BRITISH CANOEING Slalom Committee Eleventh Annual Consultative Meeting 29th November 2014 Held at British Canoeing, National Water Sports Centre Adbolton Lane, Holme Pierrepont, Nottingham, NG12 2LU Minutes Canoeing and Kayaking are Assumed risk contact sports may carry attendant risks. Participants should be aware of and accept these risks, and be responsible for their own action and involvement.
1 Welcome by the Chair The Chair thanked British Canoeing for the use of the premises. She then welcomed 35 people representing 22 clubs to the meeting; between them, they held 53 votes. Andy Grudzinski and John Sturgess were appointed tellers for the meeting. Apologies were received from Hannah Burgess, Marketing and Publicity Co-ordinator, who was busy preparing for that evenings awards dinner and Hugh Pashley Sheffield Canoe Club 2 Minutes 2.1 10th Annual Consultative Meeting The Minutes of the 10 th Annual Meeting were accepted as a true record. Proposed by Proteus Canoe Club and seconded by Green Star Canoe. This was was adopted nem con. 2.2 2013 / 2014 Committee Meetings Minutes from the 2013 / 2014 Slalom Committee meetings were tabled for information 3 Reports 3.1 Chair s Report A report was tabled and is available on the Canoe Slalom UK web site. The report reviewed the progress made over the period of her tenure as Chair. Among the items identified were: The development of a co-operative relationship with World Class. Development of a timing system fit for the 21 st century The running of internationals, from the 2006 Euros through to the World Cups and next years World Championships The Olympics, a showcase for our discipline and to the world and the best on show and the magic of those 2 medals on the last day The report closed with thanks to all present and past committee members that have supported her, and best wishes for the future team. 3.2 Treasurer s Report 3.2.1 Accounts The Treasurer tabled the un-audited accounts for the year ended 31 October 2014 and provided an overview. The major points from the report and subsequent discussion were: The accounts show a surplus of income over expenditure of 9,365 (2013 9,778). Income was over 7,500 above budget with gross levies 5% higher than 2013. Expenditure was below budget with savings in office expenses and meeting costs. Following several years of surpluses, our reserves are higher than are required to provide financial stability. The Committee is currently reviewing areas of spending and funding, with a view to reducing the level of reserves during 2015. 3.2.2 Canoe England Competition Grant Following BCU Federalisation the Committee receives a Competition Grant from Canoe England. This grant is focussed almost exclusively to English paddler development, though still with some direct support to fund other elements of the Committee expenditure. Page 2 of 10
3.2.3 Income / expenditure Income Expenditure 3.2.4 Thanks and approval Andy Koszary recorded his thanks to Catharine Croft the retiring Slalom Accounts Manager for the work she carried out during the more than a decade of voluntary work. This was warmly seconded by the meeting. A motion to accept the accounts was proposed by SCOTS, seconded by Viking Kayak Club and was adopted nem con 3.3 Reports from Co-ordinators Reports were tabled and available on the canoe slalom uk web site from Competition Co-Ordinator (Jacky Brookes) Event Management (Peter Curry): In addition Peter offered his specific thanks to Anne Hounslow and Andy Grudzinski for their help in running the British Open, when he was taken unwell. Peter also noted that the British Open in 2013 would have broken even if all volunteers had claimed expenses. If the event had paid a levy there would have been a large deficit. Strategic Planning (Dave Spencer) Technical Support (Andy Grudzinski) Athlete Representative (Martyn Setchell) GB Canoeing (Craig Morris) Scotland (Chris Baillie) Volunteer (Jim Croft) Wales (Julian Tyler)) A report was tabled on the day by: England (Dave Royle) No report was available from: Marketing and Publicity (Hannah Burgess) Northern Ireland (Matthew McKnight) 4 Elections 4.1 Chair David Spencer was proposed and seconded by the Slalom Committee. In the absence of any other nominations he was elected unopposed. 4.2 Vice Chair Martyn Setchell was proposed and seconded by the slalom committee for the remaining one year term. In the absence of any other nominations he was elected unopposed. It is his intention to carry out both this and the athlete representative roles for the forthcoming year. 4.3 Treasurer Andy Koszary was proposed and seconded by the Slalom Committee. In the absence of any other nominations he was elected unopposed. 4.4 Committee Members Jacky Brookes, Jim Croft and Hannah Burgess were re-elected nem con. There is a vacant co-ordinator place on the committee. Page 3 of 10
4.5 Other Officials (normally elected en bloc ) TUTTI Maintenance Andy Hounslow Ranking Officer Nick Penfold Entry Cards Sarah Ford Ranking Status Officer John Woods Ranking Officers Premier Men Tracy Wells Men s Canadian Singles Carole McGranachan Division 1 Men Nick Penfold Women s Canadian Singles Mark Shaw Division 2 Men Les Saunders Canadian Doubles Stuart Meakins Division 3 Men Penny Scaife Veterans P / 1 All Categories Mike Carter Division 4 Men James Hastings Veterans 2 / 3 All Categories Terry Griffiths K1 Women All divisions Mike Carter Officials Compiler Amanda Woodgate Bib Issue Premier Men Tracy Wells Men s Canadian Singles Carole McGranachan Division 1 Men Nick Penfold Women s Canadian Singles Mark Shaw Division 2 Men Les Saunders Canadian Doubles Stuart Meakins Division 3 Men Nicki Watson Veterans P / 1 All Categories Mike Carter K1 Women Prem & 1 Sally Atkinson Veterans 2 / 3 All Categories Terry Grifiths K1 Women Divisions 2 & 3 Tanya Gibbons Bib Hire Team Bibs Dave Lomas Officials Bibs Jim Croft The above were elected en-bloc, with no objections. 5 Awards 5.1 Ed Ecclestone Award Nominees for the Ed Ecclestone award this year are: Les Ford David Waine. The award was won by Les Ford. As the nomination say Les puts his heart and soul in to slalom at club and regional level, but he's down to earth and unassuming about it. The passion is obvious - he wants all paddlers to be the best they can be and he wants to help them get there He works tirelessly with the slalom squad teaching a group of juniors and seniors (some quite senior!). His calm and positive manner have helped even the most nervous of paddler compete at many different slalom competitions Quite simply without Les Ford slalom would not continue at our club. His knowledge, love and passion for slalom is infectious. 5.2 Retiring Chair A small presentation was made to Anne Hounslow as the retiring Chair of the committee after more than a decade of volunteering at the coal face Anne is standing down and will be missed. 6 Motions 6.1 ICF Rule changes The ICF have proposed a number of rule changes this year. It is proposed that those not relating just to level 1, 2 and 3 internationals should be adopted into the UK rules. Where ICF Rule changes are not adopted, the existing UK rule remains. The committee is to examine any further changes introduced at the recent board meeting and adopt using the above criteria. An amendment was put to the motion such that the direct progression from heat 1 one semi-finals may be used in addition to championship format. Although not adopting the precise wording of the of the ICF rule but adapting UK rules appropriately. This amendment was accepted nem con. Page 4 of 10
To be Adopted (Page 80) C27.1 The gates consist of one (1) or two (2) suspended poles painted with green and white rings for downstream gates and red and white rings for upstream gates, with the bottom ring always white, each ring is 20 cm high. A black band of a minimum width of 2 cm and maximum width of 2.5 cm is placed around the base of each pole. In the case of a one pole (1) gate, a second pole will be placed on the respective side bank at the waters edge to define the gate line. (Page 82) C29.4.3 The head of the competitor (in C2 one, or both competitors) breaks the gate line upside down, (For definition of upside down see Rule 32.1) unless correctly renegotiated before any subsequent gate negotiation begins. C29.4.7 Part of the head breaks the gate line in the correct direction, with or without part of the boat, unless correctly renegotiated before any subsequent gate negotiation begin. C29.6 Repeated attempts at a gate without touching the poles is not penalised if part of the head of the competitor(s) has not broken the gate line in the wrong direction. (Page 85) C35.1.1 In the case where a tie for a position that qualifies the competitor for the next rounds phase (semifinal or final) cannot be resolved, the tied athletes will progress to the semi-final or final with the higher UKICF ranked competitor(s) placed above the lower UK ranked ICF competitor(s). {NB Change here is terminology (ICF) and UK not ICF ranking (UK)} To be Adapted (Page 74) ICF RULE 14.1.1 At level 1, 2 and 3 ICF competitions a defined number of Competitors will progress to the semifinal phase based on the results from their first heats run. The 2nd Heats run start list will be published minus the 1st heats run qualified Competitors. The Competitors will compete for the remaining semi-final places in their respective event. For Competitors who have two heats runs, the second run score in the heats phase is counted as their heats result. Competitors that qualify for the semi-final phase from their 2nd heats run score will be placed at the beginning of the semi-final start list, followed by the competitors who qualified from their 1st heats run score. UK Amendment C14.1A national Canoe Slalom competition consists of 2 runs. The lesser score of the two runs will determine the results of the heats or the results of the competition where no semi-finals or finals event is conducted. The start order of the semi-final will be the reverse order of the results of the heats. The start order of the final run will be in the reverse of the result of the semi-final run. Organisers can use different competition formats. The competition format can consist of one heats run and one final run (progression numbers must be published by the organiser) or two heats run, semi- final and final. Progression numbers from each heat must be published by the organiser Not to Be Adopted (Page 86) 36.2 For judging and timing matters a Team Manager may make an enquiry with no fee. The Chief Judge will review all the available information for the processing of the enquiry. Following the investigation of the enquiry the decision of the Chief Judge becomes a matter of fact and therefore cannot be protested further. An enquiry is considered only when submitted within 5 minutes after the competitor s checklist is posted. 5 minutes of the unofficial results of the event being posted, A National Federation may enquire on another National Federation one (1) time during the entire competition. In the case when an inquiry from a National Federation against another National Federation results in a changed result the National Federation making the inquiry will not lose their one (1) inquiry. When an enquiry leads to a changed result all affected Teams must be informed. The substantive motion was accepted nem con. It was duly passed Page 5 of 10
6.2 Junior C2 Ranking Although the rule for Masters C2s is clearly spelt out, the rule is not stated for Junior C2s. The masters age categories are also repeated. Simplify and state the C2 rule in one place only. Page 65 UK C3.4 Age categories: Ranking status is not governed by age, but special events, Championship Events and prizes at Ranking Competitions may be related to the following age stages: Junior 10 (J10) 10th birthday on or after 1st January. Junior 12 (J12) 12th birthday on or after 1st January. Junior 14 (J14) 14th birthday on or after 1st January Junior 16 (J16) 16th birthday on or after 1st January Junior 18 (J18) 18th birthday on or after 1st January Master (M) 35th birthday on or before 31st December in each case, in the current year. In junior C2 categories the age of the elder competitor will control the age category in which the pair can compete. In masters categories the age of the youngest competitor will control the age grouping. Veterans (V) who have elected to leave the divisional system and compete in Veterans Events (See Rule B.5.) Juniors, Masters and Veterans who declare their date of birth will be identified on end of season ranking lists. C3.5 Master(s) competitors can compete in a Masters event in the year that he / she reaches the lower limit of the age categories, i.e. in the 35-39 age group they are eligible to compete the year of their 35th birthday. In events that have two competitors in the boat, the age of the younger competitor will control the category in which the pair can compete. Age group categories will commence from age 35-39 and increase upwards in 5 year age intervals This motion was handled under article 5.9 and voted on immediately. It was adopted nem con. 6.3 Short Season Ranking There is occasional confusion over the precise meaning of the words in rule B3.1 regarding protection from demotion. In order to clarify the intent, the order of the words will be amended (Page 55) B3.1 Promotion during the season through the divisions is based on performance at events as set out in rules B4 below. Promotion and demotion also occur at the end of each season, as decided by the Committee, when ranking lists have been finalised. Competitors promoted during a season or granted ranking status after 31st July are designated 'Short Season'. Competitors promoted during a season are also designated Short Season. and are not liable for demotion Those designated Short Season will not be demoted at the end of that season. This motion was handled under article 5.9 and voted on immediately. It was adopted nem con. 6.4 Organisers Pack There is a, not inconsiderable, cost in duplicating and posting the Organisers pack on CD to every organising club each year. It is proposed that CDs will be available only on demand, with the organiser s pack itself being available on line. A simple link to be able to download all the contents, in a single process, and physical packs will be available on request. This is not a rule change, but a change of process. The motion was adopted nem con. 6.5 Division 4 Promotion Proposed and seconded by Stafford and Stone Canoe Club Promotion from division 4 is inconsistent across the categories for a variety of historical reasons including the dearth of quorate events and the tendency to make division 4 events quorate with paddlers just trying the class with no intention of progressing. The C1W and C2 classes are now more mature and there is a better depth of talent even at the lower end of the ranking pyramid. We therefore propose that promotion of 1 in 5 be extended to both C1W and C2. Currently modified scores are used in promotion from division 4 for C1W and C2, but not for C1M or K1W. This does not seem equitable, and we also propose that the modified score is used for direct promotion in all classes. The result of this motion will be that all classes are promoted on a 1 in 5 basis, or when the modified score would have achieved promotion when compared to K1Men, a consistent and equitable approach. (a K1M modified score being the same as the K1M score) Page 57 Page 6 of 10
B4.3.1 Promotion from Division 4 to Division 3 For Division 4 a class is deemed to be quorate if 3 or more competitors start the race. (See Rule UKC5.1) K1 Men: 1 in 5 (or part thereof if quorate) K1 Women / C1 Men / C1 Women / C2: 1 in 5 (or part thereof if quorate), or when the Competitor s modified score would have gained promotion in the corresponding K1 Men s event (modified scores are defined in B4.2.2), rounding down to the accuracy of the event. C1 Women / C2: Division 4 to Division 3: on achieving a best run score within 120% of the last promoted Division 4 K1 Men s score at the same event, rounding down to the accuracy of the event. In all cases where two, or more, paddlers are tied on best run scores for the last promotion place from Division 4 then all such Competitors are promoted. This motion was handled under article 5.9 and voted on immediately. It accepted nem con. 6.6 C1 Womens Divisions P / 1 The number of paddlers in the top C1W division has increased, with clear difference in standard between the top and the bottom of the division. In order to retain the element of fair competition for all it is proposed that the division be split into two divisions, (Premier and Division 1). The precise division of paddlers between the divisions will be agreed at the next Slalom Committee meeting. Promotion between the two divisions will be by achieving 4650 points or three maximum points, thus reflecting the C1M points. (Page 53) B1.1 Divisions The divisional system of five divisions (Premier, 1, 2, 3 and 4) in each of the threefour categories (K1M, K1W, C1W and C1M), four divisions (Premier / 1, 2, 3 and 4) in the C1W category and three divisions (Premier / 1, 2 / 3 and 4) in the C2 category ensures that there is a standard of competition suitable for Competitors of all degrees of ability. In addition there is a Veterans divisional and ranking system and a competition series for Officials. (Page 58) B4.3.3 Canadian Men Singles Classes Division 3 to Division 2: on gaining 3200 points from the best four events or a combination of maximum points or achieving the paddle up standard at three events. Division 2 to Division 1: on gaining 3400 points from the best four events or a combination of maximum points or achieving the paddle up standard at three events. Division 1 to Premier: on gaining 4650 points from the best five events or a combination of maximum points or achieving the paddle up standard at three events. B4.3.4 Canadian Women Singles Division 3 to Division 2: on gaining 3200 points from the best four events or a combination of maximum points or achieving the paddle up standard at three events. Division 2 to Premier / 1: on gaining 3400 points from the best four events or a combination of maximum points or achieving the paddle up standard at three events B4.3.45 Canadian Doubles Class This motion was handled under article 5.9 and voted on immediately. It accepted nem con. 6.7 Rank All Divisions / Classes Based Upon The Best Five Results Standardising across the divisions on five results will require better finishes and higher points to be achieved to gain promotion. It is intended that the threshold be increased proportionately with minor rounding to fifty points. Note that the rule changes below will be affected by the motion above. (Page 58) Note that the changes above have been reflected in the rule change passed, and listed below. B4.3.2 All Kayak Classes: Division 3 to Division 2: on gaining 3300 4150 points from the best four five events or a combination of maximum points or achieving the paddle up standard at three events. Page 7 of 10
Division 2 to Division 1: on gaining 3600 4500 points from the best four five events or a combination of maximum points or achieving the paddle up standard at three events. Division 1 to Premier: on gaining 4750 points from the best five events or a combination of maximum points or achieving the paddle up standard at three events. B4.3.3 Canadian Men Singles Division 3 to Division 2: on gaining 3200 4000 points from the best four five events or a combination of maximum points or achieving the paddle up standard at three events. Division 2 to Division 1: on gaining 3400 4250 points from the best four five events or a combination of maximum points or achieving the paddle up standard at three events. Division 1 to Premier: on gaining 4650 points from the best five events or a combination of maximum points or achieving the paddle up standard at three events. B4.3.4 Canadian Women Singles Division 3 to Division 2: on gaining 3200 4000 points from the best four five events or a combination of maximum points or achieving the paddle up standard at three events. Division 2 to Premier / 1: on gaining 3400 4250 points from the best four five events or a combination of maximum points or achieving the paddle up standard at three events. B4.3.5 Canadian Doubles Division 2 / 3 to Premier / 1: on gaining 2650 3350 points from the best four five events or a combination of maximum points or achieving the paddle up standard at three events B4.4 End of season results Ranking positions are calculated on the Best five results, in Premier, Division 1 and Division P / 1 Best four results in Divisions 2, 3 and 2 / 3 Division 4 competitors are not ranked. In the event of a tie, refer to Rules A6 (Championship Tie break) or B3.2 (Ranking Tie Break). (Page 58) B5.5.1 Division 2 / Division 3 Ranking positions at the end of the season are calculated on the best four five results obtained in any Ranking Competitions in the season, at the divisional level declared by the Veteran, or higher, up to and including Division 2. The motion was accepted nem con. 6.8 Levy at Division 3 / 4 Events It is critical that the entry level of the sport is supported and assistance given to Organisers to help manage financial pressures, and give greater freedom and creativity in hosting events in tune with encouraging participation in Canoe Slalom. To this end it is proposed to remove all levies from Division 3 / 4 events from 2015 onwards. This is only for division 3 / 4 races. If there is a higher division race run, the levy will apply all both divisions. The Slalom Committee noted that this would disenfranchise clubs running division 3 / 4 events. This was not the purpose of the motion. An amendment to article 6.2 was moved: 6.2 Each such club shall have an additional vote for each Ranking Slalom it has organised in the past full competition year, for which any applicable Administration fees have been paid It was noted that this is a constitutional motion so required a 2 / 3rds majority. The amendment and revised motion were both accepted was accepted nem con. An Amendment was accepted to also remove levies from stand-alone division 3 races An amendment was put to remove levies from division 3 completely, not just from combined division 3 and 4 races. This was proposed by West Yorkshire and seconded by Green Star. This received 18 votes for 29 against with 4 abstentions the amendment therefore failed. An amendment was put to also remove the levy from open races run alongside division 3, combined division 3 / 4 races and division 4 races. This was proposed by Green Star, seconded by Proteus and accepted nem con. Page 8 of 10
The substantive motion was then It is critical that the entry level of the sport is supported and assistance given to Organisers to help manage financial pressures, and give greater freedom and creativity in hosting events in tune with encouraging participation in Canoe Slalom. To this end it is proposed to remove all levies from Division 3, Division 4, and combined 3 / 4 events from 2015 onwards. This is only for division 3 / 4 races. If there is a higher division race run, the levy will apply to all relevant divisions.. The revised motion was duly passed nem con 6.9 Paddle Up Token There has been some confusion over the validity of a paddle up token with regards to the points total required for promotion. The current rule does not allow paddle up tokens to be counted as 1,000 points, but to count them as part of the or gaining maximum points at three events. The rule will be changed to allow a paddle up token to be counted as 1,000 points or a win. Page 55 B3.3.1 Paddle Up A competitor ranked in any given division may enter races designed for the next division up (referred to below as the Host division). This is intended to enable paddlers to get experience of more challenging racing conditions and to allow them to compare their abilities against higher-division paddlers. Provided that the class is quorate, a competitor paddling up achieving a result better than that achieved by 40% of the ranked paddlers may count that result as 1,000 points. competing in that class at three events in the same season may claim promotion into the higher division. An amendment to the motion to require the paddler to contact the ranking officer to claim the 1,000 points was proposed by SCOTS and seconded by Viking. The amendment was accepted nem con The motion then read B3.3.1 Paddle Up A competitor ranked in any given division may enter races designed for the next division up (referred to below as the Host division). This is intended to enable paddlers to get experience of more challenging racing conditions and to allow them to compare their abilities against higher-division paddlers. Provided that the class is quorate, a competitor paddling up achieving a result better than that achieved by 40% of the ranked paddlers may claim that result as 1,000 points by application to the ranking officer. competing in that class at three events in the same season may claim promotion into the higher division. The motion was accepted nem con. 6.10 Portable points proposal with a view to implement in 2016 (DS) Portable Points aim to consolidate and promote the extension of paddling opportunities that was introduced with Paddle Up. Paddle Up has encouraged paddlers to race at a higher division than their own, but the numbers taking up this opportunity are relatively small. This is due in part to the fact that there is not a straightforward method to award ranking points to accurately reflect the paddler s achievement. The proposed changes will award points for all paddlers in a class whether they are Host Division or Paddle Up and any points earned can be used to determine ranking and promotion. The proposal also includes moving events to be single division only. With the ability to Paddle Up and earn points directly the need to segregate divisions is removed and events can focus on providing the appropriate challenge for the level of the event. These single division events will still be attractive to competitors wishing to Paddle Up given the higher points and the increased challenge on offer. In moving to single division events it is recognised that it may be more attractive for paddlers to Paddle Up and this may reduce participant numbers, especially at Division 3 / 4 events. It is critical that the entry level of the sport is supported and assistance given to Organisers to help manage financial pressures, and give greater freedom and creativity in hosting events in tune with encouraging participation in Canoe Slalom. A video explaining the changes has been published on the Canoe Slalom website and it has achieved over 300 views. The proposal was also presented as a discussion paper at the 2013 ACM and included in the published documentation of the meeting. Consequently the following motion is presented for approval. The ranking system will be amended for the 2016 season to reflect the following principles: All slaloms will be run for a single division, except Division 3 / 4 events which will remain to encourage new participants into Canoe Slalom Page 9 of 10
Paddlers can compete and earn points in their current division, and the division above Points will be allocated on the basis of a maximum of 2,000 in Premier, 1,000 in Division 1, 500 in division 2 and 250 in division 3. Points allocation will be based on all ranking paddlers, whether host division or paddle up. Points are not lost on promotion, but retained until the end of the year. Veterans ranking will not be affected. The slalom committee is tasked with providing appropriate 2016 rule changes and publishing them before the 2015 ACM. The motion received 22 votes for and 18 votes against, with 13 abstentions. It was duly adopted 7 Approval of the calendar for 2015 7.1 Events submitted before the managed calendar closing date The calendar of events submitted before the closing date was approved nem con. 7.2 Events submitted after the managed calendar closing date Michelle Grudzinski presented the changes and additions requested after the closing date, but before the meeting. These changes were approved nem con. 7.3 Approval of the 2015 calendar A motion to accept the calendar was proposed by Green Star seconded by Break Out and carried nem con. The resulting calendar was approved, and will be published (separate to these minutes). The formal part of the meeting was completed by 13:15 8 Open Discussions 8.1 Event Limits A debate on limitations on numbers of entries at events was led by Peter Curry. The discussions surrounded: The issues caused by events going over the declared entry limits, particularly the demands on volunteers and day light. What (if any) penalty should be taken against organisers going over the limits. Whether the issue is caused by accepting too many entries, or actually having too many people able to enter the race. Reducing the scope of a race so that it can be completed within the available times, e.g. the events that are no longer div 1 / 2 races. But this has a knock on effect on the water available to the lower division. 8.2 Course Design There was a short debate, led by Martin Setchell surrounding course design, and the requirement to have a suitable standard course for the host division. Unsuitable courses (too easy or too hard) can have a detrimental effect on races at any level. The possibility of running seminars to allow knowledge of course design to be shared and new designers to be given some training. Leadership of this initiative would ideally be taken by British Canoeing who see course designs from around the world. 8.3 Inter Regionals This is normally held at the time of the English Championships. The relevance of the championships to the current day was debated. The individuals event is considered relevant and should be continued. There are issues across the regions, including identifying who is eligible for each region. The Meeting concluded at 14:15 Page 10 of 10