Oxford University Rowing Clubs

Captains' Meeting Thursday

PostCaptains' Meeting Thursday
AuthorLenny
leonard.martin@gmail[dot]com		Posted At09:42, 12th May 2008
10 weeks ago
Anyone interested in prior precedent in advance of Thursday's captains' meeting may be interested in a similar incident from 2004 involving Magdalen, Catz and Somerville.

Forum discussion (probably contains more vitriol than actual precedent, but there are some pertinent points):
http://www.ourcs.org.uk/forums/G/1219

The minutes from the extraordinary meeting held then:
http://www.ourcs.org.uk/index.php?p=ourcs/old_minutes&date=1084478400
 
PostRE: Captains' Meeting Thursday
AuthorLenny
leonard.martin@gmail[dot]com		Posted At09:48, 12th May 2008
10 weeks ago
The forum seems to really not like URLs.

To find the minutes, go to Organisation->Captains' Meetings->Old Minutes->3rd Week Trinity Term 2004
 
PostRE: Captains' Meeting Thursday
AuthorLiz
platts_liz@allergan[dot]com		Posted At10:21, 12th May 2008
10 weeks ago
So which colleges have been muppets this time?
 
PostRE: Captains' Meeting Thursday
AuthorAnu Dudhia
dudhia@atm		Posted At11:02, 12th May 2008
10 weeks ago
See Agenda for details, but the main problem seems to be New men missing the entry deadline for their 2nd-4th boats, plus incomplete entries from LMH and Pembroke crews.

 
PostRE: Captains' Meeting Thursday
AuthorChris Cooper
christopher.cooper@sgc		Posted At12:16, 12th May 2008
10 weeks ago
My main concern about this is that if New M2 are allowed to be entered into Eights on Thursday night, this doesn't give Linacre M2 much notice to row on the next day.

We will prepare Linacre M2 for this possibility, but our rowers are grad students and need to organise time out of the lab etc. to row. Why should they be messed about because some Captains can't get their act together to put their entries in on time?
 
PostRE: Captains\' Meeting Thursday
AuthorAnu Dudhia
dudhia@atm		Posted At14:40, 12th May 2008
10 weeks ago
Given that, as things stand, Linacre II aren\'t required to Row On on Friday, it seems reasonable that they should continue to be exempt, even if New College M2 are reinstated. Perhaps you should propose this (or ask the OURCs committee to propose this) for the meeting?

There\'s certainly no reason why Linacre should suffer the knock-on effects of someone else\'s cock-up.

Incidentally, current provisional starting order (after close of entries) is on
http://www.atm.ox.ac.uk/rowing/e08sta.html
 
PostRE: Captains' Meeting Thursday
AuthorLiz
platts_liz@allergan[dot]com		Posted At15:22, 12th May 2008
10 weeks ago
'There's certainly no reason why Linacre should suffer the knock-on effects of someone else's cock-up.'
Putting my reply in the correct thread!!

Why should a rowing -on crew, who got entered properly, now find that there are more boats to beat and one less place?

You don't go to an external regatta to find extra entries after the draw has been posted.....
 
PostRE: Captains' Meeting Thursday
AuthorAnu Dudhia
dudhia@atm		Posted At15:43, 12th May 2008
10 weeks ago
Back in the old days before automated web-based entry systems, we never seemed to have this problem. Either the captains were amazingly efficient and always got their entries in on time, or the OURCs Secretary exercised some discretion in the matter. I know which I believe and I have absolutely no problem with that.

Unlike other regattas, Eights is run for the Colleges by the Colleges, so you can still exercise some collective discretion. You may think that it is unfair that a late entry is accepted, or you may think it more unfair that someone is denied an opportunity to race due to a captain being frazzled. But it's not like anyone is getting any sort of *advantage* in getting their entry in late, is it?

And bear in mind C1.1 of the OURCs constitution (it doesn't get any more fundamental than that): the aims of OURCs are
 
PostRE: Captains' Meeting Thursday
Author
dudhia@atm		Posted At17:01, 12th May 2008
10 weeks ago
[Must remember not to use double quotes in these messages!]

Aims of OURCs are to support rowing within the University (C1.1)

So, give the guilty captains a slap on the wrist if you must, but at least give their crews the same chance as everyone else.
 
PostRE: Captains' Meeting Thursday
AuthorBuzz
buzz_nixon@hotmail[dot]com		Posted At17:23, 12th May 2008
10 weeks ago
Anu this one is totally different the colleges have managed to do some entries, so OURCS will have fulfilled their brief if the start order stays as declared at present.
College rowing is being promoted with only one fixed division crew affected.

The rules are so open that you can enter a crew and then substitute it in its entireity so there isn’t really an excuse for partial entry.

Lenny there is actually no precedent about re-opening entries in this circumstance. The OURC server has not failed.

The fact of the matter was that, in 2004, there had been problems with the OURC server on the day that , and at the time that, entries closed. There had been disruptions to the server in the preceding days; meaning that some crews had been unable to enter despite trying to do so in time. The Captains and OURCS were unable to verify who had and hadn’t been on at the specified closing time, other than the captain of Magdalen admitting he was a muppet for failing to enter; in a spirit of equity the colleges which claimed they had tried and been thwarted by system failure were allowed to enter by re-opening entries. Magdalen were allowed to enter since it had been re-opened for the others.
The colleges concerned had no crews entered by the time of closure, not even first boats.

On this occasion it seems that the fault is purely of omission to enter, or complete the entry, and as such there isn\'t a precedent or anything bordering on a right to appeal.

The closing date and time were known well ahead of time and thus failure to enter by then falls on the shoulders of those responsible for the entry. No external influence has caused the person to do it, particularly since all have complete entries for other boats. Whilst having sympathy for the individuals who were expecting to row, or attempt to row-on, in the event but were not entered, they are merely victims of another’s non-performance.

It's like oversleeping and then presenting yourself at schools expecting them to let you in AND give you the full time period to write your final.

If you mange to do one entry why not the rest?

The Linacre II crew can feel rightly peeved if they are suddenly told they have to row on because a crew entered after the closing date moves them out of the fixed divisions.

I know they have trained expecting to row on, however, they then saw that they weren’t required to do so and changed that pattern to prepare for Wednesday of 5th week.

The rules really say that fixed division crews not entered in accordance with OURCS rules should re-inserted in next years order as having failed to enter losing 4 places (As will happen with Lincoln II as they have not entered this year.)

The only crew really affected is New II who finished 8th in division 3 last year.

All others are new entries in rowing on so were seeking slots for the first time. Given that LMH 3 was the most complete in the entries having 6 names plus a cox it seems fractionally harsh on them, whereas Pembroke 6 and 7 have 1 person and no cox and 3 people and no cox respectively so it calls into question whether they were viable entries in the first place. New 3 and 4 were completely omitted.

So re-opening entries seems the wrong move. The other crews all got entered in accordance with the rules and in time. In no-way will OURCS be failing in their remit if these crews are not allowed to enter. 194 crews have entered for the 170 places available.
 
PostRE: Captains' Meeting Thursday
AuthorAnu Dudhia
dudhia@atm		Posted At18:01, 12th May 2008
10 weeks ago
Precedent doesn't really come in to it. If someone wants to try and get a late entry in next year on the basis that it was allowed this year, then good luck to them but why would anyone try?

I'm not such a slave to the rules as you, Liz.
It's just a rule, and the rules are the captains' rules (actually, I don't even think that it is an explicit rule). If the captains think that justice is better served by making an exception then that's their choice.

 
PostRE: Captains' Meeting Thursday
AuthorAnu Dudhia
dudhia@atm		Posted At18:05, 12th May 2008
10 weeks ago
Sorry, when I wrote Liz I meant Buzz.
 
PostRE: Captains' Meeting Thursday
AuthorLiz
platts_liz@allergan[dot]com		Posted At19:01, 12th May 2008
10 weeks ago
Agreed its not covered by existing rules, which is probably why Lenny referred back to the 2004 thread. Stu did try to get a rule drafted at the time.
Much of the issue may well be due to using electronic tools! Even when I first took an interest in bumps (some time after Anu) then it was done by interaction with a person who would probably, in the interest of fairness, chase up entries that were conspicuous by their absence. With on-line entry the obvious missing/problem ones are visible to all, which means that last minute 'fudges' are less easy to accommodate.

But there is precedent from 2004 in that crews were allowed to enter late with a suitable penalty agreed by the Captains. The difference between then and now is that in 2004 the entry date was set much earlier so that the emergency meeting to debate same was in 3rd week and not the evening before rowing on. In 2004 there was still time for rowing-on schedules to be re-issued with sufficient notice to those affected.
 
PostRE: Captains' Meeting Thursday
AuthorBuzz
buzz_nixon@hotmail[dot]com		Posted At08:26, 13th May 2008
10 weeks ago
Anu,

It's not about slaving to rules it's about principles.

In 2004 there was a particular reason, beyond the control of the persons trying to make the entries (except for Magdalen) meaning there were no entries from the affected colleges and that was why entries were re-opened as the complete exclusion of the colleges would have been harsh including the fact that two crews would have been missing from mens Div 1 and one from Womens Div 1.Magdalen benefitted from the re-opening for the technical problems and thus gained the headship.

This time there isn't that excuse. The colleges concerned just didn't bother to complete all their entries in time.

Only one fixed division crew is affected.

So why all the furore about re-opening?

 
PostRE: Captains' Meeting Thursday
AuthorAnu Dudhia
dudhia@atm		Posted At08:57, 13th May 2008
10 weeks ago
Most rules are there for good reasons: safety, courtesy, not gaining any unfair advantage. I'm happy to be a slave to all those rules.

But getting your completed entries in on time? That's just administrative convenience.
(and I speak as one of the people inconvenienced by the whole thing, having to create/update starting orders).
 
PostRE: Captains' Meeting Thursday
AuthorLenny
leonard.martin@gmail[dot]com		Posted At09:27, 13th May 2008
10 weeks ago
Buzz, I don't personally recall anything about any issues at all with the entries server in 2004. There was a problem with the maillist server not sending the final reminder email but the entries system itself was working fine. There is no mention of any issues with the entries server, either in the 130 post messageboard thread or the minutes of the captains' meeting.

In fact, the two other captains concerned both admitted personal responsibility for failing to enter on time.

Samantha Aling - Somerville:
"The fact is I didn't realise that the deadline had been moved forward this year... I completely accept responsibility for failing to enter on time"

Evan Burfield - St Catz:
"I throw my hands up and acknowledge that this was my mistake and was not the fault of anybody else."

Both taken from the thread "linked" to above. I'm not going to comment any further on this issue, I simply felt that in the interests of correctness I should point this out.