Sunday, 26-04-09 15:49
Bob Vanacker
Dear people,
Before I give my opinion, I would like to discuss and look at the arguments of the tournament directors.
For the first time in 2009 both Amsterdam Quad Rugby Tournament (AQRT) and Bernd Best Tournament (BBT) will be played with 7.0 team points. We, the organizers of AQRT and BBT, as well as many people involved in the sport of wheelchair rugby believe that 7.0 team points is a mandatory improvement to the sport with regard to fair participation of the functionally severely disabled player.
• The larger resource of potential players is statistically the low pointers:
60% of the tetraplegics are low pointers with little to no triceps (C5/C6 lesions) and only 20% tetraplegics with triceps (C7/C8 lesions).
This statement I would like to question.
o The percentages are based on a source dated in 1982. Within science it is dangerous to base your main argument on a source that is more than 10 years old.
o It is also the only source to support this argument.
o There was a research about the period 1988-1997: I’m curious about the result.
o Also the definition of a lowpointer is not indicated.
I think the data is split into 2 parts: low & high pointers. This won’t give the best opinion because you put midpointers & highpointers in 1 group. I only assume the tournaments directors have done this to form their opinion.
o I have an alternative source (database international classifications 2009)
I defined lowpointers 0.5’s & 1.0’s
Midpointers: 1.5’s & 2.0’s
Highpointers 2.5’s , 3.0’s & 3.5’s
0.5: 73 players
1.0: 76 players
1.5: 47 players
2.0: 117 players
2.5: 54 players
3.0: 71 players
3.5: 27 players
- My source gives the following percentages:
o Lowpointers: 32,0% (149p)
o Midpointers: 35,3% (164p)
o Highpointers: 32,7% (152p)
- If you consider 2.5’s as midpointers, you even get:
o Lowpointers: 32,0% (149p)
o Midpointers: 46,9% (218p)
o Highpointers: 21,1% (98p)
• Although the conditions to recruit low pointers are actually more difficult, the history of wheelchair rugby shows that the average points of a wheelchair rugby player is still about 1.7. This mean multiplied by four gives an average on team points of 6.8.
This I can’t support.
o From the international classification database the average classification is 1,848.
o Multiplied by four gives an average of 7,4.
o But we shouldn’t look at the average but at the highest percentage:
0,5: 73 players, 15,7%
1: 76 players, 16,3% 32,0%
1,5: 47 players, 10,1%
2: 117 players, 25,2% 35,3%
2,5: 54 players, 11,6%
3: 71 players, 15,3%
3,5: 27 players, 5,8% 32,7%
It is obvious that the 2.0 players are the biggest group.
The distribution of the 3 groups is similar.
o Let’s look at the distribution of the Amsterdam tourney (7 points tournament!!):
0,5: 24 players, 20,3%
1: 17 players, 14,4% 34,7%
1,5: 19 players, 16,1%
2: 23 players, 19,5% 35,6%
2,5: 17 players, 14,4%
3: 13 players, 11,0%
3,5: 5 players, 4,2% 29,7%
o Still a lot of 2 point players & more 0.5 players. Less higher points.
o Groups: slight grow of lowpointers but also midpointers.
• Documentation of the AQRT and BBT entries shows that teams on national level, and especially new teams, have trouble to bring 8.0 points on court. And when they succeed to have an 8.0-point team on court, they are limited in substituting high pointers.
I only have 1 question: can you support this?
o In my opinion this is not so bad…. Even more:
Looking at the team entries (Amsterdam tournament 2009): only 2 teams can’t bring an 8 point line up on court (both 7.5 points max.). Considering that teams entered a 7 point tournament & took players to bring a 7 point line up on court.
• I’m pretty sure that both teams can play with 8 points if they bring all their players.
o National & new teams are used in 1 sentence:
National teams: this argument makes no sense. Teams always bring 8 points on court at Europeans or Worlds
New teams: I’m not making a statement.
o “they are limited in substituting high pointers”. Subjective & even more reason to find a way to let more highpointers play the game…
• The current situation in wheelchair rugby has an extreme bias with regard to the proportion of low pointers versus high pointers on court (1 to 3). Although wheelchair rugby was developed as a sport for the physically more disabled athletes, low pointers are significantly underrepresented on national level and even more on international level.
- Not true. The 3 groups are equally divided.
- True if highpointers are 1.5 & above.
- The sport is developed for all classes: 0.5 or 3.0 players.
- Lowpoint tournaments are already used for 0.5-1.5 players so this group has already more possibilities.
- I would like to question the under-representation.
We strongly support the Paralympic Vision and Mission: “The development of all athletes from initiation to elite level” and “to develop opportunities for […] athletes with a severe disability in sport at all levels and in all structures.”
- I wanted to write down a story about the use of short quotes to support a vision. I realised that this has nothing to do with the 7 points discussion.
We believe that 7.0 team points in wheelchair rugby is the right way to achieve fair competitions and fair participation of all potential players in the full range of casualties of tetraplegia and functionally comparable other disabilities.
Support 7.0 team points in wheelchair rugby!
We ask all players to support 7.0 team points by signing this document and request all organizers of wheelchair rugby tournaments and events to implement 7.0 team points into their regulations.
My opinion & view
One can question these arguments. The over-representation of low pointers is a false statement. In fact, the group of 2.0 players is the largest group. I also see this on court. A standard line up is often high-mid-mid-low.
Another point is who decides what? Everybody has the right to organise a tournament. But, if you state that the rules are the official IWRF rules you have to use them. In the official rules 8 points are used, not 7. Rules are made & changed by alle countries at the AGM meeting (once a year). Germany is trying to post their reclassification proposal. It is using their own classification system in Germany. Don’t follow this example and let us honour the existing and official classification system.
Make use of the international respected 3.5 tournament possibilities.
So document NOT SIGNED
Robert Haasjes (1.0 player & coach Holland)
Supported by Bob Vanacker (2.5 player & coach Belgium).
