Rules- Jostle vs Tackle

[batboy]

From the ICF rules:

(Rule 34)
"A jostle is a player manoeuvring their kayak against an opponent’s kayak between the six (6)-metre lines and the goal line, to gain a position where neither player is attempting for the ball. The following jostling is illegal.
1....
2. When the contact to the opponent’s kayak would be defined as a kayak-tackle."

Sounds fair enough- so what's a kayak tackle?

(Rule 33)
"A kayak-tackle is a player manoeuvring their kayak against an opponent’s kayak in an attempt to gain possession of the ball."

Surely the intention of rule 34.2 is that you can't slam someone unless contesting the ball?

As written, the rules have no meaning- a kayak tackle is contesting the ball, so an illegal jostle can never be defined as a kayak tackle. The rule would work if the definition of kayak tackle included anything about how vigorous or forceful the contact is i.e. the meaning of 34.2 would be "the contact to the opponents kayak would be defined as [of the same nature as to constitute]a kayak tackle [were the players contesting the ball]. But since the definition of kayak tackle is vested solely in attempting to posess the ball, not in the type of contact this does not currently work.

What does it mean?

[Martijn]

http://www.canoepolo.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7883

[nutterwatts]

I know the other thread has done this to death and people keep bringing up annomalies in the rules, but the rules are there to define the game and as referee's we are there to interpret them as best we can.

Everyone can probably pick out something that is wrong or not written right, for example did you know there is no such thing as an illegal screen?

"35 - An illegal screen is when a player actively impedes the progress of an opposing player - except where:"

now all looks good till we get to the last point of this section:

"5. A player is considered to be actively impeding the progress of an opponent when their kayak is moving and they are attempting active paddle strokes"

remember this statement is preceded with "except where" so it's absolutley fine to get in the way of someone as long as you keep paddling!

Now as referee's we spot this anomaly and interpret it in the way it is meant to be.

The same goes for an Illegal jostle/kayak tackle - and as both have the same signal who knows apart from you what exactly you are signalling?

lets take some senario's:

Your defending and an attacker comes steaming in from the side rides up your boat and smacks you in the body, you would probably like the ref to call this as an illegal kayak tackle(which it should be). however if we follow everyones advice and don't give it because the rules are a bit unclear about it then surely the game would decend into a farce.

As a referee one of the primary concerns is to ensure the safety of the players, so if that means an interpretation on your part then so be it.

As a final point, I personally don't think it is an annomaly or nulity or whatever else you want to call it, look at the last point for an illegal kayak tackle, it states

"7.tackling an opponent when the tackler is not competing for the ball"

Don't take each point as an individual take them as a whole so points 33.1 to 33.6 will all define what is illegal with regards to kayak tackles when on the pitch.

[becks.c]

What is the process for getting contradictions in the rules corrected?

Don't we want consistency for players?

It just isn't good enough to say refs should use 'interpretation', when the rules are clearly contradictory.

I'm a native English speaker, and the contradictions are difficult enough for me to understand. What about those people who are clever enough to read more than one language?

Let alone the poor players!

Esp at international competitions - its so important that players can have an expectation from one game to the next about what the 'interpretation' will be.

[nutterwatts]

I guess the procedure is something like:

Talk to local ICF representative who takes proposed changes to ICF meeting, then once it has been discussed I guess it probably goes to be voted as an amendment at an AGM.

[niall]

So should we print the interpretation next to the rules? Or just have a refined set of rules?

[batboy]

Thank you for your replies, particularly the reference to the earlier (extensive) discussions I hadn't read.

I agree that from a practical point of view we all have an idea of what the game should look and play like, and it's easy enough to apply interpreatations to reach that end. Why can't we have rules that reflect that reality in clear simple English? The fact we can all identify numerous rules which don't make sense/are enforced as they were intended not as they were written etc. is partly a testament to the common sense of officials, but more importantly an indictment of the drafting of the rules.

Anyway, enough talk, I'm going for a paddle...