Minor/general stuff (Closed for comments)
Comments about this discussion:
Started
This should be a place for discussing minor issues that can easily be addressed. Please highlight typos, mistakes, better wording, but also mention topics or ask questions that maybe don't warrant a separate thread.
Let me start:
1) 5C.3 "The Referee may not compete in any competition where they may be required to make a decision."
I think it should be singular, hence "they" -> "he/she"
2) 5B.5.7 "In the event of a dismount at the finish line the rider
must back up, remount and ride across the finish line again."
Question: Can we assume that the timing systems typically in use (i.e., chip-based) can deal with such situations? If yes, perfect, if not, probably we should start a separate discussion about this rule.
3) 5D.5 "If the course is open for practice to all riders for at least 7 days leading up to the event, then there are no restrictions on who can compete. If the course is not open for practice until the day of the event, then anyone who has pre-ridden the course is not allowed to compete."
So, either 7+ days or zero. What is in between, like open training for 3 days before the race? Suggestion: "If the course is not open for practice until the day of the event" -> "If the course is open for practice 6 or fewer days leading up to the event"
4) The new structure makes the guidelines for organizers very clear. Is it desirable or even realistic to have consequences (e.g. in the worst case: event canceled) if the organizers don't follow (some of) them? And if yes, should we mention those in the rulebook?
5) Cyclocross passing: "In the case of a rider being lapped, the passing rider has the right-of-way."
How does the slower rider know if he/she is being lapped or just overtaking by another rider with the same amount of laps? Do we need to address this distinction?
6) Can Director/Referee be the same person?
7) Are more detailed guidelines for the Cyclocross track desired to avoid situations where there are just too many riders on the (maybe too short) course? Thinking of Unicon/standard category.
If any of these topics requires more in-depth discussion, I will open a new thread.
Comment
#5 and #7 sort of go together. But in my opinion cyclocross is a crazy race that is sort of every person for themselves. It's hard to have this precedent of the passing rider having the right of way for the reason Ben mentions. And also you can't have a traditional rule of staying to the right unless passing because that is not always the best or rideable line. I would be in favor of removing #5. Maybe we should start a new thread to discuss cyclocross passing and course requirements?
Comment
Regarding #5, I think we should keep some kind of wording to prevent a lapped competitor from intentionally impeding the faster competitor. I think as the rule is written now it's the faster rider's responsibility to alert the slower one to yield "The approaching rider needs to alert the slower rider of their intentions to pass." In my experience from bike cyclocross, it's typically very apparent due to relative speed whether you're being passed by someone lapping you vs just being overtaken. It's pretty rare for someone with the same number of laps to fly by you, whereas when being lapped that's typically the case.
Comment
I suggest moving the cyclocross discussions to a separate thread.
In response to other ideas:
1) In English there is some disagreement about whether the "singular they" should be allowed in written language, but there are definitely some respected sources that accept that use. In my opinion, writing "he/she" all the time is messy so I would like to keep it as is. The only reason I would be persuaded to change this would be if "he/she" is much easier for non-native speakers to understand.
2) Chip timing mats record every time the chip crosses the mat, and also when the chip stays over the mat for a period of time. It is only important to clarify the rule to the person using the chip timing software, and to have a referee at the finish to handle these situations correctly according to the rules.
3) That seems like a good change, we simply need to vote on it.
4) That's something that I've been discussing with various people since Unicon under the overarching theme of: in what way are event organizers held accountable to the IUF Rules and expectations. I think it's a very important discussion and I'm not sure what should be done about it, if anything, in the rulebook itself. In any case, I would consider that a topic for the main committee. I would also be happy to have a personal discussion with anyone with input on this issue to brainstorm ideas. Feel free to contact me.
5) CX
6) The referee and the director can be the same person and for simplicity's sake often are. As long as there are any huge conflicts of interest, the director is often a good person to also be the chief referee since they should have very good knowledge of the discipline and its rules. I don't see a problem here as long as there are enough volunteers to take care of all the necessary jobs for the event.
7) CX
Comment
1) Thanks for the explanation!
2) Perfect, that means we can leave it like it is.
3) Let's see if we get some other opinions on this one. Otherwise, I will just create a proposal next week.
4) Yeah, agree that this is a topic for the main committee.
6) Again, thanks for the explanation!
Comment
I agree with #3 and think it's a small enough clarification that it could move to a proposal.
Comment
2) Why does a person have to ride over the finish line? They are allowed to walk during the race so why not walk over the finish line? Say someone is that exhausted that they just can't mount again...or maybe it's a bumpy finish line and they just don't have the energy to keep trying...or maybe they got injured but were able to wobble to the end but don't want to risk riding again. BTW I'm fine with the current rules just was curious if this is something we should think about changing.
3) Like I said in the road racing the following would be very hard to enforce especially in the woods in the middle of nowhere: 5D.5 "If the course is open for practice to all riders for at least 7 days leading up to the event, then there are no restrictions on who can compete. If the course is not open for practice until the day of the event, then anyone who has pre-ridden the course is not allowed to compete."
I also think that especially for muni that it is a must that the course be pre-marked at least a day in advance so that people can practice so that we can avoid what happened this past Unicon with people getting lost. The reason people went the wrong way is all we had was a map. I was actually riding with some of the top riders the day before including Martian (who has won 1st place the last couple Unicons) and we were all trying to figure out the trail. From looking at the map we had we thought the trail went straight (and maybe it did and the trail was marked incorrectly on race day?) so we went that way and finished the practice lap. On race day, Martian (and others who were with us) just assumed we had went the correct way when in fact we had gone the wrong way the day before. Because of this assumption they didn't look for flags/markers on the trail and went the wrong way. So to avoid this from happening in the future I think it is crucial that it be mandatory for the course to be marked at least one day in advance (or even having a practice day a few days before where the director shows the group the way if say they can't mark it).
4) Yes, what happens if the organizers violate these rules and what can/should be done? I think this is an important question that needs to be addressed not only for this committee but for the entire rule book.
Comment
2) (responding to Jamey): I think the riding across thing is a carryover from Track racing. The idea is that it always makes a better finish if the person rides across the line, rather than runs across, falls across, etc. But. Most Muni races allow unlimited dismounts, so why only force this at the finish line? I know this discussion has been had before, and I probably stood up for the "ride across" version but it's a pain in actual practice.
I remember writing a big response to this on Thursday, but it must have not gone through (or been sent). Or, if you're seeing it and I'm not, hope this is at least a coherent as whatever I wrote then. An in-between idea would be to penalize riders for dismounting, or walking over the line if this works (only applies to races where dismounting is allowed in case we still have Muni events that are no-dismount):
- This applies to riders who dismount before the line and walk across, or riders that dismount over the line (as defined for Track)
- If the rider is alone (nobody close behind), ignore it
- If there are two or more riders racing to the line, same age group or not (since it's not easy to tell at that moment), dismounted riders' times would be extended past when the mounted riders crossed the line. In other words, add enough seconds to penalize them in terms of placement.
- The above would require a definition of how to define the start and end of a "group", probably based on an eyeballed measurement of gap between them and the next riders. Something like 30m or whatever we agree on
- To avoid penalty, riders can re-mount before crossing the line, or scramble back in front of the line and then ride across. The decision to do this would be based on whether that would get them a better result than the penalty we might define.
- If multiple riders in a group dismount, it might be difficult to keep track. If they re-mount and cross, they only need to be marked for their second crossing of the line. If they don't remount, we would have to figure out a way to apply the penalties to match what the riders did.
- I would not apply any of this to races where riders must ride 100% of the course, even with dismounts (like Uphill)
The above is messy. The alternative is to just drop that rule, but again only for events where you have to ride 100% of the course.
3) re: marking the course in advance. Great idea, but may be impossible to do in reality. So we can recommend it, but not require it. Often the way to mark a course like that is with ribbons. But if it's a popular trail (San Sebastian's included part of a world-famous hiking route) those markings may not hold up for long if other trail users have to cross them.
In addition, with Muni trails it can be very difficult to communicate a route through an area that has lots of trails. We have a great park in my area (Rockville Hills Park, Fairfield; not sure if you've been there Jamey), that, even though it has maps, has so many little connective and unofficial trails it's very easy to get lost in there. My point is that having a map for early practice may be the best way, but it might not be perfect, even under the best conditions, so again we probably should require it.
4) How to penalize convention hosts if they knowingly violate the agreement of what competition events and requirements they are expected to provide?
It's a tough question. We, the IUF, find someone willing to kill themselves to put on a giant, complex unicycle convention. What could we possibly do to them, that might serve as a deterrent to getting lazy and ignoring certain event, or doing them poorly or in unworkable ways? The only thing I can think of is to charge them fines. But I don't know if that would actually be effective. The convention would have to finish in the black (not lose money), and the hosts, after their convention is all done and they don't want to look at another unicycle for a year, have to still recognize the authority of the IUF.
If such a thing were to be written up, it should not apply to mistakes, uncontrollable things such as weather, or learning experiences, such as traffic control at the Marathon course. Sure, it's obvious to all of us now, but did most of us think it was fine before the race started?
6) Highly not recommended. Not that it can't be done, but that it's much, much better if they are two separate people, if only for the fact that they can then be in two places at once. One should be highly knowledgeable about the event rules and how to explain, enforce and interpret them. The other doesn't need to know the rules in detail, but needs to be a good leader that can make things happen, organize, and adapt to changing conditions. Always try to fill all the basic job slots whenever possible.
Comment
CORRECTION:
Above I said "The alternative is to just drop that rule, but again only for events where you have to ride 100% of the course."
Change that to "events where you don't have to ride 100% of the course". Like Uphill. You have to successfully ride the entire thing, so that includes the finish line. But it's still a complicated idea for a rule, so I'm not much of a fan of it.
Comment
#2: This is a unicycling race, not a walking race. So I think it's quite reasonable to have to ride across the line especially in the cases of close finishes. The first person to have the front of the wheel cross the line is the winner and they must cross the line in control. Usually the finishes of a muni race are not super technical so it's the last chance to put on some speed to beat out your competitor. Allowing walking across the line would blur the lines between in and out of control and would take away the value of having it be a unicycling race.
Comment
Regarding #2. Scott says " It is only important to clarify the rule to the person using the chip timing software, and to have a referee at the finish to handle these situations correctly according to the rules."
It is my experience that the communication with the people performing the chip timing is not currently sufficient. They generally do not know the rules about dismounts at the finish line, and I suspect that usually the systems are set on "automatic", which means that any re-mount within proximity of the finish line is not counted against the rider. This was especially obvious in Spain.
I think that there is good cause for having a rule about being "in control when crossing the finish line" for any races which require 100% riding. But for those in which competitors have to ride over actual obstacles (like timing mats) I don't think that this is necessarily improving the ability for competitors to show their skills.
This rule also has to be consistently enforced. In Spain I saw multiple occurrences where the only time a competitor was asked to back up and remount was when Scott was around...no dedicated judge was there to consistently enforce it/communicate it.
In summary: I think that better instructions to the 3rd-party chip timing people is necessary for ALL events, and this is one of the rules which generally gets missed
Comment
#2: in my opinion for races where it is allowed to walk or run there's no need to cross the finish line riding on the unicycle. rules should be as easy as possible and not complicate the work of the referees and the timing people. Especially in Cyclocross it can happen that a group of riders cross the finishline together and more than one can fall. As it is always difficult to find voluntaries - especially experienced voluntaries for referees - I think it's better to make the rules easier for riders, organizers, referees and timing people. so no finish-line-rule for: downhill, cross-country and cyclocross.
#3: I would not allow Cross Country and Downhill races without training possibilities to avoid situations like UNICON in Spain. I would introduce to the rule (for DH and XC): "The well marked courses has to be open for practice at least one day before the race." if this it is not possible in my opinion it is better to omit the race. so there would also bee no need for restrictions on who can compete.
#6: As it is always difficult to find voluntaries I got the same opinion as Scott
Comment
#2 I think removing the rule for riding through the finish (except for Uphill of course) could produce a lot more crashes close to the finish line. It would encourage riders to go faster than what is manageable since there is no punishment if they crash right before the finish line and still make it over the line. I definitely agree that the communication with the timing staff and referees about this rule is very important.
#3 Somehow forgot about creating the proposal, will do so in a minute. Jamey is right that it is not very easy to enforce 100%, but I think in the first place it is important to have a clear rule (which is not the case right now). Paul, I support your suggestion, I think it could be added in addition (probably better as a separate proposal though).
Comment
#2: I agree with Ben. Also I want to add that it would make ties very confusing and potentially hard to break. What happens if someone rides over the finish line and someone falls or runs over it? Unicycling over the line takes more skill in my opinion. I don't think we should let people run or walk over it.
Comment
#2: I agree with Paul and Jamey. Riding is usually faster than walking, so no one would like to pass finish line walking unless necessary. E.g. somebody is injured, or has defect to unicycle.
In my opinion the rule shall look like this: "Riders must cross the line in control of the unicycle, either riding or walking"
But then "control" shall have different definition. The main purpose for control is that riders do not create dangerous situation in finish line. No dismounts, no throwing unicycle, no stopping just after finish line.
Comment
in every moment of the race competitors give them best and ride as fast as possible - not only at the finish line. i think there will be no disaster at the finish line if we have no finish-line-rule. Good point maksym: what if the unicycle is defect. example Downhill Finals like it was in Spain: a Competitor brake his brake disk (like it happend to Ekhi) 30 m before finish line in the first final race. no walking over the finish line means that this one can not compete the next final. Please simplify the rules.
Comment
sorry for my english :-) "... breaks his brake disc....."
Comment
#3: i saw the proposal. do we really need a restriction on who can compete? Example: Unicon in my nearby. No possibility to open the tracks 5 days before race. i am not allowed to compete because i know all the tracks since a few years. they are my "home tracks". and who goes to check if there wasn't other competitors 7 days before looking for the tracks.
All we need is: No race without training possibilities.
Comment
New issue:
"5B.5.5 Passing: No physical contact between riders is allowed. Riders must maintain a minimum of one (24”) wheel diameter (618mm as judged by eye) between each other when passing, and at all other times. This is measured from wheel to wheel, so that one rider passing another may come quite close, as long as their wheels remain at least 618mm apart."
in my opinion to elaborately: i try to simplify: "Riders must keep attention while passing and avoid physical contact as far as possible."
Comment
issue '#8: "5D.4 Age Groups: Age groups must be offered as male and female age group. There must not be any age group specific restrictions on equipment. The following age groups are the maximum allowable for muni competitions:
Under 15 Youth
15-16 Juniors
17-18 Rookies
19-29 Elites
30-49 Masters
50+ Veterans
there are so many young children in XC and DH Beginner. Pease check UNICON18 XC Beginner competitor list wave 11 and wave 12. what do you think about adding agegroup 0-10 and 11-13?
Comment
#3
The course shall be announced as soon as known. This shall be usually more than one week as organizer needs permissions. However course might be changed due to conditions (e.g. snow or excessive mud) few days before event. The proposal does not give ability to pre ride if the course is changed/set 0-6 days before event, and this is unacceptable.
Open suggest that somebody closing and opening tracks. Bike parks and hiking paths are open in full season if not permanently, is the word announced correct?
I suggest at least 5 training days in case Unicons and 2 days in continental championships , and at least one preride at other events shall be available for competitors before race. I agree with Paul, there shall not be restrictions to people who knows the trail.
At Unicons all Muni events shall be scheduled in the second week.
I understand that marking the trail might be not possible few days before event, but in this case guided preride shall be organized few days before.
Comment
#2 @Patricia: "What happens if someone rides over the finish line and someone falls or runs over it?"
Good point. I think the issue people are having with letting people not ride over the finish line is about those types of situation. I think we can come up with easy rules to cover this, but we have to include with it that the people who are running the finish line at any of these races have to be trained or supported on how the rules work. We are more complicated than we need to be, but perhaps this can help.
At the finish line, mounted riders have the right of way. If a mounted rider and a dismounted rider cross together, or within X number of meters, the mounted rider should be counted as the faster.
Something like that would allow people with broken unicycles to finish, be consistent with letting riders dismount 100 times along the course, but still respect the fact that we're supposed to be unicycling. It would be easy with 2 or 3 people at the line, but might get messy with a crowd of riders. More writing is probably needed to explain how to do it with a pack, and how to separate who is ahead of whom.
#3 @Maksym: "Example: Unicon in my nearby. No possibility to open the tracks 5 days before race. i am not allowed to compete because i know all the tracks since a few years. they are my "home tracks". and who goes to check if there wasn't other competitors 7 days before looking for the tracks."
Yes. We must combine what we want to have, with the realities of how difficult it can be to get any course to race on, let alone a perfect one. They are usually not going to be perfect, and there may be other issues. We should be more flexible about people with local knowledge of tracks, and also stay flexible about "requiring" open practice time. It can't be an absolute rule, since a) it could prevent us from having some of the best possible terrain, and b) Otherwise such a rule will be ignored anyway, good trail or not.
Comment
Paul:
"5B.5.5 Passing: No physical contact between riders is allowed. Riders must maintain a minimum of one (24”) wheel diameter (618mm as judged by eye) between each other when passing, and at all other times. This is measured from wheel to wheel, so that one rider passing another may come quite close, as long as their wheels remain at least 618mm apart."
in my opinion to elaborately: i try to simplify: "Riders must keep attention while passing and avoid physical contact as far as possible."
Good idea to simplify it! Thinking about it, the rulebook does not say anything about what happens if a rider does not follow these rules, for instance, pushing another rider out of the way (not that it happens but still better to have a rule). Maybe something like this would be good? (copied from another section): "Violations of these [passing] rules may result in disqualification or a time penalty, to be determined and announced before the race start."
Regarding age groups, I think there is a separate IUF committee working on this very issue.
Comment
Thanks to the 9 people who voted on the proposal regarding open courses / practice! But where is the rest? The muni committee has 21 voting members...
Anyway, any suggestion on how we proceed with this rule? In its old form, it does not make too much sense. Now some people suggested to simply delete it and replace it with something like "course must be open for X practice days" or maybe alternatively "open for Y practice runs". In such a case, we should also include what would happen if the host is not able to offer practice runs on the course. Cancel the race? Exclude local riders because they have an advantage (this is what the current rule tried to do I think)?
Comment
I think it should state something like this: "course should be open for practice a week before the race". I don't think local riders should be banned from racing even if the course can't be open for practice. Sure they might have an advantage but that's what they get for being lucky enough to have Unicom in their backyard.
Comment
@ Ben:
...what happens if a rider does not follow these rules, for instance, pushing another rider out of the way (not that it happens but still better to have a rule). Maybe something like this would be good? (copied from another section): "Violations of these [passing] rules may result in disqualification or a time penalty, to be determined and announced before the race start."
Yes, i my opinion this is good.
Comment
@ open courses for practice:
What do you think about this: "the well marked course should be open for practice several days before the race, but must be open for practice at least one day. There should be no race without training possibilities. A GPS map of the course should be published at least one month before the race."
@ Jamey: I don't think local riders should be banned from racing even if the course can't be open for practice. Sure they might have an advantage but that's what they get for being lucky enough to have Unicon in their backyard.
I agree with this.
Comment
Paul, I like your rule for open courses. But maybe instead of 1 day minimum open practice, maybe just 1 practice run is also sufficient. At least, it would be better than no race at all I think.
If we say there *must* (instead of should) be no race without training possibilities then it's fine for me to drop any rule about restricting local riders from competing.
Comment
yes, you're right: it's better to insert "must" instead of "should".
I also agree with "at least one practice run".
Comment
Agree
Comment
I understand that this discussion was created to discuss minor things, but now as the committee has proceeded, it has become confusing for who is discussing what. I am going to close this discussion and additional discussions/proposals can be created for each issue to keep things organized as we try to finish up the committee.