Paddle thickness

[SeanT]

Previously we've had an allowance for paddles of 4mm thickness in the rules while ICF says 5mm. This used to be a question in the NZ exam. I reckon we should do away with this major discrepacy!! Does anyone care strongly....?

[tinkerbell]

Previously we've had an allowance for paddles of 4mm thickness in the rules while ICF says 5mm. This used to be a question in the NZ exam. I reckon we should do away with this major discrepacy!! Does anyone care strongly....?
What was the original reasoning behind making the allowed thickness only 4mm instead of 5mm?

I would imagine it doesnt really matter to most people with polo paddles, although the plastic bladed polo paddles sold by QK are only just 4mm thick so this may affect players with these paddles.

Just my :twocents:

Tinkerbell

[Paul]

I think that would have been the reason dave, why would we need to change the rule though? any player going overseas will have their own mostly foreign made 5mm paddle anyway, changeing the rule would only impact the grass roots polo nation wide meaning that new blades would have to be phased in... ie whats the point?!

[Juno]

I think we just remove it altogether, it really only effects trilex paddles those sold by QK as a polo paddle but are actually illegal any way as I think they are only 3mm; although have ot measured myself. I haven't seen a trilex in ages probably sue to the fact they aren't designed for polo and always broke, also people were made aware of their descrepancy a few years ago. Are the Perception taupo and shotover paddles now used by the majority of grass roots players pass 5mm if so then I can't see the removal of the 4mm a biggie.

[mike1982]

a lot of the add h2o ones like granity and nevis bluff are only 4mm i saw a lot of these used in chch and even i was using one at the start of the NL, they're good paddles as they can be used for white water and polo and its not the grass roots people using these therefore this could affect a few in the NL and prob a few more in the B grade
the only thing ide like to see policed a bit more is not allowing people to play with schlegles, maybe prolong the life of those yoz blades :p and mine as well mind you. also checking of sharp edges of the blade though this is not so bad
maybe if it was to change there would be a years grace as being told to buy a new paddle all of a sudden is a bit of a cost, this would mean new paddles bought were legal and the old phased out

I think we just remove it altogether, it really only effects trilex paddles those sold by QK as a polo paddle but are actually illegal any way as I think they are only 3mm; although have ot measured myself. I haven't seen a trilex in ages probably sue to the fact they aren't designed for polo and always broke, also people were made aware of their descrepancy a few years ago. Are the Perception taupo and shotover paddles now used by the majority of grass roots players pass 5mm if so then I can't see the removal of the 4mm a biggie.

[becks.c]

I'd like to see the 4mm paddle thickness allowance removed. - Perhaps with a transitionary phase, additionally, consultation with NZ manufacturers on the intended changes - work with them.

I agree with Juno - re the QK "polo" paddles - all the ones I've measured are clearly closer to 3mm than 4mm. QK make great plastic polo kayaks, it's disapointing that they're marketing these 'polo paddles' which are illegal.

However, in the recent years I've been involved in scrutineering and reffing at School nationals - I have come across only a handful or two (handfuls that is) of these paddles at this competition. - If advance warning was given to schools that these paddles would not pass scrutineering without an addition to the thickness, in my opinion this change would not prevent children from being able to compete at the nationals.
- e.g. at the 2004 school nats, there was free loan equipment supplied and certainly enough gear for children to use.

[SeanT]

Just to explain, the reason for this query is that NZCPA is trying to be more in line with ICF overall (player feedback response). Additionally, there is no allowance for anything different (ie 4mm) in the nat league 04 rules so this would really need to be added or at least continue to be widely accepted.

The acceptance of 5 mm as the rule wouldn't necessarily mean a comp couldn't make an exception - eg xyz comp - paddle thickness min 4mm accepted - or some such.
If we did accept the 5mm rule but not strictly enforce it for a while this would likely mean progressively more 5mm paddles were sourced as the others break.
To me there's no great reason to be different here - even thoiugh I'm not aware of a problem with the 4mm thickness

[troy]

the only thing ide like to see policed a bit more is not allowing people to play with schlegles,
4mm or 5mm?
The 4mm allowance was adopted from the Australian ACF rules that we played with prior to 1995. It was an allowance for the extreme difficulty of obtaining 5mm paddles in Australasia in the early days, whereas a range of 4mm paddles were readily available. There has always been the issue of the plastic paddles which could range from 3 - 5 mm thick on the same blade - it wasn't hard to bring it up to 4mm by a couple of layers of duct tape!

There are enough thicker blades on the market and available 2nd hand now, that the 4mm allowance could easily be removed - no need to phase it in, it just means some players will have to put a layer or two of insulation or duct tape around a 4mm plastic blade.


Banning Schlegels???
NO WAY is it appropriate to ban the Schlegels or Prijons with aluminium inlays as Mike suggests above - you cannot legitimately ban them from use without first banning the carbon/composite blades ...

Almost any materials engineer will confirm that in comparison:

ALUMINIUM IS SOFTER THAT CARBON COMPOSITE!!!!

- Aluminium is softer and more maleable, whereas carbon/composite is harder and more brittle. Therefore aluminium inlays is generally a better option for intermediate/social players in terms of cost and durability.
- When blades start knocking together, the brittle carbon/composites are going to tend to fracture whereas the aluminium inlays are only going to get dented.
- And a carbon/composite is going to be more likely to fracture when hit by another hard composite that if hit by a soft aluminium inlay (which will actually give a little as it becomes dented). Personally, I'd rather my composite paddle was hit with the same force from a Schlegel that from a composite.


Now before I get shot down by someone who wants to argue that players might tend to be more wreckless with a more durable aluminium inlay paddle than they would be with an expensive, brittle composite paddle (which I accept as may often be the case),
- I note that there are quite a few players out there who are just as wreckless with their composite blades...
- and the way in which they use their paddle is an issue to be addressed by the referees and playing rules - and it is probably best not to try and control the use of the paddle by oppressive paddle specs - that would be like trying to control kayak tackles by banning plastic boats and having everyone play in composite boats - it just won't work!

And as far as chips and scratches, the same scrutineering should apply to all paddles, whether plastic or aluminium inlay or carbon/composite, whether used in surf, rivers or exclusively for polo!

[becks.c]

I have to totally agree with Troy (...gasp!).

I can't see why a Schlegal/Prion etc, which meets all scrutineering requirements, should not be allowed to be used in a game.

I have seen some occaisions where the aluminium edging has come away from these paddles - in a dangerous manner, but this would clearly fail scrutineering in any case. Of more frequency these days seems to be the composite paddle, with chips/frayed splinters along the blade edge!

I agree with Troy - it comes down to sensible scrutineering, and appropriate refereeing.