do agree that elimination of the human element of judging is a major driver toward the reduction/elimination of penalties. As I understand it, the manpower required for gate judging a slalom race makes it one of the most official-rich Olympic sports. Thus there is both an administrative interest in reducing officials, as well as a concern for the subjectivity of judging and the high impact that it can have on final results.

Unfortunately, these concerns at the upper levels of the sport are largely non-existent at its foundation, and the pressures seem to be building for local races to operate with different rules than those found at ICF races at the upper level. Certainly I agree with Jim about the return to "better of two runs" for local races. NESS did that last year for the same reason Jim gave.

John

[old and in the way]

To shift gears slightly...

I always wondered about that too, until someone told me that Lugbill himself felt that one of the French C-1s (I believe it was Emmanuel Brugvin) was given an unfair touch at that race.
Alden

I only met Jon a couple times, and admit I do not know him, as he would not know me from Adam. But I have to say that in those couple of times I found him to be a class act. Imagine being at your first ever slalom race in 1984 (Riversport) and who is there but the gol dang world champion himself. I honestly figured he'd be self centered and want nothing to do with the riff raff. Boy was I wrong!

Not only did he teach a clinic for us, he rescued me when I swam in a race run (funny, he had finished his run and was at the bottom of the course. I flipped about 1/3 of the way down, by the time I bailed out of the boat he was next to me ferrying me in!). But the kicker was, after the race he helped with course take down and was even walking around picking up garbage.

This is not to minimize contact with the other few elite racers I have met over the years. I cannot say enough about the Hearns and how nice they are. Who was at the 1999 Concordia, receiving instruction from Davey? He was very gracious. And who here does not have a goofy Billy Hearn story?

I drank beer with Norbert Sattler (OK guy even though he raced kayak), and he ate all my Chewy Chips Ahoy!

And talk about coming full circle, when I was helping with Penn Cup clinics years ago there was a little guy there named Casey. Now I am learning from him.

[Alden]

My god. We were just talking about judging controversy, and I just got back from a race that had more of it than all the other races I've ever been to in my life put together.

Here's an example:

Day 3: David Ford and Nathan Davis are dueling it out for the sole Canadian Olympic spot in K-1, when Ford is not given two potential touches that several people (including me) feel that he had. This turns out to be the deciding factor in Ford's making the Olympic Team over Davis. There has been some controversy surrounding this incident, and it seems that it may not be over yet, should Davis push the issue.

There were a number of other controversies at the race that included penalties given and added, and protests overturned and upheld.

Just an incredible reminder for me of the human element in judging and the difficulties associated with penalties.

Alden