Message Board

General Discussion

General discussion about anything even only vaguely club or rowing related

Message board > General Discussion > Set Phasers to Buft


Set Phasers to Buft by Simon - Thu 18th May 2006, 9:25pm
Just stumbled upon the Captains' meeting minutes - was starting to think that nothing has changed in 5 years when I saw the bit about the Mays being sponsored. And then I saw Paragraph 9... blimey. Managed to change a signifcant rule in bumps (i.e. we're not talking about the sandwich boat's white flag here) unanimously. Just wondered what people thought.

by Martin P - Thu 18th May 2006, 10:57pm
Sounds like a very good idea. I suppose if it's before Grassy then difference in speed between crews must be pretty big and the chasing crew deserve to bump. It should help cut down instances of late acknowledgement causing big carnage. Particularly because when a crew bumps by rowing over 7 or stroke's blade then the boats are difficult to control and can more easily get locked together. Prior to Grassy is where there isn't much room, there are lots of people and boats, and there is the greatest risk of injury. And by restricting to before Grassy we don't lose out on the spectacle of the really great row-overs that every seasoned bumps competitor and spectator remembers fondly. In the existing system I think the risk of a significant injury is (was) too great. It is the right thing to do something in an attempt to safeguard the future of the bumps. Presumably it is such arguments that were all discussed at the captains meeting and have been discussed over and over by everyone rowing today? I believe the captains made the right decision. Bit of a shock though! And at least we have the makings of a good contender for next week's poll... or maybe the week after once we have all had a chance to tell the Grads to steer clear of that awful skintight yellow look!

by jmg - Fri 19th May 2006, 8:23am
Simon said: Just stumbled upon the Captains' meeting minutes hang on... how did you 'stumble' upon the Captains' meeting minutes!?

by Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells - Fri 19th May 2006, 9:18am
I have to disagree with these changes. Aren't they supposed to be "Bumping" races and not "Getting Quite Close To Someone And Then Stopping" races?

by Bryn - Fri 19th May 2006, 9:18am
Martin P said: Sounds like a very good idea... I agree in general but have one concern: in the bottom divisions, waiting for the bow ball to reach the cox is probably already too late. Once it reaches that stage it's often a matter of at most one more stroke for the bow ball to be somewhere around stroke's neck. Also, the implication in the minutes is that this is a safety issue, but, from what I remember of discussions in umpiring meetings, people were more concerned about minimising the number of technical rowovers awarded due to poor or complete lack of clearing around first post corner and in the gut. I guess the two are linked, but I always like the fact that most rowers consider the risk of a major injury to their cox to be worth the chance of avoiding being bumped.

by jmg - Fri 19th May 2006, 10:39am
Martin P said: Sounds like a very good idea. In lower divisions, umpires already use their discretion to prematurely award bumps where crews are closing fast, which I've done on occasion. The main problem with this is the umpire has no means to unambiguously signal the bump to the chasing crew, something which I think would improve things to just the same extent (i.e. avoiding physical contact coupled with high closing speed), without needing to fundamentally change the definition of a bump. Under the new system, any crew with any sense will deliberately stay out of the wake of the crew they're chasing down 1st post reach, rowing in much cleaner water and making their bump more easily as a result. I know bumps isn't fair, but this seems to disadvantage a slower crew starting lower in division over and above a slower crew starting near the top. From an umpiring point of view, are we talking about the cox's back, their feet, their head? How easy is it going to be to judge this on the way round 1st post corner? This new system in fact requires that some signal be given to the crews that they have bumped, beyond the cox's acknowledgement. In this regard, I think it's a good thing. In practice I think that much overlap is already too late (esp in the gut where lateral separation is hard to achieve anyway) and having such a rule will discourage umpires from awarding bumps earlier without contact where crews are closing fast.

by Bryn - Fri 19th May 2006, 10:53am
Simon said: Just stumbled upon the Captains' meeting minutes - was starting to think that nothing has changed in 5 years... Surely the more important news is that you can now get beer for bumps (paragraph 10)?

by Cynic - Fri 19th May 2006, 12:55pm
To expand on my earlier post, I think this rule change is well-intentioned but seriously flawed. A move like this is an excellent example of how safety culture works in today's society, where organisations remove all responsibility for decision making from individuals, and instead leave with them with a hard and fast set of rules that are designed to apply to all situations. As it is impossible to adequately foresee all future circumstances, you end up with a set of regulations that are at best overkill and at worst wildly inappropriate. JMG makes an excellent point in his last paragraph when he suggests that an umpire now could wait longer to award the bump than he/she otherwise would have done, thus making the event more unsafe. Whereas the old rules relied on the umpires using their judgement on what constitutes safe, the new rule defines what is safe, thus removing the requirement of the umpire to react to the situation. It is a subtle distinction, but in my view an important one. What is of course essential is that everyone involved is properly educated about safety, rather than merely told what set of rules to follow. If there are problems with safety or smooth running, then surely the solution is better education, especially on how to take personal responsibility for a situation. This rather philosophical angle is of course entirely separate from any considerations of (im)practicality (apart from the ones already mentioned, what happens when there is a three boat sandwich? How do you know from an umpire's siren which bump has been made? Who should stop and who should row on?) Maybe I'm wrong, and the bumps will become much safer, will run much smoother and there will be no more carnage or technical rowovers. Maybe also they will lose none of their excitement and allure. I'd like to be proved wrong.

by Dubya - Fri 19th May 2006, 1:40pm
Unconvinced.

by Mike - Fri 19th May 2006, 1:47pm
Dubya said: Unconvinced. By the rule change or the argument against it?

by Simon - Fri 19th May 2006, 4:00pm
jmg said: hang on... how did you 'stumble' upon the Captains' meeting minutes!? Was bored and looking for the Cambridge Rowing messageboards, and went via CUCBC. Clearly in today's risk adverse environment (led by the increased demands of insurers), the acceptable risk of collision has risen to the extent that greater risk mitigation measures need to be taken than previously. I think that the problem here isn't the risk mitigation itself, but that a very broadbrush solution has been applied to quite a complicated situation. I would prefer to see some other measures taken first or in conjunction with this. For example physical (rather than visual) checks of bowballs (as a corroded one held on with gaffer is fairly useless). It should be easier to ban coxes - maybe just for a day for a first offence - when they're really stupid (e.g. an Emma lower boat which managed to gain 5 seats by undertaking on Grassy, but then decided to convert by ramming rather than the simple blade clash. And it's time for a proper way of stopping races when the gut is blocked - let's ban air horns from bank parties and give them to the SUs. Hate to borrow ideas from OURCs, but they are far far more risk aware than CUCBC (and I say that as a former Hon Sec; my sole contributions to safety were to produce a map for the ambulance drivers and flog throwlines to clubs. Oh, and shut the river for weeks on end. And postpone Uni 4s when some of the clubs said a tree that had blown in the river by the Plough made it unfair. And cancel Lents.). And then this rule needs to be reviewed to make sure that it's fair and can be applied fairly. Clearly it penalises crews at the bottom of the division, it needs to allow the umpires to use their judgement, and it lacks definition (e.g. where is "Grassy"). But overall, having done CORC Bumps which operate under very similar rules to this (i.e. overlap = bump), I can assure you that it doesn't effect the enjoyment of the thing.

by Martin P - Fri 19th May 2006, 7:17pm
Cynic said: what happens when there is a three boat sandwich? How do you know from an umpire's siren which bump has been made? Who should stop and who should row on?) But that confusion existed in the traditional system, anyway. I don't see this would be substantially worse. This situation is still tricky, though, of course.... with the new rule there will be no one umpire who will be able to say who "bumped" first. When contact is the requirement, it's (admittedly not easy but) possible to look for the first physical contact both ahead of and behind the central crew and usually a number of umpires will usually see the same thing and the decision is easy. But with the new scheme the viewpoint becomes critical and (as has already been mentioned) the precise instant in which the bump 'occurs' more difficult to define. So umpiring decisions will become (even more) argumentative. This is the biggest practical problem I can think of with this whole thing. Also agree with the line of argument about fixed rules potentially being less safe than educated rowers. But, let's face it, CUCBC have been trying to educate coxes for years and it's never properly effective. There's a good argument for more measures given the average ineptitude of the human race in a heated race type situation.

by RTT - Sat 20th May 2006, 12:47am
Simon said: Clearly in today's risk adverse environment....greater risk mitigation measures need to be taken than previously. Bollocks. Clearly in today's risk averse environment people need to get on with things and forget all this liability and blame and insurance crap. Everyone always goes on about the fact that someone is going to die soon in the bumps. So what? The point is you take responsibility for that fact into your own hands when you enter. You don't have to race if you don't want that responsibility. Similarly, umpires should know what they're taking on when they agree to help out. Glass makes an excellent point above about letting umpires make their own decisions - if you take that away and give them a rule book then you lose the scope for them making the safest decision as the situation warrants. The problem with altering the rules is that whilst individual changes may not make much difference to the spirit of the thing, over time we will see a shift that may well do. Anyway, can't CUCBC just say on the entry form that participants "abide by their own accidents" or whatever the Colquhouns (and RTT regatta) rules say? And if not then why not challenge the dumb law rather than bending over backwards to some fubar American custom that has taken far too much of the world by storm?

by Simon - Sat 20th May 2006, 10:16am
RTT said: Bollocks. Clearly in today's risk averse environment people need to get on with things and forget all this liability and blame and insurance crap. Yeah, I agree with you, but unfortunately you and I don't have as much money yet as the people who will sue CUCBC when Something Happens. And money talks. The more I think about it, the more I think that this will not work, and encouraging coxes to concede early before Grassy would be a better idea (along with the other proposals I suggested yesterday). Let's not forget you used to be able to give money to crews for good behaviour as well as fine them for bad... money talks. The most serious injury I've witnessed while in a boat in bumps happened when Jesus III parked on top of us with a couple of blades smacking Sophie in the back. This rule would not have prevented this from happening. I'm also surprised that they've not identified some of the things on the towpath as bigger hazards. Most of the injuries that I can remember from bumps involve people stepping in front of bikes, or cycling into the river. In a risk assessment I would personally consider that a spectator or participant having an acute medical incident (e.g. heart or asthma attack) is more likely - and as serious in terms of outcome - than a collision. Maybe they are doing something about this but haven't announced it yet.

by Richard - Sat 20th May 2006, 11:13am
Simon said: The more I think about it, the more I think that this will not work, and encouraging coxes to concede early before Grassy would be a better idea (along with the other proposals I suggested yesterday). But aren't coxes already encouraged to conceed early? I've never actually been to a bumps coxing talk - but I'm sure it was mentioned at the umpires meeting that coxes are told that, if a bump is clearly inevitable, to conceed before contact occurs. This usually doesn't happen, and some coxes just won't conceed at all - e.g. Downing M2 in the Lents this year. FaT II had about 1/2 length overlap at the entry to Ditton - and were on the inside of the corner. I would hope that most coxes would at least think about conceeding in this position. FaT overtook completely (and were awarded the bump by the umpires) - but the Downing cox needed the FaT stroke blade to contact the Downing bow blade before he conceeded. OK, so that's one incident, but I've seen lots of coxes delay conceeding until the last possible moment when, quite frankly, a bump was a virtual certainty. I'm talking primarily of the lower divisions when the speed differential is often higher - but often happens in the higher divisions as well.

by Andy - Sun 21st May 2006, 2:38pm
On the other hand, just cause there's overlap doesn't mean a bump is inevitable. I've been in boats which have been overlapped from behind from around Grassy to Morley's Holt and not actually been bumped. I think that you were in that boat, RB. Supposedly coxes are an integral part of the crew (at least that's what coaches tell us), so why not let them use their judgement (apparently one of the reasons we exist). Let them decide whether to concede in a given situation, and be a bit harsher if they eff it up. As in actually ban them for a term or two instead of some poxy 50 quid fine. Of course, that would leave some colleges (e.g., Clare) without any coxes but that would be their own bloody fault.

by jmg - Mon 22nd May 2006, 10:01am
Simon said: Money talks. I do like the idea of threatening coxes with a one-day ban, or maybe giving an offending crew a half-length penalty at the next day's start, or similar, rather than fines. The trouble with the fines system (and I'll admit I've been part of this problem myself) is that in some situations a fine is treated as an acceptable cost to be borne in pursuit of rowing success, and some crews therefore won't be deterred from potentially dangerous behaviour by the threat of a £50 fine (only £6 pp after all). Yes money talks, but being half a length down before you even start the race would talk a lot louder. Next question would be how to fund the DUs' dinner....

by Simon - Mon 22nd May 2006, 10:57am
jmg said: Next question would be how to fund the DUs' dinner.... Through the "failure to provide marshal" fines - just need the DUs to stop being so greedy (in my day etc)... Otherwise I agree with everything you say, although we need to work how you give someone a 1/2 length disadvantage (shorter chain? more rings?).

by Mike - Mon 22nd May 2006, 11:10am
jmg said: I do like the idea of ... giving an offending crew a half-length penalty at the next day's start A major problem with this is that it is difficult to penalise one crew without also affecting the chances of the crews around them. The crews adjacent to the penalised crew obviously benefit from the change, while you could also argue that the crews two places away are disadvantaged when they haven't done anything wrong. At least the fines only affect the crew that offended in the first place.

by jmg - Mon 22nd May 2006, 11:14am
Simon said: We need to work how you give someone a 1/2 length disadvantage I'm sure you could just bang a stake in temporarily and use a spare chain / cord (have a JU look after it). I think this would work particularly well on the last day, when any fines would be carried over to the first day of next year's racing :)

by Andy - Mon 22nd May 2006, 12:06pm
Maybe instead of moving stakes and making chains longer, they should impose a weight penalty. Or that thing where they tie a rope or bungee around the hull of the boat.

by Simon - Tue 23rd May 2006, 10:33am
Mike said: A major problem with this is that it is difficult to penalise one crew without also affecting the chances of the crews around them. But it's the same as how a red card can lead to being suspended for a later game or games in professional football and rugby. The offender's team loses out by not having its best people available during the suspension. This will benefit teams that play them at that time, and thus disbenefit the teams in the league near the team playing the team with the suspended player.

by dw229 - Tue 23rd May 2006, 10:45pm
The problem I see it is that any rule that relies on a non-objective measure (bow-ball passing cox is an objective measure; dangerous bumping is not) would require increased training of the marshals to avoid allegations of corruption and/or actual corruption during races. As the marshals are volunteers, this would be hard to put in place, particularly for the Lents. Therefore, the arbitrary but more easily adjudicated rule seems reasonable.

by Simon - Wed 24th May 2006, 5:57pm
Eights are underway in Oxford, (and UH bumps in London). They have some interesting rules. In Oxford, they don't have a rule on "non contact" but their coxing guide states: Look out for coxes conceeding ahead of you as you close in for a bump. You have a duty to see that hand and to wind down ... You may even have to hold it up to avoid hitting the crew ahead ... If you bump a crew too hard (dangerously) then it may be cancelled = irate crew. You may also find yourself not coxing the rest of bumps. Crews are expected to use the minimum reasonable force of contact when going for a bump on crews that fail to conceed. Do not T-Bone a crew that you have half a length of over lap on and are refusing to conceed, just steer in gently and clash blades. Be ready to hold it if they do conceed to avoid contact with them. Do not slam it into a stationary crew ahead (ie crashed into the bank). Simply overtake them. If they start rowing again before you manage then by all means bump them properly if they refuse to conceed. If, however, you do feel like wrecking other people's kit worth thousands of pounds and endangering life by faling to take appropriate evasive action with your 3/4 tonne brakeless pointy juggernaught then we will have little option but to suspend your coxing license as this evidently isn't the sport for you. In torpids, I decreed from upon high that Wdiv3/4/5(/6) and Mdiv4/5/6(/7) will be non contact until the exit of the gut. Essentially, if you've been caught (ie they have any form of overlap at the very worst) by the gut the bump is pretty much inevitable. (There may be exceptions where you are also on the verge of bumping, but this happens relatively rarely. Back to the point: They are faster than you. FACE IT. Put you hand up and conceed the inevitable. If you directly cause a klaxon either by late concession or late wind down then expect to not race again as you are ruining the racing for the other 116 people competing in your division. This is a measure designed to protect the vast majority of decent coxes (and their crews) from the actions of a nutty few. I would rather we had a klaxon (to replace SUs desperately shouting "hold it up!") and a rule which is if you cause the klaxon then that's your week's racing over. It would allow common sense over a hard and fast rule. On an unrelated point, because they have a coxing registration system to deal with high stream conditions on the Isis, they have a rule which allows the waiving of the eligibility rules in high stream conditions (when some colleges might struggle to find qualified coxes). In this situation, alumni are allowed to cox! It also means that naughty coxes can be demoted. Still, better than London where the bank party have to wade into the river up to their necks to hold the boats until the start.

by Tom C - Fri 26th May 2006, 9:26am
the safety lobby strikes again... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5014162.stm

by Simon - Mon 19th Jun 2006, 8:33am
So, 44 races later - did anyone notice this rule being applied? Did it make any difference if it was?

by Andy - Mon 19th Jun 2006, 12:05pm
I umpired one race where this rule took effect, and it did seem to help. I forget which boats were involved, but it occurred down the gut. Once sufficient overlap (i.e. to the cox) occurred, a bump was declared loudly, the cox being bumped conceded pretty promptly, and both crews cleared in good order to the outside of grassy. As far as I recall, no actual contact occurred, so both crews retained control of their stroke/bowman. The coxes involved seemed competent, so it's possible they would have avoided any carnage even if concession had been a few strokes later (i.e. without rule), but the bump seemed pretty inevitable, so the new rule doesn't seem to cause any harm. The only situation where the new rule might be 'bad' is if a crew overlaps the one in front, but then goes into Grassy wide of the one they're chasing. Considering how many crews seemed to end up going wide of Grassy and parking this year, this could realistically let a crew get away when under the new rule they would be bumped. From my experience though, I think that on the whole it's a good thing, in that it makes coxes concede earlier rather than later. I would say that most coxes going for a bump are reluctant to hold it up, even if it is called from the bank when the cox in front hasn't conceded, and this is where at least some of the carnage occurs. I don't know whether an addition clause of overlap on the inside might be too complicated to execute. Sorry, a bit rambling...