How aggressive is TOO aggressive?

Fuyang Guy wrote: Those flimsy technicalities, are called rules.

And nobody is stating that he was not trying to block, or that it was good sportsmanship.
Just that with the rules as they stand, blocking is not disallowed.

I have yet to see anyone supporting the DQ come up with a specific rule that was contravened.

Then perhaps we need to have someone who has a sense of sportsmanship rewrite the rules to reflect what is acceptable conduct.

Rules are written by people. They are not incontrovertible laws of nature and they are frequently flawed.

Hiding behind them is a poor substitute for moral fibre.

As someone once said "Rules are for guidance of the wise and the rigid adherence of imbeciles."

In this instance it appears the rules have been interpreted "wisely".

I've written to the event organisers to ask for clarity on which rules were contravened.

It seems that almost everyone supports the fact that they were disqualified (which implies, in answer to my question that "THAT was too aggressive".)

But there should presumably be some minutes or a report by a race committee that spells it out. Why exactly were they DQ'ed?

Perhaps as in cycle racing in the final sprint and in horse racing as two examples, if you are seen to alter your line to impede your opponent you are likely to be DQ'd.

Good one Rob, really stirred the pot there. Thanks PaddleFaster for keeping this forum focused, love your work, but sober up few hours later - mate it's only 9%.

I choose to edit my post under Rule 5, sub-section 1A that states...

A long-winded nonsensical post, posted whilst drinking an ice cold Chimay Grande Reserve Ale immediately following a 15 mile( 24Km) paddle in, 95 F (35 C) temperatures can be modified when said poster sobers up a few hours later!

I seem to be needing to use this rule a lot this past month!

I'll join the longer line calling that move poor sportsmanship and the "win at all costs" mentality as poor form. Clearly though this a subjective call as the incident coming in a grey area when you consider arguments from both sides. Stuart and Fuyang Guy and few others may disagree (can be viewed as within the rules because the rules don't say no to the move categorically) which is fine, however what about collision?

"25. Collision or damage The International Navigation rules will apply in full. In particular, note that it is every competitor’s responsibility to avoid a collision, whether they have right of way or not and all action necessary shall be taken to avoid a collision. Any competitor who is considered by a course umpire or race official to have been responsible for a deliberate collision, or who deliberately damages the craft or paddle of another competitor may be disqualified."

There is an argument there that the Mocke brothers veered deliberately putting themselves in the path of a collision which they could have arguably avoided doing. (Pretty monstrous run they were on, not, if at all.)

Apologies but as a novice and new to surfski's, has anyone a link to the full set of rules?

My thoughts on the matter having watched the clip a number of times is that every sport I have been involved with has a clause detailing unsportsmanlike conduct. This catch all would generally cover what is easy to see, a concentrated effort to block the overtaker's line. Now I have personally no problem with the Mockes first manouver after the turn into the chute but the subsequent driving of both skis to the opposite side of the chute and the collision is pretty aggressive.

The rules and community will decide what is acceptable but if this is considered acceptable then it is a short step to paddle slaps and punch ups.

The rules are here:
www.canoeicf.com/dms/icf/documents/Rules...s%202013%20Final.pdf

Bottom line. Organizers saw / listened/ acted. Very good for the sport. We discuss, we all learn, we are all much wiser now and will think differently on the water in a similar situation.

Rules are pretty simple.

I've see no bleating by Jasper. Lessons learned across the board.

I understand Jamii exploring the alternatives and leading this discussion along.

I can only imagine what kind of tactics would play out in future big stakes race if a blind eye was turned.

I know Watto, I know! (hanging head) I do feel kind of ashamed about it.

As someone once said "Rules are for guidance of the wise and the rigid adherence of imbeciles."

[/quote]

Thanks RedBack, I love that, and would love to know who said it, it's almost Churchill like in its brilliance.

Watto;

Just to play Devils advocate here, (i'm an accountant who wanted to be a lawyer)and although I personally believe the DQ was not correct, I really have no interest in the outcome

Mocke last altered course 31 seconds before the first clash. Immediately preceding both contacts, the greater deviation in direction came from the overtaking boat.

So who then caused it?
Was it Mocke, because of his choice of line?
Or was it TJ because he refused to get squeezed, and pushed back?

They definitely both had it within their power to avoid the impact, remembering that Mocke'e aggressive/unsporting line choice was >30 seconds prior to impact?

TJ could have backed off, or Mocke could have been a nice guy, but neither chose these impact avoiding options.

My reading, and I have watched it several times:
Mocke took a dirty line
TJ was not without aggression in trying to force his way into the deliberately tiny space between the buoy and the Mocke boat.

Maybe they both should have been DQ'ed

FG, Jasper rounded the mark and lined up for the finish. TJ rounded the mark and lined up for the finish well clear of Jasper. Jasper then altered course onto a line that would cause an avoidable collision.

Fuyang Guy wrote: “Maybe they both should have been DQ’d.”

Speaking of law and lawyers FG, let’s just approach this objectively as in a court of law. Out on the broad prairies where men toil with their hands, out on the wide ocean where men are tossed and buffeted on the waves, through our mills and factories, and down deep under the earth, thousands of men and of women and children, men who labour, men to suffer, women and children weary with care and toil, these men and these women and these children will kneel tonight and ask their God to guide your judgment. These men and these women and these little children, the poor, the weak, and the suffering of the world would stretch out their hands to that jury, and implore them to save Jasper and Eray.

What’s more to add?

Haha, thanks Clarence Darrow, and sorry, FG but just couldn’t do it to them.

"Jasper rounded the mark and lined up for the finish. TJ rounded the mark and lined up for the finish well clear of Jasper. Jasper then altered course onto a line that would cause an avoidable collision."Mako

"Mocke last altered course 31 seconds before the first clash. Immediately preceding both contacts, the greater deviation in direction came from the overtaking boat.
So who then caused it?
Was it Mocke, because of his choice of line?
Or was it TJ because he refused to get squeezed, and pushed back?" FG

What is interesting from each of these extracts is that they is good argument for each to be in breach of sorts....
Was Jaspers change of line deem a deliberate tac or chasing a small bump or moving out of a current into easier water?
Were the two clashes of paddles with TJ moving into Jasper also in breach?
Technically they should both be DQd, but guess that the change of line was deemed the '1st infringement' and took priority over any 2nd or 3rd breach that followed.
Hopefully the reply from the ICF will clarify the interpretation.

Jeez Jamii, I don't see how you can argue that they both be DQ'ed.

To me it looks simple:

1. Jasper turned the buoy and was lined up to come straight in to the finish.
2. TJ turned the buoy wider than Jasper and was lining up to come straight to the finish, clear of Jasper.
3. Jasper steered in such a way as to cut TJ off and went so far as almost to force them into the bouy on the other side of the chute.
4. Clashes of paddles, TJ and Eray fell back, then challenged again.
5. Again Jasper steered across their path, more clashes of paddles and TJ/Eray fell back again.

It didn't look to me as though TJ steered into the Mockes. So in my opinion, there's no justification at all for suggesting that TJ/Eray should have been DQ'ed. If we can agree on that, then the debate is around whether the aggressive tactics of Jasper were TOO aggressive. Clearly the race officials thought so and DQ'ed them.

And clearly, on the basis of the video, most of the people who have contributed to the discussion think so too.

And I agree - if you allow people deliberately to steer in such a way as to obstruct overtaking boats, where will it end? Where would you draw the line between steering diagonally in front of other boat to cut them off; steering into them to cause a clash of paddles or just plain T-boning them?

To me it's simple - if you're in front, you steer for the line. If you're behind, you steer to overtake and not to cause your nose to go under your opponents' paddles. Otherwise there'll be no end to the nasty things you can do - amusing to watch perhaps, but hardly in the spirit of paddling I'd have thought.

(Of course if you're manoeuvring to stay on a wave, or to come off the back of a wave to avoid being dumped in the surf, that's another story and do doubt there will be difficult cases to adjudicate in the future.)

Anyway - it's been an interesting debate (so far). Thanks for all the contributions.

robin.mousley wrote: To me it's simple - if you're in front, you steer for the line. If you're behind, you steer to overtake and not to cause your nose to go under your opponents' paddles. Otherwise there'll be no end to the nasty things you can do - amusing to watch perhaps, but hardly in the spirit of paddling I'd have thought.

Just as Marathon have now stated in the rule changes....

Rob, I only make the observation from the two incident being separate and therefore either could result in a beach!

I concede that the tac was aggressive, and borderline within the demarcation of the finishing line yet doesn't appear to flaunt the rules other than is obvious that it appeared unsporting etc...

My point of argument is in (future) situations where bigger surf and the influence of controlling bumps, waves or current could influence a result whether intentional or not.
We have all gone sideways at a finishes and needed to avoid collision etc (& sacrificing a result)....so how will the ICF rules then been interpreted when a paddler holds on in the surf and has a clash.

Is there a definition for deliberate or accidental infringements for such instance?

I accept fact that this is the inaugural ICF Surfski event and that they can't turn a blind, but whether the Mocke deserved a DQ or awarded a 2nd place finish is really the point that needs to be accepted!

It is a difficult call and I am glad I was not on the race jury.

Unfortunately the rules don't address this particular issue. The reference to the "International Navigation Rules' is in 26.1 of the rules clause 26 COLLISION OR DAMAGE. "every competitors responsibility to avoid a collision, whether they have right of way or not"

So you could argue that Timmy was wrong in not avoiding the collisions they had.

On the other hand Clause 31 DISQUALIFICATION 31.1 states "Any Competitor who attempts to win a race by any other than honourable means"

I think we can assume that at the speed Timmy and Michele were going they would have had a good chance of winning if Jasper had not paddling diagonally across the course.

It is an issue that needs to be clarified in the next year. In Surf Lifesaving Ski races it happens all the time but is less obvious because they are normally on a wave. Ocean Ski racing is different and has a different set of rules. I agree that we don't want the sport to descend into the the morass of rules and protests that yachting and other sports enjoy.

In the good old days before the Rinderpest when the 10,000m was still an World Championship event there was a clear rule - if a Kayak's nose was ahead of the front lip of your cockpit you had to give way.

From my armchair perspective Jasper crossed the line and went beyond "hard racing". Which is very sad because it could not have been done by a nicer guy and in the heat of the moment Jasper lapsed back into Surf Life Saving Ski Racing mode.

Unfortunately the rules don't allow for a time penalty which in this case I think we all agree would have been fairer.

What I think was remarkable was how well the mixed doubles went - they were dicing for third place overall - well done girls!

Added one of my top 5 favourite paddling photos of all time - Chalupsky vs Spanish crew!!
Point is these are not new issues - happens every year in varying degrees in races all over the world!
ICF rules will evolve with time, hopefully for the better.
Agree with majority of responders, tactics were excessive & not in keeping with the spirit of this sport.
Made for great viewing..........awesome work to all who made it possible!!

Added one of my top 5 favourite paddling photos of all time - Chalupsky vs Spanish crew!!

Hahaha - you can't put that kind of pic up without the full story! Spill the beans - what happened; where was it; who got DQ'ed in that instance???

not aware of full circumstances Rob-- know Herman & Oscar were racing in one of the Spanish Kayak Races, looks like the 80's judging by the flat blades ..........
i am sure someone out there knows more of the circumstances??
the spanish crew don't look very happy