Thank you all for the information and analyses! IMO, unless "Senior World Ranking" is defined somewhere in the criteria, it does seem to me that your governing body's criteria is not very transparent, at least to the general public. Given the importance of that terminology, and the fact that lawyers understand how important every word is in a document of potential legal significance, my best guess is that, either, the criteria were not heavily vetted/drafted/influenced by lawyers, or, the ambiguity/lack of precision may have been intentional. To be clear, this is just my personal opinion as an objective observer from what has been posted here. Also, I didn't see any mention of Nationals in the quoted selection process for the OG. So, does that mean Nationals is pretty much irrelevant for the selection process?
I totally get and agree with what you're saying.
Even though I joked about drunken lawyers drafting that selection criteria, in all honesty it likely wouldn't have been written by a lawyer, as law school here has a massive focus on not using legalese and writing in "plain English" instead.
Karne's essentially correct in saying that the criteria isn't complicated - technically, with a lot of patience and a few migraines, it's able to be broken down into understandable points (eventually). To the poster (sorry for not remembering your name!) who suffered so we could be spared, thank you for explaining it.
The problem isn't really the criteria itself, but the page or so of extra words that don't need to be there and do nothing but cause major confusion. Well, ok, the criteria is a little OTT perhaps but hey, if it helps us avoid what those poor girls went through in 14.....
Lawyers would also include a definition section (as you mentioned). That to me would be the most important element. It's one thing to just have a pain in the butt, wordy criteria, but a completely different thing all together to not define any of the, you know, important stuff that the skaters actually need to know
(If there is a definition section, a clear one, somewhere that I've not seen, I take that back).
Not to mention that this being new criteria means no precedent cases to judge by.
If they're not gonna get specific about what constitutes a ranking, event etc, then we may as well just go "Body of Work!!" and throw this ten page document away.
