Cambridge close call
Dave Sill
Rower pulled through sluice gate cheats death
A ROWER had a lucky escape after her boat was pulled towards a sluice
gate by the fast-moving current of the Cam.
A witness feared the rower had been drowned when he spotted her boat
trapped against the safety boom.
But he was relieved to see the soaking wet rower walking back along the
towpath at Baits Bite, north of Cambridge.
It is thought she was sucked through the gate by the torrent of water.
It is believed the woman must have attempted to turn too late after the
"spin" sign � which warns rowers they must go no further down the river.
High water levels in the Cam have created treacherous conditions for rowers.
Dr Pippa Noon, river manager for the Conservators of the River Cam, said
the rower could have drowned or been dismembered if the gates had not
been fully open.
Eyewitness Jim Russell, fishing bailiff for the Cambridge Fish
Preservation and Angling Society, said: "It was absolute madness. I saw
the rower go by my boat, which is right next to the sluice. Then I did
not see her for a while.
"My wife spotted her craft wedged against the boom and we rushed out
armed with a pole with a hook. I was prepared to be pulling a body from
the water.
"Then we saw her walking back along the path, soaked through.
"I doubt she would have been able to get out of the river upstream with
the flow as it was, so I can only assume she was pulled through the
sluice. Eventually someone is going to drown."
In a letter to river users, Dr Noon, wrote: "I really cannot believe the
most recent incident.
"We had a near-fatality at Baits Bite Sluices. A scull, operated by a
lone female � possibly from Rob Roy Boat Club � got trapped against the
safety boom at Baits Bite Sluices. The sculler attempted to turn well
downstream of the �spin� sign.
"This lady is a very lucky individual. The gates were fully open, with
approximately 1ft airdraft above."
Stelph
Obvioulsy its difficult to comment without being there but it sounds
like the rower in question was very foolish, I would never EVER
consider going past a "spin" or warning sign for a sluice or a weir.
The extra 3-4 strokes that you are missing by turning earlier are not
going to make a difference so why run the risk? It doesnt do the image
of the sport any good if rowers are seen to be thinking they are above
the law.
Also, going through a sluice gate must be a terrifying experience
Andrew Hodgkinson
>> It is believed the woman must have attempted to turn too late after the
>> "spin" sign � which warns rowers they must go no further down the river.
>
> Obvioulsy its difficult to comment without being there but it sounds
> like the rower in question was very foolish [...]
This does seem to be the case, or at least the sculler got caught out,
thinking she had left enough room to spin but seriously underestimating
the speed of the current on the heavily flooded river. The "spin here"
sign is positioned with typical river conditions in mind, not floods.
In general the local clubs and collective bodies which oversees them (the
Cam Conservators and Cambridgeshire Rowing Association) are very aware of
safety issues and up to date on best practice. During the period of
recent flooding we had numerous messages regarding water safety -
including a spell of no allowed rowing - put out on our own club's e-mail
list, in addition to the various posters and leaflets already available
at the boathouse.
I live next to the river and whenever I was looking at it over the two
particularly bad days, it seemed deserted. Apparently most people had
better judgement. The university has a coloured flag system to instruct
college crews on when they can or cannot boat. There is a local process
underway to develop more formal stream warnings based on input from the
Environment Agency and nothing to stop clubs or individuals checking the
EA flood warnings on the web already - I'm actually not sure what an
additional local reporting/repeating system might add to the actual
safety of Cam rowers.
I would hate to see this event lead to new reactionary restrictions from
what ultimately came down to a very bad judgement call on behalf of the
(very lucky!) rower in question. Clubs can tell rowers not to row as much
as they like, but it's a matter of individual responsibility whether or
not the rowers actually obey those instructions, especially for privately
owned single man craft. Although continuous review of safety procedures
is always necessary, there surely has to come a point where we accept
responsibility for our own actions rather than trying to place the blame
elsewhere, even when the outcome is more tragic than in this case. It
seems very difficult to strike the right balance.
Personally I think issues of overcrowding and longboat parking on
restricted width sections of the Cam seem to be far more pressing.
Accidents causing actual injury and damage are comparatively common in
busy periods as a result - attention should perhaps be focused on these
more mundane issues if the safety of the majority is to be improved,
rather than attempting to curtail the actions of the foolish minority.
--
TTFN, Andrew Hodgkinson
Find some electronic music at: Photos, wallpaper, software and more:
http://pond.org.uk/music.html http://pond.org.uk/
pdb
> On 05/03/2010 13:55, Stelph wrote:
>
> >> It is believed the woman must have attempted to turn too late after the
Thank goodness for no loss of life but another very lucky escape - but
with no personal expereince of rowing on the Cam but is sounds just
like the Guildford incident some 20 years ago. I cannot comment on the
precise circumstances. However, is there no policy of posting warnings
at the clubs when there is fast stream and do they instruct their
members.
I presume this sculler will be named disciplined by the club because,
if not, the incident will be forgotten unlike the Staines, Walton
Bridge, Dove Pier incidents which have been widely publicised
recently.
Finally, does this regional council take safety seriously because
rowing on a non-tidal river is potentially as dangerous as a tidal
river.
Carl Douglas
> On Mar 5, 2:47 pm, Andrew Hodgkinson <ahodg...@rowing.org.uk> wrote:
>> On 05/03/2010 13:55, Stelph wrote:
>>
>>>> It is believed the woman must have attempted to turn too late after the
Well, to answer your last question first, Peter:
E Region it was which published, on its own & on the ARA's website, a
completely false account of the Coroner's narrative verdict from the 2nd
Leo Blockley inquest. And E. Region it was which then refused requests
that it delete or amend said offensive, dishonest & wholly unnecessary
pack of lies. Well, those lies were "unnecessary" only if E. Region was
not then in the business of deliberately misrepresenting for an ulterior
purpose the Coroner's findings, after a searching inquest, on most
serious rowing accident to befall a UK rower & club in recent years - an
accident which has been the subject of a now-10-year cover-up & denial
by the ARA Executive & Council. And note that that accident affected a
club & a rower not remotely connected with that region, so what possible
honest motive had E. Region for publishing lies about it?
The key function of accidents which are survived unscathed, despite the
strong probability of their being gravely injurious or even fatal to the
person involved, is to serve as a warning to the rest of us. Which of
us is so perfect that we may run around flagellating the survivor for
their supposed errors of judgement?
What should now happen, & it should be obligatory, is that the survivor
writes a simple but frank & complete account of what happened, including
how they came to make whatever errors led them into that accident. And
that account should be published prominently. Then it won't be
forgotten & all but fools will read & learn from it, instead of it being
buried under a mess of denial.
What should not happen (unless that unbiased accident report &
appropriate acceptance of fault fails to appear) is for the survivor to
be hounded or disciplined. I'm sure they've had enough of a shaking up
already, & surely to goodness we need to encourage complete openness &
honesty. When we screw up, for the sake of the sport we need to tell, &
be encouraged to tell, the story straight.
And that's a lesson which a certain English region would also do well to
take on board.
As for the dangers of river sluices - well, anyone can Google for past
threads on the subject, but the essence is that being swept by fast
water through a metal-edged submerged aperture carries an exceptionally
high risk of serious or terminal injury. If that sluice is immediately
followed by certain devices designed to prevent the violent outflows of
the sluice from scouring away the river bed, then the resulting rolling
vortex may well entrap even someone who has fortunately survived the
first part of the ordeal.
Some of that hazard can be reduced if, where there are presently posts
put a little way upstream of the sluice mouth, those posts were linked
by floating timber booms (like those used along the Henley RR course).
That would minimise the chance of a shell being broken across the posts
or of it or its crew being sucked past the posts & into the sluice.
I don't think there are any such booms at that particular set of
sluices? So the question arises: what is the value of a lost life & the
cost of the mess of rescue/retrieval, inquest, etc., however daft or
absent-minded one supposes its owner might have been? And what, in
comparison would be the cost of a couple of floating booms?
My point is that almost no one who gets into such sluices has done
anything to remotely deserve to die there - unless we favour arbitrarily
cruel & unusual punishments. So wouldn't it be an intelligent response
from a rowing in that centre of higher learning to make reasoned
representations to all relevant authorities, & maybe to chip in
financially too, to get that particular set of sluices made safer in the
way I suggest? Or would that be altogether too much bother for people
alleged to prefer smart logic-chopping to real action & results ;) ?
Cheers -
Carl
--
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing Low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: Harris Boatyard, Laleham Reach, Chertsey KT16 8RP, UK
Find: http://tinyurl.com/2tqujf
Email: ca...@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: +44(0)1932-570946 Fax: -563682
URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk (boats) & www.aerowing.co.uk (riggers)
David Biddulph
news:7vd50r...@mid.individual.net...
> pdb wrote:
>> On Mar 5, 2:47 pm, Andrew Hodgkinson <ahodg...@rowing.org.uk> wrote:
>>> On 05/03/2010 13:55, Stelph wrote:
>>>
>>>>> It is believed the woman must have attempted to turn too late after
>>>>> the
It's been a little while since I was at Baitsbite, but
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7972078@N03/4224685991/ and
http://wikimapia.org/1592591/Baits-Bite-Lock (if you zoom in) show what is
presumably the "safety boom" referred to in the CEN article.
--
David Biddulph
Rowing web pages at
http://www.biddulph.org.uk/
Peter D Blaseby
> pdb wrote:
> > On Mar 5, 2:47 pm, Andrew Hodgkinson <ahodg...@rowing.org.uk> wrote:
> >> On 05/03/2010 13:55, Stelph wrote:
>
> >>>> It is believed the woman must have attempted to turn too late after the
> URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk(boats) &www.aerowing.co.uk(riggers)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sorry to disagree on one point but unless action is taken to impose a
more responsible attitude to safety, especially when the conditions
are obviously dangerous, essential lessons will NOT be learnt. So the
club AND the regional council as well as BR should take a hard line.
However I do agree that a public report of why and how it happened
would be an adequate punishment. The example set by the Putney Town
sculler, published by Anatole in another thread, is a classic example
of the 'mea culpa' report which should be required by all the above
bodies.
mruscoe
> It's been a little while since I was at Baitsbite, but
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/7972078@N03/4224685991/ and
> http://wikimapia.org/1592591/Baits-Bite-Lock (if you zoom in) show what is
> presumably the "safety boom" referred to in the CEN article.
Another photo showing more detail of the safety boom.
Kit
> On 05/03/2010 20:32, David Biddulph wrote:
>
> > It's been a little while since I was at Baitsbite, but
> >http://www.flickr.com/photos/7972078@N03/4224685991/and
> > presumably the "safety boom" referred to in the CEN article.
>
> Another photo showing more detail of the safety boom.
>
> http://www.panoramio.com/photo/32054691
I have to ask but there is so far no confirmation that she actually
went through the sluice, just speculation by the news report, the
angler and the Cam Conservators manager. And looking at the boom
photos, as well as the aerial photo here:
it's difficult to see how she could have. Interestingly, the bird's
eye view in the Multimap page shows what is presumably an earlier
boom, which had the buoys much further apart.
Also, can anyone explain what this means:
"The gates were fully open, with approximately 1ft airdraft above."
Were the gates open to above water level?
Anne Rogers
> I would hate to see this event lead to new reactionary restrictions from
> what ultimately came down to a very bad judgement call on behalf of the
> (very lucky!) rower in question. Clubs can tell rowers not to row as
> much as they like, but it's a matter of individual responsibility
> whether or not the rowers actually obey those instructions, especially
> for privately owned single man craft. Although continuous review of
> safety procedures is always necessary, there surely has to come a point
> where we accept responsibility for our own actions rather than trying to
> place the blame elsewhere, even when the outcome is more tragic than in
> this case. It seems very difficult to strike the right balance.
Clubs could refuse racking space for someone who behaves in a foolish
manner, it's not going to prevent someone really wants to be idiotic,
but puts a significant boundary in place.
The incident needs to be investigated, otherwise how can you tell if
anything needs to be done better, was it an experienced local sculler
who made a mistake, which does happen, at least it happens to me, I
completely misjudged the speed of another car today, fortunately I'm
quite a defensive driver and we were no where near a collision.
Unfortunately it is too easy to brush things like this off as an error
of judgement and if it were anything but that, every stage needs to be
examined as to what happened and what could have been done differently.
Cheers
Anne
Sarah A Harbour
> On 05/03/2010 13:55, Stelph wrote:
>
> >> It is believed the woman must have attempted to turn too late after the
>
> > Obvioulsy its difficult to comment without being there but it sounds
> > like the rower in question was very foolish [...]
>
> This does seem to be the case, or at least the sculler got caught out,
> thinking she had left enough room to spin but seriously underestimating
> the speed of the current on the heavily flooded river. The "spin here"
> sign is positioned with typical river conditions in mind, not floods.
>
> In general the local clubs and collective bodies which oversees them (the
> Cam Conservators and Cambridgeshire Rowing Association) are very aware of
> safety issues and up to date on best practice. During the period of
> recent flooding we had numerous messages regarding water safety -
> including a spell of no allowed rowing - put out on our own club's e-mail
> list, in addition to the various posters and leaflets already available
> at the boathouse.
I seem to have totally missed all this - didn't check rsr until
yesterday evening.
I know one of the marshals who had the pleasant task of being on duty
on Monday morning (first morning after bumps and lighting down now
around 6.20) as he's the women's captain at my alma mater. We'd been
taking the mick about him having to get up to do it and having seen
the river on my way to work I further bantered with him about him
having to get up to stand there in the freezing cold watching an empty
river! He said that Caius W1 were out, as was a Robs Sculler. Mel and
I later said that we thought the sculler must have been unhinged to
have gone out in those conditions.
I had been looking forward to a river free of vast hoards of college
VIIIs, and I was most disappointed to have to erg instead on Monday. I
have no idea how anyone would have been able to get their single in on
their own - the river was probably about half way up the hard outside
the boathouses and the stream was really strong. If I had ventured
out, then there's no way I'd have gone beyond Ditton Corner in those
conditions.
They have erected a 'ROWERS SPIN HERE' sign before Baitsbite, which,
as Hodgy points out, would have been inadequate in those conditions
anyway. To be honest, in normal Cam stream conditions it's position
very much errs on the side of caution as it is perfectly safe to spin
after the sign - there is practically no stream whatsoever on the Cam
normally. That doesn't mean that I think people should get really
close to the weir though - anecdote from the Cambridge Rowing
Messageboards that I've just seen:
"Still, I remember when there wasn't even a boom and (in the summer)
(so the urban myth went) you'd have eights seeing whether they could
get their stern sticking out over the weir before setting off."
:S
The CUCBC (oversees college rowing) didn't actually flag the river
until 5pm on Monday and then declared that the stream made it
dangerous to spin at Baitsbite Lock. IMHO it needed restricting to
experienced crews from first thing in the morning (would have saved
Yvor having to marshal too!) and people being advised to spin no
further downstream than the Motorway Bridge. They then did this at 9pm
on Monday, and reopened it to all college crews at 9.30am on Wedesday
after the river had pretty much returned to normal - I appreciated
that though - kept the really dreadful coxing off while I was out on
Wednesday. I didn't go down to the lock until Thursday morning, but
the stream had returned to normal by then.
What I'm in disbelief about is that firstly I thought scullers tended
to have more of a self-preservation mode about them than rowers in
general, and secondly I find it a bit strange that no-one actually
managed to find out exactly what happened at the time - as reported in
that classy piece of journalism, the CEN... how come none of the
witnesses to the incident actually found out if the woman was ok, and
what happened to the boat?
Sarah
pdb
wrote:
>
> What I'm in disbelief about is that firstly I thought scullers tended
> to have more of a self-preservation mode about them than rowers in
> general, and secondly I find it a bit strange that no-one actually
> managed to find out exactly what happened at the time - as reported in
> that classy piece of journalism, the CEN... how come none of the
> witnesses to the incident actually found out if the woman was ok, and
> what happened to the boat?
>
> Sarah- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I come back to my earlier point that the individual, club and regional
council should take action because of the seriousness of the incident.
Obviously the CUCBC takes safety management seriously but do the
clubs themselves.
Of course, it may have been a boat damage situation but going afloat
in potentially dangerous conditions either shows a disregard of the
risk (like Walton RC a few weeks ago) or inexperience which reflects
badly on the club.
So, perhaps, the CUCBC correspondents can demand a 'mea culpa'
explanation from those who are directly responsible.
Sarah A Harbour
The CUCBC were mentioned due to the flag system that they operate.
Ultimately though they have no jurisdiction over town rowing, and it
appears that the female sculler was from Rob Roy, so in this incident
hasn't got anything to do with the CUCBC.
I'm still intrigued (nosey!) as to who the sculler actually was.
Sarah
pdb
But surely there is some dialogue about river safety between the
colleges and clubs. Unfortunately any safety incident affects every
user so being 'nosey' is just what is needed. Next time a life may be
lost which is why the details have to publicised and lessons learnt.
Perhaps the Eastern Region Safety Adviser wil know who it was.
~
> But surely there is some dialogue about river safety between the
> colleges and clubs.
Very little in the day-to-day sense. Where possible, time is split
between town and college clubs so that the town rows when the colleges
don't and vice-versa. Uni flag rules, as Sarah says, don't apply to
Town clubs, although I suspect most take passing note of the flag
status, if nothing else.
> Perhaps the Eastern Region Safety Adviser wil know who it was.
I know he is making active enquiries but so far no-one has 'fessed up.
Of course, you don't actually have to be a member of a Town or Uni
club to row - there are plenty of privately-owned boats on the Cam,
most/many of them singles.
Carl Douglas
To learn how accidents happen, after analysis of the facts has allowed
the chain of events to be unravelled, & for all of this to benefit our
sport we do need full & frank incident reporting. Running away & hiding
from responsibility, as seems in prospect in this case (& do I hope I am
wrong), endangers others by depriving us of useful lessons. I'm afraid
that threatening to penalise the possibly frightened (or plain
irresponsible) survivor makes it less likely that we shall recover the
necessary information. Do we care more about making an example of the
survivor, or learning useful lessons?
It would be worth rowers, even those on normally untroubled waters such
as the Cam, taking a glance at the Marine Accident Investigation Branch
(MAIB) reports to see how accidents evolve, e.g.:
www.maib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/Brenscombe-Synopsis.pdf
&
www.maib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/RigidRaider_Synopsis.pdf
I see deeply uncomfortable parallels in these 2 reports with accidents
to UK rowers over the last 10 years.
Carl
--
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing Low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: Harris Boatyard, Laleham Reach, Chertsey KT16 8RP, UK
Find: http://tinyurl.com/2tqujf
Stephen Hobdell
the sign, but capsized in the conditions.
No way to out-swim that one.
Robs scullers always used to be more experienced than most...
Richard du P
wrote:
I DON'T know the water, or the scullers ..... might "Eyewitness Jim
Russell" - unless he's badly misquoted by the news medium at the top
of this thread - have a view of Stephen's hypothesis?
If the hypothesis can be proved, and anyone swimming in that stream
when reaching the sign, is indeed effectively committed to a ride
through the sluice, does that say something important about either the
sign, or the risk assessment?
Richard du P
Carl Douglas
I welcome this turn in the discussion.
Reference was made earlier to the Guildford incident, which occurred
almost 20 years back. In that case a sculler went to pass a sluice
that's set into the side of a canalised river. The sluice was unguarded
but, it being submerged, it was impossible to tell that it had
(illegally & without warning) been opened by the local boatyard
management (whose operations this facilitated).
The sculler was sucked sideways towards the sluice. All would still
have been well, but a narrow-boat (= a converted steel barge, for the
benefit of non-UK readers) was illegally moored just above the sluice.
This meant that the sculler, on being dragged crosswise towards the
sluice by the current, caught a blade on the narrow-boat, had
insufficient room to keep sculling & capsized.
He swam like crazy but was dragged towards the sluice. His boat got
there first & straddled the point on the bank below which lay the sluice
mouth. He ended up against his jammed boat, hanging on for dear life.
It was completely impossible for him to extricate himself as he was now
directly above the sluice & being sucked downwards (also losing his
lower garments). Club members spotted him & ran across the nearby
bridge to help, but were unable to reach him from the sluice
superstructure. He then lost his grip (it was January) & was shot
through the sluice, suffering extensive abrasions & bruising. Had there
been an anti-scour step downstream, or had he hit his head on the sluice
aperture, he'd most likely have been gravely injured or worse.
The river management & the boatyard owner at once fastened blame on the
sculler. It later transpired that other boats from that club had been
dragged into that sluice in similar circumstances. The river management
(part of the National Trust) was even cockily proud of this, happily
displaying photos of these wrecks to a baying audience at a public
meeting of its supporters some months later. The club was too
frightened to make representations, fearing losing use of the river.
The boatyard owner threatened (emptily) to sue me for exposing his
misconduct. The ARA refused point blank to get involved, after
discussions between apron-wearing members of the ARA & ditto of the
trust, the rowing club & the yard management. So the incident was
laughed off, dead & buried by a bunch of unscrupulous, cynical
individuals, with others too scared to say boo. The trust later
admitted to having run that waterway under a "climate of fear".
I called at that time for wooden booms to be placed a short distance
away from the sluice mouth, a cheap guard which would have allowed this
sculler to escape. The H&SE were brought in belatedly. Their silly,
naive representative, a lady with no apparent grasp of the situation,
was bamboozled in private by the yard owner & the river manager into
believing that such booms would "prevent salmon from moving upriver" - I
kid you not. So a cover up, & nothing was done.
It's worth remembering that there are many ways for accidents to happen
& that, sometimes, blame is planted inappropriately, even deliberately,
when the victim may be largely or wholly blameless. So threats & blame
are best avoided, particularly when no one seems to know very much about
what actually did happen.
Cheers -
~
whole affair, now. Whoever it was (and their club, if they have one)
has had ample time to come forward and the possibility that they don't
know of the interest in this matter is not believable - when I was
racing on the Cam yesterday, several people from different clubs were
asking if anyone knew who it/he/she was, so the story is widely spread
amongst the rowing community, at least. To even be out in those
conditions, this sculler would have to have been quite a dedicated
person, so the idea that they don't know they're 'wanted' has even
less creditability.
We have only one witness - and even he (as I understand it) did not
actually see her capsize, merely drawing conclusions from such
evidence as was available to him immediately after the event.
Incidentally - I believe that swimming in the Cam is, if not illegal,
then at least strongly discouraged by the authorities as it is not the
world's most hygenic waterway. In normal circumstances (which,
admittedly, these were not) the 'spin' sign is plenty far enough
upstream of the weir for any averagely competent swimmer to be able to
make landfall long before they reach the weir - the furthest you can
get from the bank at this point can't be much more than about fifteen
feet/five metres, at a guess.
MarkG
Cambridgeshire Rowing Association, and was forwarded to all CRA clubs
via their contact list. I forwarded the note to all in my club as we
were due to race on Sunday 7th March, and had many junior crews
entered in the 3rd leg of the Winter League. Fortunately, the river
was more benign than in the 2nd leg two weeks previously.
I am still not sure if the sculler actually went through the sluice
or, as postulated above, capsized whilst turning, leaving her boat on
the booms and swimming past the lock entrance to the west of the
sluice to get out onto the towpath. She may even have gone into the
lock. From my experience, at least one Cam town club (not the one
mentioned in this thread) uses the advice from CUCBC (flag signals) to
decide whether to allow club members to boat or not.
I would certainly like to see more detailed information on such
incidents being more widely distributed. I very much hope that the
individual involved will come forward and share her experience so we
can all plan to avoid anything like it in the future, and I hope that
the CRA can help to make this happen. We may know about the plans in
place, risk assessments, warning signals & signs, but what was it in
this sculler's behaviour that increased the risks for her to an
unacceptable level?
pdb
Of course, if there was aboat trapped on the boom, or wreckage from a
broken-up boat, it would have had an BR Boat id which have given the
name of the club which would have a register of the boats, club or
private, to identify the user or owner.
Richard du P
>
> Of course, if there was a boat trapped on the boom, or wreckage from a
> broken-up boat, it would have had an BR Boat id which have given the
> name of the club which would have a register of the boats, club or
> private, to identify the user or owner.
..... so very unlike the club, on a different river, where I was
umpiring August 2009, many of whose privateer single sculling boats
appeared still to be sitting on their racks unmarked.
[Ken, if you're out there, we did speak about this]
Richard du P
pdb
I thought the BR club safety audits would have picked this up!
Richard du P
>
> I thought the BR club safety audits would have picked this up!
If we're serious about this stuff, can "peer review" out-of-
competition testing of equipment be far away?
I have this vision of two very big Putney clubs getting together to
show us how to inspect each other's boats ..... maybe not?
Or could BR Division 13 lead the way to reciprocal inspections?
Richard du P
~
>
> - Show quoted text -
Not necessarily. As I said earlier, many boats are privately owned
and not necessarily raced in BR events, if at all. I'm sure many of
those rowing on the Cam (and their boats, if they have them) are not
BR members.
Richard du P
I'm guessing here, and would welcome correction. If someone sculls on
the Cam, NOT under the aegis of British Rowing, then any boat markings
are simply a matter for the navigation authority, which perhaps does
not require identifying marks for anything as small as a single skiff
or sculler?
Again I'm open to correction, but in the Port of London, I believe the
harbour authority now expects anyone [?] sculling from a BR-affiliated
rowing or sculling club, to have the six-digit marking whether
individually registered with BR or not?
..... but the Cam authority isn't bothered? ..... 'cos it doesn't find
a need to be able to identify vessels?
Richard du P
~
The Cam authority is The Cam Conservators. You are supposed to
register your boat with them and you do get a sticker in return which
you are supposed to display. However - and I'm speaking from memory
her, others may know better - I don't believe it contains/displays any
information about the club or the owner - it's a bit like a car tax
disc, just an indication that you've paid up. Further details at:
http://www.camconservators.co.uk/registration.html
Sarah A Harbour
When you apply for registration with the Conservators you are supposed
to tell them your alphanumeric code (and boat name!). I've just
received my renewal notice through the post this morning. Apparenlty
they can check to make sure that people are registered at any time,
though I doubt in practice that it ever happens to rowing boats...
If there is no registration number for your boat then the form says
that they will designate one.
Someone reported on the Cambridge messageboards that the sculler was
helped back into the boat by the person who first thought she'd gone
through the sluice, and then she proceeded to scull home again...
details are patchy though and the whole thing does sound like chinese
whispers. I'd love to know what did actually happen.
Sarah
Christopher Anton
"Richard du P" <rdup...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c4f0d51d-bd09-4a2b...@v20g2000yqv.googlegroups.com...
..... but the Cam authority isn't bothered? ..... 'cos it doesn't find
a need to be able to identify vessels?
Au contraire, the Consevrators of the Cam even in my day 20+ years before
the ARA required it, required all rowing boats on the Cam to be numbered.
The practice wasn't very well policed and I seem to remember that only
Churchill did it assiduously
~
<c.an...@NOSPAM.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> "Richard du P" <rdupa...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:c4f0d51d-bd09-4a2b...@v20g2000yqv.googlegroups.com...
>
> ..... but the Cam authority isn't bothered? ..... 'cos it doesn't find
> a need to be able to identify vessels?
>
> Au contraire, the Consevrators of the Cam even in my day 20+ years before
> the ARA required it, required all rowing boats on the Cam to be numbered.
> The practice wasn't very well policed and I seem to remember that only
> Churchill did it assiduously
Well, just for fun, I'll have a look at the sticker on our boat this
evening and find out exactly what it says...I still don't think it has
any info to enable the passing reader to tell who owns it or what club
they're from, but maybe I'm looking in the wrong place.
~
Nope - nothing to identify the owner or club on the Consrvator's 'tax
disc'. Incidentally - and way off-topic - a point raised in a pub not
a hundred miles away from the dangerous lock in question: Are we
really going to have to put up with the tautology of a 'Novice
Masters' category in April? 'Novice Veterans' was daft enough...
Richard
> Incidentally - and way off-topic - a point raised in a pub not
> a hundred miles away from the dangerous lock in question: Are we
> really going to have to put up with the tautology of a 'Novice
> Masters' category in April? 'Novice Veterans' was daft enough...
Why is Novice Masters (or Novice Veterans) tautologous or daft? I'm a
big fan of Vet Novice, having two Vet Novice pots in my not-very-
overflowing trophy cabinet (one head race, one regatta). Well, I was
a fan. Of course, I'm not a novice sculler after that regatta win,
which means I would have to race people who know how to scull
properly. So I retired.
The distinction that I continue to find completely pointless (or
rather, *not* pointless... read on) is the one that says that the
order of the racing classes makes a difference to the event
qualification rules.
<from 2010 Rules of Racing>
4-1-9 Combination of Classes
Regatta organisers may offer events which combine the conditions of
two or more classes; (e.g. Masters B Intermediate 2). This would be an
event confirming to the general conditions of Masters B, but
restricted to crews/scullers with a point count applicable to
Intermediate 2 conditions. No points would be awarded even if the
event is qualifying, as the overriding qualification is Masters.
Intermediate 2 Masters B on the other hand would attract points if the
event is qualifying.
<end quote>
Why on earth would anyone offer a qualifying IM2 Masters B event
instead of non-qualifying MB IM2? Both events are open to exactly the
same crews. So, if event organisers were to make a simple typo in
their poster, and accidentally put the senior category before the
masters one, a whole load of rowers might end up racing in qualifying
events when they have no need to do so. Why can't the rule simply
state that Masters events aren't qualifying (apart from losing your
Novice status, which I think is fair enough). How many event
organisers are even aware of this subtle distinction? Not that you
see many events that are sub-divided like this; there are some but
they are few and far between.
david.h...@aea.be
> On 17 Mar, 09:47, "~" <mpwm...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > Incidentally - and way off-topic - a point raised in a pub not
> > a hundred miles away from the dangerous lock in question: Are we
> > really going to have to put up with the tautology of a 'Novice
> > Masters' category in April? 'Novice Veterans' was daft enough...
>
> Why is Novice Masters (or Novice Veterans) tautologous or daft?
Of course it's a tautology. 'Masters' sport (e.g. tennis or golf) is
essentially for people who have reached the very top of the game - who
have genuinely mastered it. Not for novices.
I had no problems whatsoever with being a Veteran - it describes what
I am and have been for a good many years (although it doesn't describe
some of the girls in my club who will be 27 this year). If I call
myself a 'Master' rower, I just feel foolish.
Dave H
(Veteran F and counting)
~
Richard - just to clarify: It's not the actual event classification I
mean, it's the terminology. I mean, as David intimates, you can be a
'Master' or you can be a 'Novice' - but I don't see how you can be an
amalgam of both. Similarly with 'Novice Veteran'. What are you
supposed to be a veteran of, if you're a novice? I'm also with David
on the lower age thing: 27?? That makes Sir Steve's gold medal IV Vet
B or thereabouts! Hardly seems right...
Kit
Blimey, it's like an episode of Grumpy Old Men round here!
27-y-o girls at your local Masters Regatta? What's not to like?!
David Biddulph
news:82b43181-a978-4197...@g10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
...
> Blimey, it's like an episode of Grumpy Old Men round here!
> 27-y-o girls at your local Masters Regatta? What's not to like?!
But wouldn't they be Mistresses? :-)
--
David Biddulph
Rowing web pages at
http://www.biddulph.org.uk/
Richard
It's an oxymoron, perhaps, but not tautology.
Anyway, isn't age discrimination illegal? ;-)
Alasdhair Johnston
>essentially for people who have reached the very top of the game - who
>have genuinely mastered it. Not for novices.
Actually it's an oxymoron - a contradiction in terms. Tautology is
unnecessary repetition, as illustrated by <a
href="http://xkcd.com/703/">xkcd</a>
Alasdhair Johnston
david.h...@aea.be
>
> Richard - just to clarify: It's not the actual event classification I
> mean, it's the terminology. I mean, as David intimates, you can be a
> 'Master' or you can be a 'Novice' - but I don't see how you can be an
> amalgam of both. Similarly with 'Novice Veteran'. What are you
> supposed to be a veteran of, if you're a novice? I'm also with David
> on the lower age thing: 27?? That makes Sir Steve's gold medal IV Vet
> B or thereabouts! Hardly seems right...
He vas a Vet B, the other three were Vet As
> Blimey, it's like an episode of Grumpy Old Men round here!
Oxymoron, tautology, harrumph
Christopher Anton
"~" <mpw...@googlemail.com> wrote in message news:9d1a7cd2-5d1a-42f4-b0e8-
Richard - just to clarify: It's not the actual event classification I
mean, it's the terminology. I mean, as David intimates, you can be a
'Master' or you can be a 'Novice' - but I don't see how you can be an
amalgam of both. Similarly with 'Novice Veteran'. What are you
supposed to be a veteran of, if you're a novice? I'm also with David
on the lower age thing: 27?? That makes Sir Steve's gold medal IV Vet
B or thereabouts! Hardly seems right...
Always was Vet B the ages apart from the A category haven't changed.
ng...@aol.com
<c.an...@NOSPAM.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> "~" <mpwm...@googlemail.com> wrote in message news:9d1a7cd2-5d1a-42f4-b0e8-
It does mean that 'Open' rowing as the only option is an
extraordinarily brief window. You can imagine someone born in the
right year modulo 4 going to two consecutive Olympics, and being
written up for the first one as 'XXX ZZZ, who despite being U-23 is
good enough to row with the senior international squad....' and then
four years later, it's 'XXX ZZZ, who can still hold his own with the
full international squad, despite being clasified as a veteran.....'
Christopher Anton
<ng...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:2d09a4d8-d03a-4b3f...@33g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
Not quite as the U23 rule means that you've got to be 22 to take part, i.e.
you can compete at U23 up until the end of the year in which you turn 22. So
if your birthday was 1st Jan 86 you could have competed in Beijing as an U23
but 4 years later you'd be a day too young to qualify as a Master for which
you'd need to have been born on or before 31st Dec 85 (which would thus have
made you too old to compete at U23 in 2008).
Carl Douglas
I'm going to have a bit of tongue-in-cheek fun over this, just to see
what reactions it may stir:
Don't we suffer, in sport as in life, from excessive seriousness & a
grotesque surfeit of political correctness?
In its best form, racing means taking on all comers & may the best one
win. Those less fast are classified or classifiable by how far they
come behind the winner. In a less prissy world than today's that should
give every competitor a sufficient measure of relative worth &
individual improvement.
This would work perfectly well in head races. No need for further
intervention - i.e. keep the meddlers & obsessive rule-setters out.
Unfortunately, we pretend that everyone needs prizes as well, beyond the
real measure of achievement that being ~1 minute behind the winner ought
to give us. So we create artificial categories, based on age, gender &
past mediocrity to enable us to award a whole lot more silverware. This
complicates the admin & raises the costs, especially when events get
cancelled 'cos we no longer race in more challenging conditions. Lots
of us then get pots or medals for being inferior to the real winner but
by some mere chance have won fewer such baubles than the guy 0.1 second
faster than us, who goes away with nowt. The we stick this prize for
relative mediocrity in a cupboard to tell us & our mates what a splendid
racer we were. Isn't that just a tad daft?
This insertion of categories with cut-offs based on age & past
performances has a truly corrupting effect on domestic competition in
the UK. Now we award points to rowers for wins in what are deliberately
substandard events, whose standard may anyway be hugely variable from
regatta to regatta. Based on individuals' accumulated points, they have
to move up into perhaps less substandard events, where their chance of
collecting additional silverware may appear slight.
Surprise, surprise! Rowers are trained to believe in the need not for
fierce competition but for gongs or pots. So accumulating points is
seen as truly curtailing their rowing careers. And how do they respond?
All too often by avoiding further competition. But how absolutely
gutless & unsporting is that! And, equally unsporting, that backsliding
reduces chances of competition for others.
I accept that it is not easy to organise the shorter, non-head race
events for large numbers of crews without subdividing by some means, &
that past performances do appear to provide a valid means for such
subdivision. However, with the relentless (& IMHO destructive) trend to
leave the rivers to race in the same bl**dy boring old rectangular 2k
tank, it'd be easy to arrange good racing based on groups whose
performances were similar while still awarding prizes on the basis of
overall fastest, next fastest, etc., times for the whole regatta. And
everyone's results could go towards a yearly pecking order.
Such an arrangement bears some similarity to a league system. And we do
have some league-based racing (e.g. bumps races), so it isn't a very
radical concept. I think it could lead to some fantastic racing, since
every competitor has every incentive to do their best & will be
pressurised by racing among their approximate equals. It might also
bring an end to the current thoroughly unsporting practice of
points-saving tactical withdrawals.
I realise that humans might be slow to adapt to a less flamboyant awards
system, but many rowers are keen followers of league-based activities,
so it shouldn't be too much of a culture shock.
But probably far too radical for rowers? And too much administrative
structure invested in the status quo?
As for "Masters" categories - how odd, these days, to pick such a sexist
name, & how very inappropriate as a description of some of the rowing
within that category. Mr. Woods' extracurricular activities may make
the women who race as Masters even more reluctant to race as Mistresses,
although in its origin that word was deeply honourable, & even today we
have no problems with describing a highly competent woman as mistress of
all she surveys. So what on earth is wrong with the gender-free &
unpretentious title of Veterans? Is it that it doesn't sound
sufficiently important? But I'd have thought that the term Veteran was
highly respectable, often with the most honourable connotations. And it
far better describes those who race in such categories - even the
relative novices, but perhaps _not_ those of such tender years as a mere
27. After all, rowing is a middle distance sport & many such athletes
only get to their best around 30 & beyond.
Cheers -
Carl
--
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing Low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: Harris Boatyard, Laleham Reach, Chertsey KT16 8RP, UK
Find: http://tinyurl.com/2tqujf
Email: ca...@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: +44(0)1932-570946 Fax: -563682
URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk (boats) & www.aerowing.co.uk (riggers)
di@rocktheboat
I always have preferred Vintage myself ..... and some of the racing we
see is Classic
Dix
Sarah A Harbour
> After all, rowing is a middle distance sport & many such athletes
> only get to their best around 30 & beyond.
>
That's what I'm banking on...!
Sarah
Rob Collings
What about the old bangers?
ng...@aol.com
> Christopher Anton wrote:
> > <ng...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:2d09a4d8-d03a-4b3f...@33g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> > On 17 Mar, 22:01, "Christopher Anton"
> > <c.an...@NOSPAM.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >> "~" <mpwm...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:9d1a7cd2-5d1a-42f4-b0e8-
>
> fierce competition but for gongs or pots. So accumulating points is
> seen as truly curtailing their rowing careers. And how do they respond?
> All too often by avoiding further competition. But how absolutely
> gutless & unsporting is that! And, equally unsporting, that backsliding
> reduces chances of competition for others.
>
This is a transition which has puzzled me.
Back in the dimly remembered days of Senior A,B,C etc, getting wins
and moving up a category was generally seen as a positive thing, an
achievement. You might have the odd qualm when you hit say Senior A
that you were going to find yourself out of your depth, but ultimately
most people settled down. After all, in a system where there is
mobility, winning at one category surely demonstrates that you're too
good for that category.
And yet in recent years I've seen a win referred to more than once as
meaning that a crew or sculler 'forfeited' a point - as if it was
somehow a mistake to win a qualifying event. The implication being
that the ideal is to stick around for yet another winter's bottom-
fishing at heads and minor regattas.
The only real difference I can think of is that back in the day all
races were qualifying - if you avoided the big regattas, you could get
from Senior A to Elite by beating barely more than a half-dozen
scullers in total (or sometimes less if you raced the same small
pool). This meant that if you wanted to race at all, you either had to
enter races you knew you had no chance of winning (which we've all
done, many of us for most of our careers, actually.....), or accept
that you were going to end up climbing the greasy pole.
Or is there another reason for this?
With reference to the other point, that of multiplying categories, my
favourite was a sporting gentleman at Sudbury regatta a few years ago
who walked off with the Novice, Veteran Novice and Veteran D 1x pots.
Bet he was proud.
Christopher Anton
<ng...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:b1c70737-175b-474b...@z11g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
>
>The only real difference I can think of is that back in the day all
>races were qualifying - if you avoided the big regattas, you could get
>from Senior A to Elite by beating barely more than a half-dozen
>scullers in total (or sometimes less if you raced the same small
>pool). This meant that if you wanted to race at all, you either had to
>enter races you knew you had no chance of winning (which we've all
>done, many of us for most of our careers, actually.....), or accept
>that you were going to end up climbing the greasy pole.
Not so. If you go even further back pre 1980 then all regattas shorter than
1000m were non-qualifying. And you only had to beat four more opponents to
go from SenA to Elite and you had to do it in a calendar year or else you
started again at SenA at the start of the next year.
Carl Douglas
non-head-race events were "qualifying".
Your status moved up from Maiden (= novice) through Junior (nothing to
do with age) & Junior-Senior to Senior. One win at Maiden made you a
Junior. IIRC (& maybe I don't, but others will help me) you could then
have up to 3 wins at J becoming JS. And you could then win up to 3 at
JS in any year without having to move on up to Senior. Don't Thames
skiff-shovers still have similar rules?
I'm unsure what the points system is supposed to have improved. It has
introduced the fear of the Peter Principle - of promotion beyond the
level of your competence.
Doubtless non-UK readers long ago switched off from this most insular of
discussions, either bored or utterly confused. If any are still
following, what rules do your domestic systems operate in the (?vain)
hope of better competition?
Cheers -
Carl
PS Tomorrow perhaps we can discuss the rules of Mornington Crescent?
C
ng...@aol.com
Ah yes, I do remember the 'elite ratchet' (though I thought it was 5
wins in a season), but I'd forgotten about the 1000m threshold. I seem
to remember that is why sprint regattas were brought in, to provide
'fun racing' without affecting oarsmen's status, but I think also that
most of the original sprint regattas were the second day of a two-day
event, where the first one was the 'real' racing. I stand, as ever, to
be corrected though.
Alasdhair Johnston
> than 1000m were non-qualifying. And you only had to beat four more
> opponents to go from SenA to Elite and you had to do it in a calendar year
> or else you started again at SenA at the start of the next year.
Ah, but that meant that some crews became "Perennial Senior As": racing
until they'd won four pots before retiring for the year to let someone else
have a go.
Foe some bizarre & unexplained reason, this was deemed to be a Bad Thing...
Anne Rogers
> Doubtless non-UK readers long ago switched off from this most insular of
> discussions, either bored or utterly confused. If any are still
> following, what rules do your domestic systems operate in the (?vain)
> hope of better competition?
Well, I guess I count as a non UK reader these days. I haven't rowed
this side of the pond, but I have done a few dance competitions, the
lack of some kind of system is also highly irritating - because it is
frustrating and demoralising to continually lose to the same people
who've been sat in the same category for years and whatever the sport,
it's not good for the sport in the long term, because we all like to
win, or at least see progress.
Rowing in the UK manages to do well internationally without huge
grassroots participation - though maybe we do compared to other
countries, but in general you do need to get people involved to improve
chances of international sucess, I think you have to do something to
encourage that, which I'm not sure the current crazy system does.
My kids do gymnastics, there is a lot I don't like about elite
gymnastics in general, particularly for girls, but the actual
competition and progression structure seems quite good, but in part
that's because you can grade skills to some extent, so to move to the
next level, you have to score high enough on a certain skill set, you
could progress even if you always came last - not sure how you could do
that in rowing. I don't know the fine details, but there must be some
dates such that you'd never want to muck up your routine to remain
eligible for the more prestigious meet next week!
My son did his 2nd "competition" yesterday, he's only 6, the competition
was all about each child setting their own goals and improving from last
time (they have 3 over the year), can he climb further up a rope, do
more pull ups etc then they got to pick prizes based on the points they
scored, in my opinion, that's the kind of thing that keeps kids involved
in a sport, but we need to try and keep all the adults happy because
whilst they might not progress to the olympics, they might catch the bug
and get more involved and be the person that gets a future olympian into
the sport.
Cheers
Anne
david.h...@aea.be
When I won my novices at the penultimate regatta of the 1966 season,
in my J17 year, our rowing master wouldn’t let us race Junior in the
last one ‘in case we won’. Precious little hope of that but he
couldn’t take the risk because that would move us up to Junior-Senior
the following year. That was his reading of the rules, anyway.
He wouldn’t have minded, except that the school didn’t possess a shell
IV, let alone the means to transport one – Junior IVs in the North-
East was almost invariably in clinker boats provided by the regatta
(‘committee boats’). So we wouldn’t have been able to race at all the
following season.
As a historical footnote, I went along anyway to the last regatta
(Blyth) to check out the standard. It was a curious afternoon because
there were no spectators and after the end of each race the rowers
simply vanished into the woodwork. Then suddenly late in the
afternoon a vast crowd emerged from their various cars and camper-vans
– where they had been sat listening to England winning the World Cup.
Personally I was more interested in watching the racing.
Phil
wrote:
> <snippage>
>
> As a historical footnote, I went along anyway to the last regatta
> (Blyth) to check out the standard. It was a curious afternoon because
> there were no spectators and after the end of each race the rowers
> simply vanished into the woodwork. Then suddenly late in the
> afternoon a vast crowd emerged from their various cars and camper-vans
> – where they had been sat listening to England winning the World Cup.
> Personally I was more interested in watching the racing.
World cup in what exactly?
JK
Re-reading the thread... that would be the 1966 World Cup in
football.... the one 44 years ago that we still harp on about!
Christopher Anton
<ng...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:e4646eaf-dee3-4129...@m37g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
and it was also why some regattas - like Shrewsbury - used to finish in such
a stupid place to get the 1000m in.