Handicap Anomalies & VAL Processes/Guidelines

Whilst I very rarely read this site and contribute even less, recent events now have me at a stage where I'd like to share the following message to all you wanna be handicappers and in some instances those simply being key board warriors...

The VAL has many new handicappers who are doing their best and learning as the season rolls along, be thankful the we have new people putting their hand up and devoting their time for what is a thankless task.

Furthermore, the VAL has strong processes and guidelines in place that will be followed by all handicappers at all times, any handicap anomalies be that administrative errors or misunderstanding of guidelines will be fixed in a timely manner and in most instances prior to commencement of next meeting.

That is all... please be patient and understanding people.

Thanks for contributing this information Nick. It is good news and appreciated.
All we get to go on is seeing the handicap list. There is no communication when errors are fixed.
People do not get dirty if someone gets a lift. Just frustrated to see what looks like errors. It is not until the start line you find out whether it has been fixed.
EG/ Frankston 550 winner from last year receives no win penalty on first start this year. It is only 2 or 3m but it is fundamental rules are adhered to.
Also the Patrick Martin case from last year and the latest 550 winner at St Albans. It becomes unfair to all the other starters.

Zonked wrote:Thanks for contributing this information Nick. It is good news and appreciated.
All we get to go on is seeing the handicap list. There is no communication when errors are fixed.
People do not get dirty if someone gets a lift. Just frustrated to see what looks like errors. It is not until the start line you find out whether it has been fixed.
EG/ Frankston 550 winner from last year receives no win penalty on first start this year. It is only 2 or 3m but it is fundamental rules are adhered to.
Also the Patrick Martin case from last year and the latest 550 winner at St Albans. It becomes unfair to all the other starters.

Zonked your feedback is noted and perhaps we can get Ollie to read out adjustments at the beginning of each meet to reassure all and sundry that corrections have been made where necessary.

I can assure you that L Milligan wasn't starting off 58m at St Albans, he did get a free hit at Meadowglen due to some confusion with Stawell bonus but next declared handicap the penalty for Frankston last year will be applied.

On the P Martin oversight at Geelong last year, this was duly corrected post meet which probably explains why there was no entry come Easter 2021.

Finally on the C Lubeck oversight this was picked up on the start line but the gun fired before it could be corrected as such he got a free hit, this will be corrected next start and come Easter 2022.

Really appreciate the feedback and communications Nick.
It is all about the obvious looking ones like Lugo's 56m in the 400. An announcement or even an amendment to the handicap sheet would all that is needed to quieten people down.
Things like Brittain getting 32m in a 300 are all fair and part of handicapper discretion. After all he needed it as he didn't win

Just because a handicapper has the power to use discretion does not not mean he can just do what he likes.  Any discretionary decision must be fair and justified compared to other decisions or non decisions.  
The mere fact that Britain had 32m and didn’t win doesn’t justify giving Britain 32m.  He had to overcome another overly generous mark given by discretion.  Too much discretionary movement only creates problems for the majority and races that end up too fast and surprising winners that haven’t necessarily earnt a handicap or been scrutinised  frequently enough to have that handicap.  Discretionary movements should be small and novice marks should be used for all !  A handicapper should not try and recreate the landscape too quickly, it should be gradual and it should be embracing all the handicapping principles of the established systems by rewarding those that run and not lifting those that don’t!

There’s no issue with handicappers using discretion, that’s what it’s there for. They do need to be as transparent as possible when exercising their discretion. We don’t want to end up like the shitshow to the west.

It amazes me that Coaches continue to complain when athletes are given handicaps that don’t suit “their” agenda.
If a athlete in a certain stable is granted a generous mark, another stable will have a whinge while the current stable will fight to retain that handicap even if incorrect.
I think we are seeing more politics here then we are basing this about the athletes.

Must be completely uneducated on how the system works E.T.H.
You’ll notice that the coaches having discussions about handicaps on this forum only want athletes to be given a mark WITHIN THE RULES. Coaches just want everyone to be given their true handicap so we can have a fair competition and not end up like the SAAL.

Dwight K Schrute
Dunder Mifflin

Dwight Schrute wrote:Must be completely uneducated on how the system works E.T.H.
You’ll notice that the coaches having discussions about handicaps on this forum only want athletes to be given a mark WITHIN THE RULES. Coaches just want everyone to be given their true handicap so we can have a fair competition and not end up like the SAAL.

Dwight K Schrute
Dunder Mifflin

No I’m very familiar with the rules.
I am also aware of the talks with coaches
I am also aware of how manipulated the marks are.
To say coaches want everyone a true handicap is absolutely nonsense and idiotic.

You will notice if someone was given 5m one week
Doesn’t run then given .5 extra
The coach will argue to retain the mark then to go to the handicapper and say you made a error.
If a athlete ran off 5 then was pulled .25 they would disagree and fight it

I don’t think the athlete and coach who has been pulled to 4.75m from 5m at Stawell in the 70m will fight the adjustment. Especially when they ran 7.57 and 7.61 at Central Park.

Easier Said Than Run wrote:I don’t think the athlete and coach who has been pulled to 4.75m from 5m at Stawell in the 70m will fight the adjustment. Especially when they ran 7.57 and 7.61 at Central Park.

A 7.63 of 4.5m a month out from Stawell, 0.5m lift to run 7.57 off 5m at Stawell, then only a 0.25m pull for first start of the season.
Not too sure of the thinking behind this…

With thanks for the encouraging comments I would like to address some of the issues raised in this post.

I daresay you have read my response to an earlier recent post so no introduction other than to say I am handicapping the Open 300, 400 and 550m.

1 - Advice of amended Handicaps
Pre-race process is to advise athletes when errors are picked up, either by the handicapper, reviewers or the HRP and if there is time to also update them online.

Race day process is to update all the Official's printed programs with an new entries and adjusted handicaps. These are announced before the day starts as well as when the race is marshalled.

Perhaps we could add a sheet at the colours tent to alert any one who may not have heard, or been present, when  the changes have been announced pre meet start. I'm not at Wang but will undertake to provide this for subsequent meets.

2 - Fundamental that rules adhered to
Cannot agree more and am very annoyed at my errors but would like to say that my intention has been and always will be to follow the rules.

I have previously responded to the query re 550m winner's handicaps. I certainly agree with your comments  and have changed my processes to hopefully ensure such errors do not happen again.
 
3 - Fair and justified discretion
Absolutely agree with your sentiments. I have touched on this topic in a few previous responses so won't labour the point. Kevin's handicap and a number of others with big lifts were justified and applied with a set of discretionary rules which I apply equally.

It is worth noting that your claim of an overly generous mark given to Michael by discretion is incorrect. There was no discretion allowed or used and yes, his recent performances in Tas were looked at.

I tend to disagree that too much discretionary movement is a bad thing; I want to get athletes who have the track record up to a level of competitiveness before they leave the sport or wither away. It is just not what Pro running should be about. 

I take you point about not recreating the landscape too quickly but please have no doubt I am embracing all the handicapping principals of the system including rewarding those that run and not lifting those who don't (mistakes so far made aside).
 
4 - Give the true handicap
Sadly, this is currently an impossible task. I saw with my own eyes what happened in the St Albans 300m heats as mentioned earlier.

I spoke to an honest runner after the event about my objectives and was astounded with the advice that this would kill the sport as the vast majority actually want the cut and thrust of athlete / coach V handicapper; a uniquley entertaining and exciting dimension to our sport. I don't necessarily agree but I do have a challenge ahead of me I will admit. 

Finally
Thank you all for your patience; I am enjoying the role and will endeavour always to maintain / enhance the great sport of Pro Running 

Regards
John Jones

Good stuff John. Runners will accept honest mistakes. The more transparency the better. We all want runners competing off their correct mark that they have earned , and what falls within the guidelines.

Thank you for the replies John. This type of transparency is appreciated.

The danger with young OGA athletes is their potential for improvement.
The Dinan brothers are great example.
Michael got to 46m very quickly under previous handicappers. No problem there as he is OGA and want him competitive asap. This year he went to Tassie and showed he is now much better than last season. To the naked eye he looks much bigger and stronger as well.
His Tassie performances warranted a pull in his Vic handicap as he is OGA (unless the OGA rules have changed?). He was destined to run under ceiling time which he duly did running under 46 secs at Wang. He had also had an impressive win in the 300m at St Albans to further frank his new ability.
Matt was similar with improvement shown.

My advice. If OGA's can move out in handicap fast they can come back fast as well.

And they should still start their open events off the novice mark, irrespective of how many other junior or other distance events they have done! Maximum lift range of each run is plenty to move them from the novice mark each time they run and not have them leave the sport. Start them off the novice mark and 3-6 runs later they can be on a very large mark without starting them on a big mark! Much safer for the handicapper and much fairer for the field!

Zonked wrote:Thank you for the replies John. This type of transparency is appreciated.

The danger with young OGA athletes is their potential for improvement.
The Dinan brothers are great example.
Michael got to 46m very quickly under previous handicappers. No problem there as he is OGA and want him competitive asap. This year he went to Tassie and showed he is now much better than last season. To the naked eye he looks much bigger and stronger as well.
His Tassie performances warranted a pull in his Vic handicap as he is OGA (unless the OGA rules have changed?). He was destined to run under ceiling time which he duly did running under 46 secs at Wang. He had also had an impressive win in the 300m at St Albans to further frank his new ability.
Matt was similar with improvement shown.

My advice. If OGA's can move out in handicap fast they can come back fast as well.

Correction please, under previous handicapper.  

I hope this one is just an oversight at Frankston but Ebony Lane in the 100m Open off 15.5m....

11.39 Personal Best. Even the 11.8's she was running at Nationals, that RPM would be a sub-10 off that mark...

This is one area that our sprint handicapper really struggles. A male and female with the same ability should have the same mark. There is no way a 11.39 male runner would ever get near a mark like this. It is so far out it is ridiculous. Hopefully it is just a typo.

15.5 is clearly a typo. Without even doing the research, 11.57 off 10m would give 10.41.  With the PB’s she has on synthetic even taking into account .2 for rubber, she couldn’t have more than 10m (BTW - .2 allowance for 100/120m for rubber is way off - .1 allowance should have remained because our best tracks is where our rpms come from and they are only about .1 slower than synthetic, definitely not .2. Or mediocre tracks are clearly a lot slower than .1 but most people rpm sample aren’t derived from any of those).

However I do agree that there seems to be no understanding of mark correlation for comparable male to female times and their actual handicaps.  It shouldn’t be that hard!  Do the maths and make fair application within the rules!

Last year’s results at the Frankston synthetic track are probably a good indicator.

Lexi Loizou won the Open 100m in 10.417 from a mark of 12.50m.

Lexi set a PB the following weekend of 11.72 with a +0.4 wind at Knox HVC.

Ebony has a PB of 11.39 with a +0.3 from the 2021 Queensland Track Classic in March.

If even close to that form, Ebony would likely be 5 to 6 metres ahead of Lexi’s winning time.

However, given Jasper Nettlefold has been unluckily pipped in two attempts at earning his Stawell lift, Ebony may not race in this event if he runs and she remains on the current mark.

She won’t run it, and even if she did she wouldn’t be at her best coming back from injury. That is however a seperate issue.
The issue still stands that the mark is not even close to being right. Unfortunately for her, but Mathematically she can’t keep the mark because the mark is not even close to being right.

Hi all
I feel the need to step in here and just say there is lot of negative which is disappointing for people that are trying/giving up a lot of their own time which is great.
Just so there meets so that everyone can have run
Thank you Nick De Fibre for pointing out the countless hours behind The scenes that many people seem to be unaware of
I'm working with the HRP and Stewards and Handicappers and the rules committee to make sure all athletes are on even playing filed



1. If you have problem come find me at meet we can have a chat or contact me that what I'm here for as the runners and trainers rep
2. Volunteer and help us out more hands-on-deck make light work

Reviewing this post a month on.
The HRP seem to be the most active and well balanced HRP for a number of years. The issue appears to be their suggestions are not accepted by the handicapper. This needs fixing for next year. You can't have handicappers writing their own rules and ignoring HRP recommendations.
My suggestion would be to advertise the start marks on the VAL website of all runners who ran the previous couple of seasons. Do this in winter when there is more time. That way perceived incorrect handicaps can be reviewed/corrected before the season starts. Then only the odd one that pops up when handicaps are released for a meeting (like Nicolussi or Cameron) can be scrutinised easier.

I like what I am seeing with the stewarding. They appear firm but fair and balanced.

I also see the runners and trainers rep buzzing around on race day. This is good as it shows the runners and trainers have a voice.