H2H: Fair starting positions

[Ondrej]

Another topic which is often discussed regarding the H2H is whether it's possible to achieve both lanes to be relatively equal. Nobody wants a race to be decided before one even starts paddling. One way how to potentially achieve it is to put more pressure on organizers to make sure there'll be proper H2H try outs before the actual competition. This may include an obligation of i.e. the first eight teams of the last Worlds to take part in the try outs a day before the race. The organizer / the jury can check the outcome and potentially correct the starting positions (in case there're two comparable teams and one of them seems to be just too faster, than something is not in order). Do you believe that it makes sense to organize official H2H try outs in order to make the starting positions as equal as possible?

[intraftfed]

Try-outs is definitely the way to go. That may have solved the Korea H2H problems.

But something else we should make compulsory is suitable starting platforms!!! If I look back at many of the events it was because the start was on the river bank - that immediately meant lane choice had a huge effect on the results. And maybe if it had been set up in Korea like it was in Bosnia - 2 platforms so rafts start in front of platforms as opposed to 1 platform with rafts at each side of the platform - then it may have been more even.

Sue

[DonPedro]

Ondrey, I like the idea of makeing comulsory h2h runs for testing the start. We should implement this in the racing rules but as a draw out of the hat with 8-16 teams.
Minimum of 2 runs each team, this gives us 8-16 heats to determine the start.
Regarding the starting platforms or river banks I think we should leave it to the organizers.
If we got the chance to test the start several times we find the fairest spots for it.

[tavcarb]

Yes, after 1st round we can change platform position, becouse before 2nd round times are not important (we have it from TT). 1st run winners no need to paddle strong to the end and can keep a power for 2nd run.

[Joe Willie Jones]

I also like the testing idea, especially if the matched teams run at least twice, switching lanes on each heat for comparison. The area of concern is only on the course section above the first rapid, so I don't think testing would be too difficult or time consuming.

g. The start line should provide fair conditions to both teams. It is suggested that the route for each team be clearly marked to the top of the first rapid. Crossing the marked line after the race start by any part of boat, body or equipment is penalized by 10 secs.

Obviously site selection itself is critical and sufficient preliminary testing should be done by the organizer well before the race to be certain the site is workable - with the final testing done just prior to the race to fine tune adjustments for river level changes. I'm with Peter on leaving the platforms up to the organizer - assuming that they have done their job with the preliminary testing. But specifics should be written into the rules rather than leaving too much assumed.

[Deb Cook]

I agree that testing the start would be great, with teams being forewarned the previous day that they have been selected to do this, so that they can work it into their plan for their practice day.
Deb

[Ondrej]

Yes, there should be two runs per a team (a pair of teams). Just I'm not sure whether to select them by drawing their names out of a hat. These teams ought to be relatively comparable otherwise the outcome won't be realistic. That's why I suggested to pick some 8 or so teams from the last Worlds / Euro Champs etc. I know it's not ideal especially because the rule has to be applicable generally (drawing from a hat suits this better). Another way is to draw the names from a hat but to hold more heats in order to come to some conclusion (find out an average result). This would take time though.

Regarding the platforms I agree with Joe. I'd leave this up to the organizers supposing they've done a good job with the try-outs.

[intraftfed]

So having teams test the starting positions at practise is best idea. However, what happens if river comes up or drops since the test runs? Which is what happened in Korea. Hard to ask teams to test on the day as the top teams are already facing up to 5 runs. The would only need to race for a certain distance but still tiring.

And how do we choose which teams would do the test? Using previous WRC scores to choose teams as Ondrej suggests?

[Joe Willie Jones]

Hi All,

Some additional thoughts on this issue:

1. Regarding when to test:
I agree absolutely that the best moment to test the start lanes is the day before the race during practice sessions.
Sue brought up an excellent concern about changed water levels on race day. IF the river water level changes ON RACE DAY enough to impact the course, then unfortunately I see no other fair solution than to retest because at this point the testing that was done previously has been negated (although the reality is that a race day retest will probably be very difficult if not impossible). One possible answer would be to require the event host to test the course at various levels as a contingency for this problem (when holding events on rivers where an overnight change of the level is a real possibility). Then, with the course already certifiably/reliably tested, the lanes can be adjusted and the race run without race day retesting. Not the best answer however, because there is no guarantee that the race day level will be one of the levels that was pretested - but we can hope...

2. Regarding which teams should do the test:
I don't think that it is terribly important that it is the best teams or even comparable teams that are doing the testing, as long as they are reasonably consistent in their speed and track the fast course in each lane. (This should be the case with most every team in a World Champs.)

The best (and most dependable) test is to have as many teams as possible test the course and aggregate the results of each lane. Putting two teams against one another in a H2H format makes the testing more efficient, (because we can test more teams quickly) and it is more fun - but it is not strictly necessary that they are evenly matched - remember, in this case it is the lanes we are testing, not the teams. The most important thing is that each team must test both start lanes for the comparison, and enough teams must participate in the testing to reliably average the results. In the example I created below, the teams are not equal, but the aggregated results provide the lane data needed. Once again, remember that it is the starting lanes we are timing (the section of the course between the start platform and the top of the first rapid), not the entire course.

Example of equal lanes
First run:
Team 1 - Lane A - 45.25 seconds
Team 2 - Lane A - 38.73 seconds
Team 3 - Lane A - 40.21 seconds
Team 4 - Lane A - 50.72 seconds

Second run:
Team 1 - Lane B - 44.97 seconds
Team 2 - Lane B - 39.18 seconds
Team 3 - Lane B - 40.19 seconds
Team 4 - Lane b - 51.01 seconds
aggregate results: Lane A - 174.91, Lane B - 175.35
average times. Lane A - 43.72, Lane B - 43.83
conclusion: Average time in each lane is relatively equal so it can be assumed that both lanes are relatively equal.

Example of unequal lanes
First run:
Team 1 - Lane A - 45.25 seconds
Team 2 - Lane A - 38.73 seconds
Team 3 - Lane A - 40.21 seconds
Team 4 - Lane A - 50.72 seconds

Second run:
Team 1 - Lane B - 50.01 seconds
Team 2 - Lane B - 42.01 seconds
Team 3 - Lane B - 45.10 seconds
Team 4 - Lane B - 54.17 seconds
aggregate results: Lane A - 177.92, Lane B - 191.29
average times: Lane A - 44.48, Lane B - 47.82
conclusion: Averaged time shows that Lane B is 3.34 seconds faster than Lane A. Clearly these lanes are not equal.

Obviously, the more teams that participate in the test, the more reliable will be the results. With enough teams participating (10+), then the slowest and fastest times can be tossed out to further eliminate any inconsistencies. If a lane inequity is discovered, then it is a simple matter to handicap the teams in the faster lane with an adjustment equal to the time difference.

Hope this makes sense... and sorry for the long post.

[shige]

Another thing I recommend for the fair H2H start position is to make the route for each team be clearly marked.
Well it is on the rules but I think it should be made sure at least for A-level event.
Then it is easier to make the fair starting position by both adjusting the start platform and / or marked pole.

[DonPedro]

Hi Shige,
I am not realy a fan of the marked line as it takes a lot of action away from the h2h start. Bad for TV, good for judges as it makes life a lot easier. But is this what we want? If we get it done right with the testing of the lanes before we start the h2h, we should have eliminated unfair starts for teams. When the water level is changing during race days, esp. before the h2h, we might have to change the start positions again, but based on our (JURY) previous experience the day before, this should be an easier task for us and the JURY.
Joe's proposal showed in his tabloits might be the best way but needs proper timing in place the day before. This won't happen always (like in BIH only one hour before the first start for TT).
Therefore we must rely on our own experience to find the fairest positions. I have full trust in the judges committee and the JURY to find the fairest positions. We should leave it to them!