Amendment to Second Attempt after Hindrance or InterferenceThis discussion has an associated proposal. View Proposal Details here.
Comments about this discussion:
Yesterday, my proposal to make some changes to the rules around a second attempt after hindrance or interference has passed (accepted after voting). One of the key points is that if a re-run is granted, the whole heat may be re-run to offer the competitors a chance to race each other directly. Riders racing in the re-run heat have the option before the re-run to either discard their old result (and hope for a better result), or keep their old result, in which case their result from the re-run doesn't count.
After the proposal passed, I discussed it with some unicycling friends (actually co-organisers of a competition) and they came up with a thought. What if a competitor will enter the re-run heat but not give up their old result. They might then try and deceive the other riders by riding slower than usual. Now maybe this is far-fetched and would realistically not occur, but on the other hand: why should riders from that same heat have the right to ride again if they keep their old result anyway?
So I would like to change this sentence in the approved proposal
"Those who do, have the option before the re-run of discarding their existing result, or keeping it."
"Those who do, agree to discard their old result, and only the result from the re-run heat counts."
What do you think?
Note that the deadline for new proposals is Sunday 15 January, so we have at most two days to discuss before I must create a proposal - if you'all don't object, that is.
That makes sense to me.
I was thinking similarly about the wording. I'm glad you've come up with this change.
Do we have any concern about making it clear to the other competitors whether they are being asked to re-run (whole heat re-run discarding their results), vs individual competitor re-run (attempt to slot into subsequent same-age-group heat, but failing that, have the opportunity to choose others to ride with him/her)?
@Robin: Well, the way I see it there are actually FOUR "types" of re-run now, assuming a protesting rider is allowed to do a second attempt in the first place:
- Whole heat re-run (this is a new option that wasn't in the Rulebook before)
- If his own age group isn't done yet, the rider is added to an upcoming heat in his own age group
- If his own age group is done, but another age group within the same distance/event is still ongoing: the rider is added to an upcoming heat in another age group
- If all other heats for this distance/event are completed, the rider does his second attempt "alone" with the option to have company as per the rules.
In options 1, 2 and 3, all riders are riding "for real", the result from this heat is the only one that counts for each of them (unless another hindrance would come up). So I think we don't need to distinguish these cases to the rider in question, or to any of the other riders.
Only option 4 is special, in that possible accompanying riders don't ride "for real", there are only there for company. Maybe we should add something to the effect that this fact has to be clearly stated to the accompanying riders.
Question: my numbered points 1 to 4 are more explicit, and perhaps clearer, than the current wording. Would we need to copy some or all of it to the rules?
Thinking about the 4 options as I described them, I wonder two things.
Firstly, the referee MAY offer option 1. In which cases would he do that? I think mainly if the heat in question included the top riders of an age group. Perhaps we could include this notion in the text?
Secondly, what if a re-run heat is offered but few or even none of the original riders opt in? Would the referee withdraw the offer and revert to the remaining options (depending on which heats are still upcoming)? Or should the offer of a re-run be definitive (a.k.a. take it or leave it), which may mean that the rider in question rides completely alone?
Klaas, I like the explicit delineation of the four points. I think it is a good idea to organize the rules as such.
As to the two things I wonder (two posts up), I have the following thoughts.
Firstly, the Referee always has the freedom to offer or not offer a whole heat re-run. Whole-heat re-runs obviously cost more time than slotting individual riders into an existing (upcoming) heat. Therefore, a whole-heat rerun is recommended especially if it contains the fastest riders of an age group. Otherwise, slotting an individual rider into another heat is generally preferred.
Secondly, if a whole-heat re-run is offered and accepted by the protesting rider, that is what will happen EXCEPT when none of the original riders wants to race again. In that case, revert to options 2 3 or 4 in my earlier list, as circumstances dictate. Also, if a whole-heat re-run would not be accepted by the rider (after all, it is an offer), revert to options 2 3 or 4.
I think that while these newly proposed rules are fairer than they were before, they are also more complicated. Therefore, if no-one objects to the principles as outlined above, I will rewrite the whole text, trying to structure it as clearly as possible.
I am working on a proposal text.
I intend NOT to include "Also, if a whole-heat re-run would not be accepted by the rider (after all, it is an offer), revert to options 2 3 or 4."
I now think that if the Referee decides that a whole-heat re-run is called for, the rider in question should not be in a position to block that.
Some comments are needed from other members. Please comment even if you agree with Klaas's new text. If no comments are made soon, I will simply set this proposal to a vote.
I like it, and agree it must be clear when riders are simply pacing another racer but not racing themselves.
Scott, why are you in a hurry to set this to a vote? This is, at least technically, a fully separate proposal, in Review mode until January 25.
There are many things that depend on the Rulebook Committee being completed in a timely manner. The proposal deadline was already extended once. If no discussion is happening here, I would prefer to send this to a vote sooner rather than later.
And really, this proposal is basically a revision on a prior proposal in which case it would only require three days in Review mode. I don't really care to argue about this point though.
I as the owner can't set it to a vote before the Review period end (or so I think). It's fine with me if you do, I think the absence of comments (apart from Kenny's positive note) indicates that most members would agree.
I'm happy to wait a few days. I'm only suggesting that unless the discussion increases greatly, I will not wait until Jan 25th to set to a vote.