Evaluation of micro-error system in slow racesThis discussion has an associated proposal. View Proposal Details here.
Comments about this discussion:
The rules for assigning penalty seconds for micro-errors, as described in 3B.6.4.2, have been introduced in the previous revision of the Rulebook. I think it would be wise to evaluate how the system worked. I personally haven't had a chance to watch slow races at an officially IUF-sanctioned event since then, but of course the new system was in place during ECU (2015) and Unicon (2016), and probably NAUCC as well.
So I wonder,
- how many micro-errors have been assigned? ( no precise number needed, just an indication)
- how did riders respond to them?
- did judges/referees find their job easier now that they could use this new instrument?
Thanks for filling me in, and get the discussion started.
Carrying this out would lead to the question of what qualifies as a micro-error, and how to detect the difference. The end results would still be highly subjective, with the potential for significant variance from one judge to another.
Well, I suppose it has been carried out (it's in the sacred rules after all), so I'm asking about experiences.
I made different experiences with it. It really depends on how judges get instructions, I participated at competitions where judges had absolutely no idea of what they were judging, so therefore micro errors were not assigned that much. However, I also participated at other competitions where the micro-errors were assigned quite often (almost to often in my opinion), so my conclusion is that it depends on the person judging and on the person giving instructions to the judges.
I claim that there isn't really an agreement on what a micro-error is...
John says that judging is still very subjective. Also he wonders what exactly qualifies as a micro-error. Indeed, we only know from the rule that twisting 46 or 48 degrees is a micro-error, while 90 degrees still means DQ. That leaves a very large grey area, in my opinion.
Mirjam also says that it very much depends on the judge, and that there is no agreement of what a micro-error is.
I haven't seen any positive comment yet on the micro-error system. If no-one (or hardly anyone) finds it useful, I think we should get rid of it.
The problem with micro-errors is that I don't know if we can make them non-subjective. If we say an error of 1 mm (backwards movement for a micro-second) counts as a micro-error, that just leaves us trying to tell the difference between 0.9mm and 1.1mm with the naked eye.
Back in the 80s, a guy made a "Backwards Movement Detector" as an attempt at a Slow Race judging device. It was battery powered, and attached to the back of the fork via magnet. A small switch dragged along the top of the tire, and any rearward movement beyond a few mm would like a light and sound a buzzer. But it didn't work because upper body movements could move the frame fore and aft without the wheel making any rearward movement, so it was useless for Slow Races. Also it was extremely difficult to ride even a little bit slow without setting the thing off!
So if we had an electronics nerd who likes to play with accelerometers, that might be the way to build a tool to detect rearward wheel movement independent of frame movement. It would have to be attached to the wheel somehow, possibly hanging from the axle (or attached to it). That might work, and provide true objectivity. Until then, much as I appreciate the skill it requires to ride super-slow, comparing one rider to another is hard to do consistently.
Even that hypothetical nerdy device could be falsely triggered if the wheel twists (less than 45 degrees) while it continues its forward motion. Somehow, we need an even nerdier device, perhaps.
In the absence of such solutions, I begin (or continue) to suspect that the micro-error system hasn't added value. If I'm wrong, please tell us how it has been a success.
I would like to give my feedback in terms of the points that Klaas mentioned:
At two regional championships in Bavaria, we have evaluated the new judging system by an evaluation sheet one for riders and another for judges. The feedback given by riders was 100% positiv and the new judging rules has been considered as much more fair.
There have been assigned 0 - 4 micro errors/ run.
The judges found their job generally more easy. The only thing, that judges considered as very difficult indeed, was to perceive all micro errors of unicycles with a wheel size of less than 20", because the shoes cover the wheel/ the spokes and the angle between wheel and board. So to sum up, judges would prefer a wheel size of 20" minimum, to do their job better and more fair because it would be possible to perceive micro errors more exactly and to judge all riders in the same way.
Riders din´t see the problem that the end results would be still highly subjective, because in the finals "there will only be one team of judges, in order to have a fair competition" (Rulebook, 22.214.171.124.)
The micro-error-system is subjective and leads to discussions and frustrations that can be avoided
by using a technical solution to measure the forward movement:
- download it to your smartphone from 1drv.ms/1RBvx3r or https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=217AFE37669DFC8B!14228&authkey=!ANuY21fEsvUntBg&ithint=file%2capk
- activate 'unknown source',
- fix your smartphone with rubbers at the outer end of your spokes and
- test it.
There is a sound at stillstand or moving backwards.
The start pole should be placed 1,20 metres before the starting line, because some starters held it after crossing the line.
The 45° degree-rule should be deleted. For expert we can use 10 cm-broad boards and avoid any discussions.
This would make slow an attractive and easy to judge discipline.
I suggest do call it 'slow balance' instead of 'slow race' because 'slow race' sounds ridiculous.
Wow, I am intrigued about Gyro Judge! I looked it up in the Play Store, but could do no more since I have an iPhone. It needs some documentation (at least for us); how does the developer define the sensitivity? With that as a working language, this group could set a working number to use for competition, or even a range of numbers if we want to make it more nerdy. Easy levels for beginners, a medium for enthusiasts, and a stricter setting for experts, or the Finalists.
My assumption is that it simply monitors for continuous motion, and detects any stops or rearward motion. Depends on the accelerometer (or whatever it's called) in your phone; don't know if those vary in sensitivity from one phone model to another, but I assume they would. Track officials would probably want to settle on a particular phone model to use for judging, at least at the higher levels.
Some riders might complain about the rotating weight of the phone "unbalancing" their wheels. My response would be that this is the same for every rider.
I don't think we need a rule about where to put the starting post. Any official nerdy enough to judge this event can follow the existing rule and make sure the rider lets go of the post before timing starts. I recommend (as I do for all Track races) having the post next to the rider, not in front of her.
The twisting rule is intended to go with the 10cm board. The idea is to prevent riders from taking the "scenic route" down the board and following a longer path. We could set a smaller number of degrees as a limit, but the current 45 is intended as an angle that's easy to detect by eye.
Slow Balance, as a name, sounds nice and accurate. And boring. Slow Race is the name because it is ridiculous. Lest we forget we are doing sports competition on unicycles! It is a race to see who is slowest, and I think the name is the best thing about it. With a more objective way to judge it, I might even like the event itself. :-)
Has Gyro Judge been used in unicycle slow races already? Experiences?
I reckon it should judge on rotation only, not on acceleration. Because acceleration close to the top of the wheel is very different from close to the bottom. (The tyre near the contact point hardly moves in a twitch but the top of the tyre does!) But seeing that petra... requests to attach it to the outer end of the spokes makes me think that it does respond to acceleration. If it would repond to rotation only, it wouldn't matter where in the wheel it is, since the wheel rotates as a whole.
Otherwise I agree with John (paragraphs 3 u/i 6), except
- I recommend the starting post (for all races) to be where the rider wants it (left, right, forward, rearward)
- I'm not that negative about the event itself. :-)
@Klaas: The Gyro Judge has never been used at unicycle slow races at any championship. Therefore, there are no experiences at all.
So, it seems to me at the moment irresponsible to consider the gyro- system as a basis for decisions.
@Petra: The evaluation- sheets are still available, and its obvious that all riders prefer slow races according to the rulebook 2015. I really can not understand why you are thinking that the new system leads to discussions and frustration. (?)
We need a workshop as a first step and then a regional championship to gain experiences. Than we need an detailed evaluation of riders ; Then let´s start a discussion.
I found some more info on the Gyro Judge here: http://www.unicyclist.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1644737#post1644737
It seems to have been created by a unicyclist, especially for unicycle Slow Race judging. The information is almost two years old and I don't know if he's still working on it.
It works with a gyroscope, so only on rotation. But I think you'll have to orient the sensor exactly parallel to the wheel, otherwise any twisting movement will have a component in the rotational plane leading to false positives.
It is a promising idea, but I agree with Johanna: we cannot recommend this yet (?) as a basis for Slow Race judgement.
Back on topic: has the micro-error system been used at Unicon in Spain? Surely the rule was in place at that time?
@Klaas: I have been the slow race director in Spain, of course the rulebook 2015 has been applied. The result of judges´ feedback is, that for moments it was impossible to perceive (micro) errors when riders used a small wheel size.
Ingrid Kreuzer has been the chief judge at Unicon 17 and just in Kanada she pointed out exactly this problem, that for some moments the run can not be judged if it is performed with a small wheel size.
For further illustration, have a look at the following link, the pictures are self explanatory, the shoe size might be about
7 (lady), so imagine mens´shoe size. http://dawa.ws/wheel-size-slow-race/m0paj2c2ti/jidcra3piup0/
Thanks Johanna. I looked at the pics and indeed the larger wheel is much easier to see. But part of this is because the riding board is very dark and the tyres of the small wheel are all black, while the tyre of the bigger wheel is white. The camera makes almost no difference between the two colours. I would think that the human eye has better sensitivity, provided of course that there is enough light.
I played a bit with the contrast of your pictures, see the result here: http://klaasbil.home.xs4all.nl/slow_small_wheel_contrast.jpg. With the increased contrast, in all of the four pictures I can see the bottom of the small wheel well enough. Not sure if that would still work with the pedal in the very bottom position. Perhaps then the judges would have to kneel down, as Mirjam Lips just mentioned as a solution in the Slow Race Wheel Size discussion.
The micro-error system is introduced because human judges cannot judge "black and white". By this I mean that a human judge will sometimes doubt whether something is an error or not. If we would use a technical means to detect errors, this would allow us to judge "black and white": something is either an error or not, it is not a 'half error'. I base this on the video fragments I saw of the Gyro Judge: it either beeps or it does not beep, but it never half beeps.
Therefore with such a technical system we don't need the system of micro errors anymore. I would therefore propose to make the micro-error system optional: a host can use it or not. If some host will use a technical means to detect errors (assuming it is tested and reliable etc) while this rulebook is still in place, there is no need to use micro-errors.
I see this as a way to move to a future situation where the human judges are not used anymore, and we have a pure, clear, fair competition as a result.
I hope to have the opportunity to create a proposal tomorrow, I'll try to keep the discussion thread open.
We can not add ideas into the rulebook, that never have been tested, that never have been evaluated, that don´t even exist.
Not existing things cannot be an equivalent option to a system which has been testet, applied and evaluated with a very good feedback.
Developing the current system has been a long process in which a lot of riders had judges had been involved.
If anybody would invent a electronic system, it would have to be tested and evaluated in a workshop, and not at a championship. Then, the feedback should be presented and we could start the discussion.
Please note that at the moment there are no experiences at all with a technical system, so it would be very irresponsible to the riders to allow experiments at competitions.
How can respectable "slow" riders fight to keep subjective human judges with their associated issues (availability, subjectivity and more), and dismiss the ideas about technical solutions?
I honestly think that more objective judging/checking in slow racing is the way forward.
It would also bring slow racing somewhat more in line with our other disciplines, which have clear-cut rules.
Think of a 100m track race. In my opinion it would be strange if a one-second penalty would be given to a rider, because the judges are in doubt whether he made a false start or not, and then call it a "micro-error".
I do agree that we don't want to experiment at an official competition before it has been shown that a technical error detection system is reliable. The initial invention seems to have been made already, though. Developing and testing it further might be done quicker than the refreshment cycle of our rulebook which will be valid until well into 2019.
Developing the current system has been a long process, and indeed a process that should (and does!) continue. Micro-errors are relatively new, BTW.
Slow race is not a discipline, that is comparable with 100m track race.
Slow races are more comparable with Standardskill. At Standardskill competitions, if a rider makes a "micro error" the judges deduct 0,5 points instead of disqualifying the rider.
I competed in slow race at Unicon in Denmark since 2008. The last time I competed was at Unicon in Montreal. I broke up with that discipline because for me it was not that fair anymore and the results depended on the judegs and were extremly subjectiv (no reproach on the judges. I know it’s really hard to judge slow race and I’m amazed that there are still judges for that discipline).
I think a technical solution is the best way to make slow race more fair, objective and easier to judge as you mentioned Klaas. I’ve tested Gyro Judge last week and I think it’s a very good solution to make slow race more objektive. If we use a technical solution in the future there is no need of a minimum wheels size and a micro error system anymore.
@Clara: It´s well known that you really wanted to compete at UNICON18. I think, you remember very well the reason, why you finally did´t start. Why do you attribute it now to the judging system?
Could you please explain, what exactly you consider as more fair in terms of the old system, where we had different judges, and riders were disqualified in case of
judges´doubt. Do you think, that you personally got too much penalties in Montreal? Do you think, that you would have performed a better result with the old rules ( without penalties) ?
I am sure you know, that the Gyrojudge does´t perceive nothing in terms of the angle and this is the main problem especially of 12 " wheels, because of 2 reasons:
1. the general instability because the proportion is not designed for adults and
2. because 12" riders try to ride curves in order to prolong the 10 meters to a longer distance.
In my opinion we should never experiment with riders at a competition.
The rulebook should not allow that riders could be surprised at a championship with new experiments.
The problem I see, is that in many cases the host isn´t so familiar with slow races. Now allowing experiments at championships could lead to the application of inappropriate rules or judging systems:
For example: If a host does´t have the background knowledge, the gyro judge might seem useful to him. This system does´t consider the twisting angle.
Another problem might be, that such a host could use a technical system, that does´t distinguish between the movement of the frame and the movement of the wheel.
These situations will lead to frustrations of all riders.
Riders should be given the opportunity to practice with the system which will be applied.
I´am not absolutely against of technical systems but I am against that hosts who don't´t have the necessary experience could forget some important details and would experiment with riders at a championship. It seems unfair for riders to me.
If someone should really develop a useful system, that really could consider all necessary details, this host should offer a workshop and evaluate the system. If riders feedback will be positive, he could apply a special rule for his championship. But the IUF rulebook should not allow experiments with riders in advance, because the reality is that for now there dosen´t exist an appropriate technical system.
There was brought in the idea, to cut the boars (5m x 10 cm) things like that would destroy the discipline. Please don't forget that al lot of problems and injustices has been resolved with the current system. We should take care and not allow, that inexperienced hosts go backwards to frustrations and other problems will be produced again.
It is inherent to the nature of Standard Skill that it cannot be judged objectively. You cannot attach "hard criteria" to the execution of a skill. Therefore, cases of doubt will arise, and 0.5 point deduction is an acceptable solution.
Slow racing is different from that. There are hard criteria such as "continuous motion" and "within 45 degree twisting". Such criteria can in principle be objectively checked by technical means. If this works, it is better than subjective human judging.
Good to see that Clara has tested Gyro Judge, and thinks it is a very good solution.
I do agree with Ana that Gyro Judge only checks the continuous motion, not the twisting of the unicycle staying within 45 degrees. But checking the continuous motion objectively is already a big step forward! I can very well imagine a technical solution to check for twisting: a second gyro sensor attached to the frame.
In the mean time, if you draw 45 degree lines on the board (see example), this makes it easier for a human judge to check on the twisting aspect.
From my limited experience, I haven't seen slow riders zig-zag with the purpose of making the ridden distance longer than 10m. I doubt that this tactic would work to get a better result, as there is less room for error in twisting (since you're twisted already), and zig-zagging will decrease the rider concentration. But it is legal (rules allow it), so we shouldn't be bothered if someone does this. By the way, this is not limited to 12 inch riders. It seems to me that a 20" rider could use this tactic almost as easily as a 12" rider, as the contact patch of the wheel is much smaller than the width of the board anyway. (A 20" wheel has more tendency to extend beyond the side of the board but that doesn't matter.)
I agree with Johanna: don't use a new system in a competition unless it has been tested and deemed to be reliable. You don't have to convince me of that.
Indeed it would be nice if riders get the opportunity to practice with such a new system in a workshop fashion. This could be during Unicon, before the actual competition, similar to what has been done with light beam false start monitoring in track racing. (Just to be sure: at that stage the system must already have proven its reliability.)
Micro-error judging or not, it's still subjective. I think that is the point Clara and Klaas are making (and has been the problem with this event forever). Something like Gyro Judge could be the means to bring objectivity to Slow Races, but it would need development and also study, testing, approval, and duplication to work as the sole judging method in competition.
To be used in competition, first it must be field tested, preferably before and then during a good-sized uni competition to work out the bugs, and also to learn how to use it in a competition setting. I will guess that its accuracy in operation is tied to the specific hardware being used. In other words, a top-of-the line smartphone might have a more sensitive accelerometer in it than a low-end or older phone. To work well, all phones used in judging should be of the same make and model.
And because this would be a technical solution, subject to breakage, battery power, etc. it should also have a regulated fall-back method, which I would assume to be whatever we're using now.
So I propose that Gyro Judge (if ready for use) or something similar be developed and tested at one or more actual competitions, and the results then collected and presented to the IUF (and this committee) to help us develop methods and rules from there.
Valid points by John. I support his proposal. I think the 'slow race' community should pick this up, and hopefully IUF can play a role as well.
I'm having trouble understanding this sentence in the proposal:
Using these penalty rules is especially discouraged for possible errors for which a reliable objective detection system is being used.
Can you please clarify?
What I mean is for instance, if a technical device can measure the twist angle of the unicycle, it is discouraged to assign a micro-error for a twist of 46 or 48 degrees. In such a case, for such a deviation of the rule that can be objectively assessed, it would be a reason to DQ.
If Gyro Judge would be used in the way it has been presented in the links I provided (assuming it is tested and found to be reliable), and no other technical means, then the continuous motion of the wheel is checked by an objective detection system, but the twisting of the unicycle is not. In that case, no micro-errors should be assigned for small disturbances of continuous motion (because Gyro Judge does this), but micro-errors could still be assigned to possible small errors in the twisting angle.
If you agree to this approach, perhaps you can suggest a clearer wording?
How about this:
In the case where an objective measuring device is used (for example, an electronic gyroscope) to detect twists of more than 45 degrees or disturbances of continuous motion then these are considered actual errors and subject to DQ.
My wording was intended in a more general way. A technical system could check continuous motion (like Gyro Judge in its present incarnation), or twisting angle (perhaps with a gyroscope in another plane), or both. For any rule for which adherence is objectively checked, the micro-error system should not be used, for rules that are checked by human eye, the micro-error system could be used.
I think we are in agreement on the purpose, just need to work out the wording. It is my understanding the concept of a micro-error was introduced because humans have a difficult time distinguishing between 45 degrees and some small number over that amount. So when there is a question in the mind of the judge they can penalize a rider without fully disqualifying them. With an objective tool like Gyro Judge (providing it is fully tested) there no need for micro-errors.
Having said that, I see you are using the term could be used and not must be used. I like that.
As far as I know, indeed the concept of a micro-error was just as much intended to cover doubtful cases regarding continuous motion when judged by human eye, as it was for doubtful cases regarding twisting angle.
As to 'could be used' versus 'must be used': yes my proposed text makes the use of the micro-error system optional regardless of the use of technical systems, and I think that 'could be used' is the corresponding wording.
@ Klaas: you commented me that you don´t have to be convinced that "we don't use a new system in a competition unless it has been tested and deemed to be reliable."
@John: you write about unsolved technical problems, as for example different lines and models of phones.
@Klaas and John: please understand, it´s not realistic, hat an inexperienced host will consider all these aspects you commented, John. Your proposal would no allow exactly these aspects, because nothing of a technical system for now is reliable, and we will have discussions and injustices. We should do all these experiments only in workshops to gain first experiences,
This proposal means contradiction to your prior aim that untested sistems should not be used at competitions.
In generally a rulebook should only contain reliable and tested and exactly systems. Generally expressed ideas should´t be included because they can be interpreted in a different way.
@ Klaas and Kenny: Let me explain, that only riders who have tested the system can contribute to the development you want:
We should not take theoretical ideas as the basis of decision. Why?:
For example the gyro judge has been tested by rotating the wheel with the hands ( as you can see on the link ). But if a person is riding the unicycle , it might be different because we don't know at the moment if a micro- vibration of the wheel would lead to a beep.
Therefore, a lot of riders should come together at a workshop and test different settings, before we start a discussion in terms of penalties or DQ.
You wrote: "This proposal means contradiction to your prior aim that untested sistems should not be used at competitions".
I don't think so. I am not proposing to use untested system at competitions.
I accept that a reliable objective detection system is currently not available. But please remember that this rulebook will be prevailing until about mid 2019. By that time, we've had a couple of years of opportunity to develop and test something to the point where it can be deemed reliable. So, a reliable technical system could well be available before mid 2019, especially if the slow race community would embrace the idea that this will be an improvement to their discipline.
My proposal only says that IF such a reliable technical system would be used (at a competition), then the use of a penalty system is discouraged. Because, if such a technical system were used, it would be silly to still assign micro-errors for e.g. a twist of 48 degrees. It would simply be in violation of the rule (no twisting of more than 45 degrees) and should result in DQ. I think we need to build in this option in our rulebook, to prevent assigning micro-errors to a rider who clearly breaks the rules.
What I am missing in this whole discussion is a willingness from a few people who are closely involved in slow racing, to even consider to go into the direction of technical systems. I can't understand this resistance. In my opinion, it will make the discipline of slow racing more credible and more serious.
My previous contribution was written before I saw Ana's comment.
Ana, you are a multiple world champion in slow racing, and you seem to be influential in the slow racing community, if only through your membership in this committee.
Now if you write "a lot of riders should come together at a workshop (etcetera)", that means something.
My question to you is: are you going to promote the coming-together of such a workshop? Are you willing to use your influence to help develop the budding technical system currently available (*) into something that functions well, and will enhance slow racing?
(*) I mean Gyro Judge, or perhaps using separate gyro sensors for continuous motion and for twisting angle.
@Klaas: you write that a violation of the rule (no twisting of more than 45 degrees ) should result in DQ. I would like to explain you the following:
In my opinion, the reason why at standardskill competition points were deducted instead of DQ is, because it´s not realistic, that a rider performs his standardskill- program without any deduction. Everyone knows, that the best rider is not who performs a result of 5 score without any deduction. The best rider ist, who performs the highest score, independent of the deducted points.
At slow race competition we have a similar situation. For example at unicon17 in Montreal, there was no one of the finalists, who performed his run without any penalty, as Ingrid Kreuzer (chef judge) told to me. Everyone knows, that the best rider is not, who reaches a result of 10 sek. without any penalty because all other riders have been disqualified. The best rider is, who performs the best result, independent of the number of penalties.
It´s not realistic, that riders perform their run without any penalty.
(By the way, I personally have performed several times a run without any penalty.)
Therefore, it seems not appropriate to disqualify a rider, if the technical device would lead to a beep in case of a micro vibration of the wheel or a twisting angle of 46 degrees.
The problem/misunderstanding seems to be the description of the discipline in the rulebook. Maybe for example "as much as possible without twisting of more than 45 degrees" would be a more appropriate description than "no twisting of more than 45 degrees". What I mean is, that in case of such a beep a penalty should be given instead of DQ.
As Slow Races has to be considered more like a skill, than as a track race, in the last years Slow Races have been separated from track races in terms of discipline directors.
Therefore, before the rulebook allows to use technical systems, it´s required, that different settings of the system were tested and evaluated by many riders. But keep realistic, done well it will be a big project, which requires to spend a lot of free time: we need reponsibles for the development,organize the test phase , bringing together riders, we need responsibles to carry out evaluations and updating the system............... I cannot imagine that all these phases could be done within less than 2 years.
Also the current system has been developed within 2 years.
Pleas consider all these aspects of a experienced rider, and let´s separate wishes from realistic possibilities
In addition to my last comment, I would like to bring in the perception of Sonja ( world record holder until 2012 ) in terms of micro errors. At the judge workshop in Bixen, she explained that it´s not fair to disqualify a rider because of a "micro error".
At the rulebook discussion 2 years ago, Olaf explained the following in terms of micro errors:
"Std Skill is a good sample and also in team sports a foul just give advantage to the other team but don´t disqualify the rider who made the foul."
So, I propose that we should go on with this discussion in 2 years. Meanwhile, we should develop ideas and systems, test them at workshops, considering the evaluation. We should go on improving the system and finally present realistic aspects in the next rulebook discussion. Then let´s decide, what can become part of the rule. I´m against that we pass over to vote now about systems that at the moment does´t exist.
> @Klaas: you write that a violation of the rule (no twisting of more than 45 degrees )
> should result in DQ. I would like to explain you the following:
> In my opinion, the reason why at standardskill competition points were deducted instead
> of DQ is, because it´s not realistic, that a rider performs his standardskill- program
> without any deduction. Everyone knows, that the best rider is not who performs a result
> of 5 score without any deduction. The best rider ist, who performs the highest score,
> independent of the deducted points.
I assume you mean "taking the deducted points into account". Well, I guess this is right. Standard skill is inherently a 'judged' competition.
> At slow race competition we have a similar situation. For example at unicon17 in Montreal,
> there was no one of the finalists, who performed his run without any penalty, as Ingrid
> Kreuzer (chef judge) told to me.
I don't understand this. Unicon17 should have been run according to the rulebook of 2013. There were no penalties in the rulebook, only DQ.
> Everyone knows, that the best rider is not, who reaches
> a result of 10 sek. without any penalty because all other riders have been disqualified.
> The best rider is, who performs the best result, independent of the number of penalties.
> It´s not realistic, that riders perform their run without any penalty.
> (By the way, I personally have performed several times a run without any penalty.)
I dare to disagree that it's not realistic to perform a run without penalty. Not only are you yourself an example. But also, any rider is able to ride strictly within the rules, if only they stay away far enough from the danger zone, if you see what I mean. If you go too slow, you risk making a short standstill or a little bit of riding in the wrong direction (e.g., backwards in slow forward). Also if you twist your wheel a lot because you are riding at your slowest, you risk twisting the wheel more than 45 degrees. But every competitor is able to ride 10m without twisting and without going backwards. Now the challenge is to do this as slow as possible, while still being within the rules. That, to me, is the essence of the slow race.
> Therefore, it seems not appropriate to disqualify a rider, if the technical device would
> lead to a beep in case of a micro vibration of the wheel or a twisting angle of 46 degrees.
> The problem/misunderstanding seems to be the description of the discipline in the rulebook.
> Maybe for example "as much as possible without twisting of more than 45 degrees" would be
> a more appropriate description than "no twisting of more than 45 degrees". What I mean is,
> that in case of such a beep a penalty should be given instead of DQ.
I think that this is a completely different look at slow race than was the original intent of this discipline.
I'm not sure if we should go this way. This requires a fundamental/philosophical look at what slow racing really means.
I can add that if slow race would be regarded this way, we could do the same for track racing. It is a skill to start a 100m race a tiny fraction of a second after the start beep. Continuing your line of argument, a false start by 0.01 second could be considered a "micro error", and it would make sense to add one second to the time of a rider who started 0,01 second too early, because he was still as fast as possible.
This, I think, is a dangerous way of thinking. It takes away much of the value of track racing: to race as fast as possible, but STRICTLY within the rules.
I think such a strict interpretation is perfectly fit for slow races as well. The problem is that we don't have a technical system yet, like we have in track racing. So in my opinion, this is the way to go.
> In addition to my last comment, I would like to bring in the perception of Sonja ( world
> record holder until 2012 ) in terms of micro errors. At the judge workshop in Bixen, she
> explained that it´s not fair to disqualify a rider because of a "micro error".
I would like to know if she would say the same about a false start by only 0,01 second.
> At the rulebook discussion 2 years ago, Olaf explained the following in terms of micro
> "Std Skill is a good sample and also in team sports a foul just give advantage to the other
> team but don´t disqualify the rider who made the foul."
There is no mention of slow race, so what is your argument?
> So, I propose that we should go on with this discussion in 2 years. Meanwhile, we should
> develop ideas and systems, test them at workshops, considering the evaluation. We should go
> on improving the system and finally present realistic aspects in the next rulebook discussion.
> Then let´s decide, what can become part of the rule.
Let me ask again: are you going to promote this to happen?
> I´m against that we pass over to vote now about systems that at the moment does´t exist.
I don't mean to vote about a technical system that doesn't exist, but about making the rules such that once a technical system would exist in a reliable form, the rules allow to make good use of it.