What supporting evidence for a protest is valid
This discussion has an associated proposal. View Proposal Details here.Comments about this discussion:
Started
Comment
This discussion was started in the Track Committee and can be continued there.
Link to the active discussion: http://iuf-rulebook-2016.committees.unicycling-software.com/discussions/116
If you cannot post in Track (not a member of that subcommittee) and want to post here, please do.
Comment
I follow the thread in the Track committee but can not post there so here is my simple question:
Is there any Sport where private videos are used to protest against a result / judge decission??? I never heard about stuff like that. Since we ban private videos we have a better and clear situation and we should keep it that way. To allow any type of private footage is a bad idea and I see no reson for that. It cost a lot of time and help nothing. For start and finish we can easy use official cams, to observe a track (like in Downhill) we must focus on enough officials on the track instead of hopeing that someone film something.
However, I think it is very simple as we would be the first sport doing that as far as I know. WHile I disagree with many things other sports use / do, in that case I agree with them.
Comment
An illegal tackle that was originally not seen by the referees ended up in a 6 game suspension for an NRL player in Australia.
A junior staff member from the TV station that airs the game found extra footage of the tackle and sent it to the governing body which then charged him with the illegal play and suspended him.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/league/barrett-faces-trial-by-tv-over-carney-hit/2006/05/29/1148754939201.html
Comment
The point of the proposal is not that we are hoping that someone films something.
Rather, the proposal wants to give the referee the freedom to use any available evidence he wants, as opposed to specifically forbidding private video. Private video might just be the missing piece of evidence for finding the truth.
Comment
The first paragraph is not adding any value.
The proposed rule would be the clearest without it.
Comment
For starters, the first paragraph of the proposal is copied from the existing rulebook. Nothing new about this.
The way I see it, its value is that in case that official video is made, this must be announced beforehand so that participants officially know about it. In the example of the 5-meter-line in wheel walk, they don't have to take a judge's testimony for granted if they firmly believe that their foot was off the pedal in time, because they know that there is official video to prove their point.
Obviously with private video, the situation is different. Unless it's your own, or your coach's video, you can't count on it being available. Hence, in contrast to paragraph 1, the existence of such video doesn't have to be announced.
Comment
@ Steve: thanks for this information. With private video I meant realy private video, Videos made by TV Stations are kind of inbetween and more official as the filmer get a license to do the filming.
@ Klaas: as long as it is 100% the decission of the referee to use a video in case it exist and the referee think its needed and helpfull, its a better situation. If a referee must use a private video once it exist, its bad.
However, even the referee has the freedom of choice he can run into hell if he decide to don't use a private video because he is sure to have enough facts to go for the right decission. I don't know how many of you had the fun to handle protests at bigger events like Nationals and Unicons. Those who did that job should know how horrible it is often and how bad competitors and especialy parents can act against a referee.
So I still stay at my opinion that only official video footage should be used. Maybe it is a good thing to make a clear definition what an official video is and add there the fact that also videos made by official accredited media people are official (like the live stream team from Italy we had while the last Unicon).
Comment
I support what Olaf has said.
Comment
Yes, I have had the 'pleasure' to handle protests at our Nationals. It can be tough if two parties have opposing views and both of them are right from their own perspective.
But I don't understand how keeping information away from the referee would make it any easier. On the contrary! If he really needs, say, a video taken from a certain angle to validate or disprove a specific testimony, and someone has such video and is willing to show it, then forbidding it makes his task more difficult.
Having said that, in my opinion (as worded in the proposal), it stays the referee's decision to use or not use any information, if only not to be swamped in all sorts of video, photos etc.
Comment
If a ´referee is not allowed to use additional private footage, no discussion will come up as there is a clear rule. If he can use it but must not, we can be sure that an endless discussion will follow if he prefer to don't use the footage. If he use it tand then decide that he don't like it (bad angle, not clear...), the discussion will become even longer.
A protest should be handled as soon as possible and as fast as possible and the host should provide as many judges as needed for an event to make this possible. So far this is the main problem we have and we can not solve it with using whatever footage people provide. A referees dedission can be wrong, everybody know it but it has to accepted as long as the referee follow the rules.
Comment
I think an "endless discussion" might just as well follow if a referee chooses not to use some evidence that he currently is allowed to use. Allowing one more type of evidence doesn't change that.
I am also not sure that the current rule is very clear. It only sounds very clear: "private video is not allowed". But then again, if you strictly follow the current rule, you must agree:
- a private photo is allowed;
- a burst series of private photos is allowed;
- a still (single frame) from a private video is allowed;
- a series of 100 consecutive stills from a private video is allowed;
- displaying a series of 100 consecutive stills from a private video is allowed, e.g. as a rapid slideshow in a photo viewer program.
Did you say 'yes' to all of them? My conclusion is that the rule becomes a lot clearer if we do allow private video.
Comment
Yes, if I read the old rule now in details I agree that this is already a bad rule and has to be changed. I don't say yes to all of that. From my opinion another proposal should be started to make the rule more clear as you stated. But in my opinion private footage has to be banned completely finaly if we want to have the sport more serious. I'm fine with a wider definition what official videos are (for example also videos / pictures done by official acredited media). So far nobody name here at least on sport in the world who use private footage to protest against a referees decission. Only Steve provide a sample but they use official Media footage, no private footage.
Thanks Klaas for showing me how bad the existing rule already is, I was to much focused on the new rule and had in mund that private footage was already forbeiiden. Didn't realize that crazy options we offer actually.
Comment
Perhaps you can require for Unicons that "the host should provide as many judges as needed for an event". But for smaller events that want to follow the IUF as much as possible, this is not realistic, I think.
I therefore maintain my proposal that all evidence is in principle allowed, and it is up to the referee to decide which evidence he wants to use, with the explicit objective to make the judgment as fair as possible. I honestly think that this proposal achieves the maximum in fairness, clarity and practical usability. What more can you want?
Comment
would it help to bann related persons from protest discussions....???
Comment
It is often a related person (e.g. a parent of a competing child) who files a protest. I think they must be allowed to make their case.
And what are "related persons" anyway? Is a friend or riding buddy related? A competitor from the same country?
Comment
I agree with Klaas that it should be up to the referee to decide what evidence to use or not use. At a certain point our rules have to leave room for trust in and the discretion of the appointed officials.
Comment
related person = gelieerde persoon = verwandschaft
parents etc....
anyway you are right....but perhaps they should not be allowed to be´witness....or not allowed to take part in protest negotiation....
as i understood parents are often not really objectivly about facts.....much less than friends.
its absolutely aweful that parents defend their childs and i hope all parents do this the right way but it might be not helpful in protest....
anyway, the more concrete the rules are, the less discussion will be.
Comment
@ Jogi: So a parent may file a protest on behalf of their competing kid, but they may not substantiate their claim by video or testimony?
That means there is practically no way for the official receiving the protest to ask why the protester thinks their protest is valid. They have to submit their protest without substantiating it. I think that is undesirable. Also, it stands in the way of finding the truth. Finding the truth before deciding on a protest should be the prime objective.
And what about the rider herself? May she witness, or take part in negotiation? In my opinion, yes - certainly for the 'witness' part. I even think that she should be the first one to ask their opinion. Of course, this is not necessarily to be believed (the rider herself is partial, too) but in my opinion it is irresponsible to not even listen to her story about what happened.
I agree that some parents defend their children's position in an awful way. I trust that the referee will deal with this, especially if he can use all the evidence he needs!
Comment
i fear you are right ...its not so easy....to find truth....
Comment
The last discussion show again how good it would be to don't use any private footage in general :)
Wer also would privileg bigger clubs / teams who are able to simply film everything and show later what they like to show and a single sportsman can't film a second or he is forced to buy a GoPro to film his race by himself.
Beside this a host has then also to take carte that he has a screen to show any existing video format to be able to make a decission. However, we put all the preesure to the referee then (he already has enough of it). Maybe in small competitions private footage can / should play a role but in Nationals / continentals and Unicons we should be able to provide as many judges as needed if we want to be accepted as a serious sport and the used referees should be skilled enough to make a decission on the protest, the official footage / judges view and the arguments provided by witnesses. I see not one argument so far to allow videos, I only see some to delete also those weeks rules which allow picture series ...
Comment
> The last discussion show again how good it would be to don't use any private footage in general :)
I don't understand this comment. On the contrary: arguments were made that show the advantages to allow private footage.
Or maybe your smilie indicates that your statement is irony?
> Wer also would privileg bigger clubs / teams who are able to simply film everything and show later what they like to show
> and a single sportsman can't film a second or he is forced to buy a GoPro to film his race by himself.
Nowadays, the ability to make video is not at all exclusive anymore. Almost everyone can take video with their phone, or a camera. This doesn't privilege bigger clubs.
> Beside this a host has then also to take carte that he has a screen to show any existing video format to be able to make a decission.
In most cases, video will be shared/viewed on the screen of the capturing device (phone/camera). This is usually good enough.
I agree with you that we should not prescribe that the host has to take care that all kinds of videos can be shown on a big screen.
> I see not one argument so far to allow videos
There are several arguments. You may not agree to them, but they are there.
Comment
It was noted that not many other sports allow private videos but I would like to say that almost all of those professional sports are much bigger than ours and so they have sponsors and can afford as many judges/referees as well as video cameras as needed. Since our sport is so small with practically no budget to pay judges, this is why I believe it should be OK for private videos to be used.
If riders know that private videos can be used, it will keep them more honest and prevent them from trying to cheat especially in muni events. I know there has been a lot of discussion about it not being fair for smaller clubs vs bigger clubs/families/countries but it's pretty simple. Don't break the rules and then you never have to worry about any videos that are used against you!
Comment
My comment target on the discussion about family members / friends ... It was no ironic.
I did not meant that it is difficult to get a video camera, I just meant that a club can easy place one person fix to film every competition all day loing while a single rider can't do that as he has to ask friends in best case.
Usually you are not able to jump frame by frame on smartphone / camara interface but often you need exactly to do that to find the real trueth in a video. I would not argue here that much if I didnt know what I'm talking about. I already watch videos opened in proffessional editing tools to be able to view every single frame and also to make sure that no manipulation was done. Thats why I know that it is pain in the ass to use those stuff. It can show you the trueth but it can also show you "alternative facts" (seems this is how people call it those days). So a referee mut have not only skills about the discipline he judge, he also has be skilled in video technologie / the effect of different angles on the result you see in a video, distances in real and how they look on a video (again depending on the angle)...
Watching on camera screen / smartphone screen is just painfull and not helpfull.
To allow private ffotage will lead to more stress and preasure to the referee and it will take the preassure from a host to provide enough judges. He can trust on the "someone will film it hopefully" system then. We step backwards and not forwards.
Finaly we will find then blamed referees if they didnt use a video evidence and the rider show it later online and continue to complain that he was right and the referee not. All that can be prevented if the referee can do his job with clear rules and based on clear defined things he must take in consideration. There are good reasons why all sports discuss even the usage of official video footage a long time because they also had to become familar with the way to see what happens on a 2D video screen. Thosedays Video footage is used where it is usefull but then it is footage where the source is safe and defined and they have a place to watch it at the refferees desk to check unclear things imediatly.
So what are we planning now: Protest appear inner 15 minutes - first private video appear maybe after 30 minutes or together with the protest - then a second video appear 1 hour later which show the scene from another angle - the referee already made a decission based on the first video and decide to don't take the second one in consideration because it appears to late. FInaly we find the wrong decission in the results and the video, that show maybe the trueth but was not availiable fast enough, in the internet. The referee was right in his first decission, then he changed it based on a nice private video, watched on a 4" screen and in the end he has to realize that he was right and follow an imagination he see in a video.
Especialy a contact between riders in track races / Road races is a good sample where it can look like a bad attack from one angle while you can see from another angle that one rider didnt touch the other one at all because you can't see distances on videos. I analyse also a mountain of one feet start sequences and early starts filmed from different angles with private cams. None of them give a clear result at all, only a perfect placed camera with enough frames per second show you exactly what happened or what not happened.
All of you should know tha pictures you see in the Internet where people look simmilar high then Eifel Tower or you see them lifting a car or house by their hands. Everybody know about the Problem of Photo / Video reality as usually you learn about it already in the school.
Comment
Discussion is getting long, but hope we still have broad attention.
Quoting without reference:
> he can run into hell if he decide to don't use a private video because he is sure to have enough facts to go for the right decision.
>
True, but with a rule of forbidding the use of evidence it would also become impossible to correct a decision -
...while you may have seen the token decision was totally wrong, but with such rule you now can't accept the evidence which may be desired!
> If a ´referee is not allowed to use additional private footage, no discussion will come up as there is a clear rule
.. and ...
> Those who did that job should know how horrible it is often and how bad competitors and especially parents can act against a referee
>
True. But also parents who don't speak up exist. Should be irrelevant if fair judging is what matters.
It's impossible to please all, but excluding evidence beforehand is not helping it in the right direction.
Fair judging is not only just impacting riders, but also fellow competitors, and yes; even spectators;
Do you wish to stand on the highest step of the pedestal knowing the person one step lower deserves your medal?
I think some do, and most don't.
> would it help to ban related persons from protest discussions....???
>
I rather have long argues with arguments, than plain ignorance, which is also a method to avoid problems, but not a very friendly one.
The dissatisfaction of that may lead to have the conflict escalate elsewhere. So I rather see things solved -or at least argumented- in a communicative way.
Usually conflict are no fun for both sides, but being banned is worse than the dispute.
> The last discussion show again how good it would be to don't use any private footage in general :)
>
To me it shows conclusions can be based on facts, but the truth can still be different ;)
> a video taken from a certain angle to validate or disprove a specific testimony
>
... and ...
> the live stream team from Italy
>
In Italy the official video suddenly became judging material (the judges were remote), at that point the least bad solution, and no rules were prepared for such situation.
I think I've operated all camera's (initially 3, and later 2); at different positions and equipped with different lenses.
Reviewing it at home I noticed that it was simply impossible to truly know if what you see is true enough to make good estimates about dimensions.
Even with more than one camera's -which I knew pretty well myself- I was actually shocked how difficult it was to do so.
Therefor I suggested in a previous rulebook committee to change the hairlines (in stead of having identical lining to artistic bicycling).
Still, when you miss some of those hairlines, making fair estimates could be close to impossible.
In racing it will be very hard to get better footage at the line than the official (...if present).
But what if we ever get incidents like these two-in-one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFh2nDkt8Qc&t=222 ..?
> similar high then Eiffel tower or you see them lifting a car or house by their hands.
>
Yes, so the people who watch any video for arbitrage at certain cases might need to know how to interpret what camera/lens is doing what.
> So I still stay at my opinion that only official video footage should be used.
>
Personally I would say, "other evidence may be considered, but official video would adventual be leading".
> Since our sport is so small with practically no budget to pay judges, this is why I believe it should be OK for private videos to be used.
>
Even in a multi-million competition it's cool a single camera can prevent total wrong decisions, opposite of what's fair.
Here's a first ever video judging overruling of referee's own decision at the national soccer competition in The Netherlands:
http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/7021833/5ab5a804/penalty_.html
I don't expect -even in the heat of the match- the opponent would regret such justice for too long.
Extra videos could feed time-consuming robe-pulling, but I think video in competition in general is a blessing.
Comment
Thanks Leo for your Detailed comment. Your bring some argues for using private video footage but you also declare clearly the physical problems. I already state that I can imagine to use it in smaler competitions but does everyone here realy agree that we can't provide enough judges / official cams while big official competitions?
However, this committee is demcratic and many arguments was brought. You can also read two articles about it here http://www.lawinsport.com/articles/item/video-technology-in-sports if you register there for free.
Its especialy the track racers who always argue that our sport is not serious enough / prffessional enough while usually they have a high tech equipment to measure time and also use finish camera usually and start video. Now it was them who start this discussion to bring back private video again, I realy don't understand why? Me personaly never care about becoming "serious and proffessional", I love the comunity in unicycling and that it don't follow the commercial way. But here we discuss about the rules for competitions including World Championships and National Championships and it seems people here want both at the same time. Beeing super serious and using prvate footage don't fit together at all. it gives me a "I made my world as I like it" feeling.
Comment
@ Jamey: I miss your post, sorry. I agree that especialy in Muni it could be an advantage and I wouldnt be that surprised if Muni riders came up with this but it was in Track Racing. Why are we not able to place several private video filers at dedicated places in a Muni race and please them to film all the race time? That would be an advantage but not the way we plan it. Be sure people show the part of the video that helps them and they don't show the part which provide disadvantage to them. A Referee is not able to decide what he get, he has to accept then what he get.
Comment
While I am glad with objective false start monitoring and light-beam time measuring, I am not on the side of those advocating that Track Racing should be more serious. I wouldn't know why Track should be treated any more seriously than e.g. Muni.
Olaf, I see your point that people will usually only present evidence if it is in their advantage. But this is not only for private video. The same is true for testimonies (eye witness reports): even if most people wouldn't outright lie, only a few would spontaneously come forward and tell that they should be DQ'd, for instance. Yet this is no reason (I hope!) to ban people from telling what they have witnessed.
I think a judge would be able to assign a "value" to each piece of evidence, especially if he is allowed to use all information.
Comment
Maybe you misunderstood me, I also don't advocating this opinion, any discipline has to be treated 100% equal! My point was that Track Racing is already more or least most proffessional judged/measured and that I was surprised that those group ask for even more allowed footage in a case of Protest, not the Muni riders who deserve it and need it much more.
What about adding to the rule that you can add any type of evidence if you place a protest. You have to hand it out together with the protest and you have to list at what minute / which picture number / numbers are relevant and then you have to leave. The Referee can take a look or not but he must not provide any information if / what he use and the protesting person or other involved people are not allowed to be with the referee when he build his decission. If the Referee think he need one ore more of the named Witness or the protesting rider or other involved people, he can call them for an interview. That way the referee can be sure to work without beeing influenced by the protesting people. It should be also written there that in case of video evidence a referee without good skills in Video technology should ask for an skilled assistent to prevent hm from wrong decissions based on "critical" footage. Also it should be written that in case enough Judges and official cams was there, their result should be alsways prefered to additional footage.
A referee and his judging team should be prevented from shitstorms as good as possible. Only then we get judges and referees in the future.
Comment
Most of what you write here looks good to me.
The one question I have is with "You have to hand it out together with the protest and you have to list at what minute / which picture number / numbers are relevant".
Say, your pictures of video is on your phone or your camera, how are you supposed in practice to "hand it out"? Surely you don't propose to confiscate the phone or camera for how long it takes, or even the memory card? Should we provide a devide to copy digital material, and to view it? This can get unpractical.
This is still a weak point I think, but I do agree with the sentiment: trust the referee and let him decide without meddling in the decision-making process. Except on request, such as for an interview.
Trying to find a solution: what if we take note of the existence of video or photo (or other) evidence together with receiving the protests, and optionally call someone to show it just as we can call someone for an interview?
Comment
Yes I am more referring to muni vs track as I don't think many private videos in track will be better than the official video. But I do think in muni if someone has a video of someone running, pushing someone, etc. then it should be OK for this private video to be used to DQ someone.
Comment
How many 'official' cameras do you think we have running in track racing? Maybe three in Unicons? Start, finish, and maybe in places like the 5-m line in wheel walk? For smaller events than Unicon, probably less or even none. But even three cameras certainly don's see everything. So even if private video is not 'better' than official video, it may show places that official video doesn't show. Or even just a different perspective/angle.
Therefore, also in track racing I see the potential added value of private video.
Regardless, I don't think it is useful to have a different rule about this issue in Track than in Muni (or any other discipline). It is telling that this discussion was initiated in the Track committee, then carried over to the Main committee because of its wider applicability.
Comment
@ Klaas: I agree about the issue with "hand it out" from the physical aspect while on the other side it is actually pretty easy to copy a small clip to a notebook. However, it could be recomendene to give away the footage physicaly and as an alternative it could be acepted to name the place and person where it exist and an easy option to get hands on it (phone number).
I also agree that video footage in general can help ian any dicipline and as stated before, any discipline has to be treated similar. In track races it happens much more easy to have bad angles that sdhow wrong realitys then in Muni. In Muni the fact of running on the track for example is one of the things where a video show only facts :)
I agree also with Klaas that we have not one discipline with full camera control. In Track races we just cover often the most common protest issues (start, 5m and finish). In Donostia we also film Start and finish line of 10K and Marathon and it helps a lot to compense some nice presents we got from the timing company ;) So the first sentence of the new protest rule should still start witha clear recomendation of using as much as possible official cameras and judges.
Sorry guys for making this such a long discussion but it is an important issue and by far not as simple as it looks like. I'm realy glad about the feedback and the arguments and it seems that we come to an end now. Can you maybe implement the changes in your proposal Klaas, in thew way you agree to them (a practical way)?
Comment
I revised the proposal. Hopefully we can agree on the new text.
Comment
Thanks Klaas, it looks now much better for me (and hopefully for all others it looks still ok). While we should keep on the focus on improoving the official situation I think I can exist with the changes for now as we are still not ready for completely fair official judging / Protest handling. I hope that this Proposal will provide an advantage in Muni and not a disadvantage in Track :)
Comment
The discussion period ends tomorrow (1 Feb).
I hope to read some more comments of the committee members before the proposal is set to voting.
Comment
> http://www.lawinsport.com/articles/item/video-technology-in-sports
>
Yes, it addresses the same kind of the same issues, plus again stated more clear camera's for judging are not always attractive for an audience.
> It's especially the track racers who always argue that our sport is not serious enough / professional enough while usually they have a high tech equipment to measure time and also use finish camera usually and start video. Now it was them who start this discussion to bring back private video again, I really don't understand why?
>
Ah, aha, from that POV; that explains your position in this, I didn't understood why you had such opinion.
But yes, under such circumstances it in deed would be acceptable to forbid private video, at least for the false starts and ranking disputes.
Still I would like to have it open for other irregularity.
And while always being over-accurate, I haven't noticed anyone yet who brought up the difference of the travel speed of light and the travel speed of sound i.c.w. the distance of private camera's towards the subject.
To be very honest I'm not very happy with the old rule nor the new proposal, but allowing some space would in my opinion be smartest.
...but I hope old oneliner, and now 4 suggested paragraphs, could shrink, and have it truly a generic rule.
So, @OP (Klaas):
- the introductory sentence is irrelevant; it's a main rule.
- the statement about announcing official video is missing the fact is could (and in fact in the past did) fail, which than would make it impossible to meet the newly created right of use at protest
- if it doesn't matter "whether official video is available", then it doesn't matter
- when you state "all possible sources" then following with "including (but not limited to) + etc" is waste of words
- "all possible sources of evidence" also allow for filibusters - and seem to make it mandatory to even listen to them
Further I think evidence should handed over instantly, limiting possibilities for editing.
The current proposal is secluding the essence, so I suggest simply:
"Evidence with reasonable expectation to lead to fair judging COULD be considered by an event director.
When using digital evidence, it must be handed over instantly at filing the dispute, and can only be accepted if the copyright-owner grants the IUF unlimited usage rights.
Generally official video would have priority over other recordings."
Comment
> And while always being over-accurate, I haven't noticed anyone yet who brought up the difference of the travel speed
> of light and the travel speed of sound i.c.w. the distance of private camera's towards the subject.
We haven't discussed sound with private videos at all. I think it is obvious enough that if you film from the audience, that there will be a time delay in the sound. IMHO we don't have to discuss that, or mention it in the rulebook.
> So, @OP (Klaas):
> - the introductory sentence is irrelevant; it's a main rule.
- Where is this main rule stated?
- "This" in the second sentence refers to the first sentence. If we delete it, we have to extend "This" to almost the same length as the first sentence. Nothing is gained then.
> - the statement about announcing official video is missing the fact is could (and in fact in the past did) fail, which than
> would make it impossible to meet the newly created right of use at protest
It's not newly created, I copied that from the old rule. Indeed if official video is planned and announced but fails, it cannot be used. To me, that is obvious, and I don't see the need to mention that in the rulebook.
> - if it doesn't matter "whether official video is available", then it doesn't matter
I added this to make the contrast with the old rule explicit, to prevent that someone thinks e.g.: private video of the 5-m-line is not called for, because we have the official video.
> - when you state "all possible sources" then following with "including (but not limited to) + etc" is waste of words
Again, this is to make the contrast with the old rule. It also makes clear what sort of evidence is meant. Without saying it explicitly, it makes it clear that a statement by a 'fortune-teller' is not included in "all possible sources".
> - "all possible sources of evidence" also allow for filibusters - and seem to make it mandatory to even listen to them
Have we experienced such a situation already? Should we be afraid of it?
> Further I think evidence should handed over instantly, limiting possibilities for editing.
It requires having hardware to copy and read digital data from all sorts of devices. I recommend that, but I hesitate to require it.
> The current proposal is secluding the essence, so I suggest simply:
> "Evidence with reasonable expectation to lead to fair judging COULD be considered by an event director.
> When using digital evidence, it must be handed over instantly at filing the dispute, and can only be accepted if the
> copyright-owner grants the IUF unlimited usage rights.
> Generally official video would have priority over other recordings."
In addition to the comments above, I notice that your suggested text is missing the first paragraph altogether (which is from the old rule), as well as the third paragraph (which is an addition suggested by Olaf).