OURCs Captains' Meeting Minutes

3rd Week, Trinity Term 2004

1) Motion

This meeting resolves to re-open Eights entries from 00.00am until 12.00pm Friday 14th May. Any college entering will be required to provide an additional six hours worth of marshalling for each crew so entered.

Emily Baldock, OURCS, (EB) opened by explaining the purpose of the meeting which was solely to decide what to do about the accidental failure to enter crews into Eights from Magdalen, Somerville and St Catherine’s College. She explained that the question of whether to allow them to enter, and which penalties, if any, to impose would be dealt with separately.

a) Decision whether to re-open entries

Evan Burfield, St Catz, (EBu) stated that his entry would have been 5 minutes late when the computer programme cut him off and that this issue is one of an administrative oversight and not one which gains a competitive advantage. Also that excluding crews because of this would be against the spirit of the competition and not promoting rowing.

Stuart Jones, Univ & OURCs, (SJ), stated that 188 crews from 30 colleges managed to enter on time. Asked why the colleges that had wasted so much time deserved to enter now. Also wished to ensure that whatever was decided there should be measures to prevent any repetition.

Conor O’Neill, Wadh, (CO’N) – stated that he felt the drafter of the rule intended to ensure that those who did not enter received 4 bumps so that colleges could not gain an unfair advantage by not entering when they had a weak crew.

Templeton rep – desire to win places on the river not by amending the order by excluding crews.

Vote on allowing crews in, subject to any penalty later decided upon.

For – overwhelming, Against 5. PASSED

b) Penalty bumps:

William Goundry, Queen’s, (WG), belief that the whole boat club deserves punishment not just the captains.

Jen Thomson, OURCS, (JT) – felt that penalty bumping would be against the spirit of the competition and that it would be hard to decide which crews to impose this on.

Abi Stevenson, Queen’s, (AS), noted that a failure to pay fines in time results in a penalty bump.

CO’N – explained that bumps are imposed for safety issues, with the exception of non-payment of fines since you can’t fine people for not paying fines.

WG – asks that penalty bumps in the finishing order be considered.

Vote on penalty bumps in the start order

0 for, overwhelmingly against – DEFEATED

WG – suggests one penalty bump in the finishing order to avoid people viewing OURCS as ‘soft’ and to recognise the amount of hassle this issue has caused.

A question was raised about how penalty bumps in the finishing order would affect blades and it was suggested that it wouldn’t as blades are awarded by individual captains not OURCS.

Jesus rep – felt that adjusting the finish order was unfair as those responsible for the error would probably have left by next year’s racing and don’t reflect the captain/committee’s concerned being responsible for the error.

A. Robbie, Oriel (AR) – stated that knowing who is behind you does not affect the way in which you train so it seems odd to punish next year’s crews by them starting one place lower than they should be.

S. Parker, Magdalen - why should a vote decide an order that racing should.

Vote on one penalty bump in the finishing order

7 For, overwhelming against – DEFEATED

c) Penalty marshalling

JT claims responsibility for this idea and sees extra marshalling as a good pay back for the time that has been wasted determining the outcome of this issue.

EB presents figures that suggest that with six hours penalty marshalling this would reduce the burden on other colleges by almost one hour per crew. She considered that six hours was about the maximum that could be imposed given the safety requirement to have competent marshals.

R. Mawdsley, Magd (RM), stated that it is the captain’s fault but they can’t take the penalty entirely themselves, i.e. can’t do all of the extra marshalling personally.

Sean Murray on behalf of Lenny Martin, ChCh, noted that this was a personal error by the captains and that safety issues could be overcome by scheduling extra slots so that top two boats can cover them. However, as ChCh Regatta Sec he does see that training novices as marshals can be beneficial.

AR – marshalling is boring and so will generally come down to the lower boats anyway. EB states that marshalling is fun.

C’ON – states that it is down to the Captains to take responsibility and ensure that only competent people are sent to marshal.

SJ – suggests that the 4 Captains concerned should work for OURCs for Eights week.

Vote on 6 hours penalty marshalling per crew late entered (to apply to any crew, i.e. any college can enter extra crews subject to this penalty)

Overwhelmingly for – PASSED

d) Fining colleges as a late entry fee:

EBu – Catz has no boat club account so any fines will effectively come from him personally.

Hertford rep – colleges concerned should be accepting whatever penalty imposed graciously as they broke the rules.

SJ – notes that St John’s offered to buy Univ’s place in the draw for Bedford regatta for double the entry fee.

Jesus rep – notes that marshalling is a burden on the BC, fines may be paid by colleges.

Vote phrased as a vote in favour of a penalty entry fee of 0, 10, 25 or 50 pounds.

In favour of:
0 pounds fine – 31
10 pounds fine – 22
25 pounds fine – 5
50 pounds fine – 0

0 pounds thus decided on as it had the clear majority.

2) AOB