Rulebook

Proposal 87: What supporting evidence for a protest is valid [ Revision 2 ]

Committee: Main Committee
Submitted on 2017-01-18
Status: Passed on February 09, 2017

Background

This proposal was initially created in the Track subcommittee, but since it is about Chapter 1 of the Rulebook, it belongs here in the Main Committee.
So I just re-created the proposal here, and will "Table" the original proposal in the Track subcommittee.

For the original discussion, see link under References.

Proposal

OLD RULE:

1C.10 Protests

Private videos are generally forbidden as a means of verification in case of a protest. The host can decide to make an official video of some competitions (for example at the 5- meter-line of the 50 m one-foot race), which has to be announced before the competition to let the competitors know about their option to protest through this video.

PROPOSED RULE:

1C.10 Protests

The host may decide to make official video of some competitions, for example at the start line and/or the finish line, or the 5-meter-line in case of the 50 m one-foot race. This must be announced before the competition to let the competitors know about their option to protest through this video.

Regardless of whether official video is available, all possible sources of evidence are generally allowed as a means of verification in case of a protest, including (but not limited to) private photos/videos and eyewitness reports. If someone submits a protest and has evidence that he wants to be considered, he must state that with his protest. If possible, it is recommended that digital material is copied onto an ‘official’ computer for analysis. As an alternative, the evidence must be readily accessible, e.g. through a contact person and phone number.

In case of video evidence (regardless of its origin), a referee without good skills in video analysis should ask for a skilled assistant in order to prevent incorrect interpretations.

The referee decides which evidence he will consider, and the ‘value’ he assigns to the various pieces of information. Generally, official camera footage and judge reports will have higher ‘value’ than private evidence. The objective is that all riders will be judged as fairly as possible.

Body

In 1C.10 Protests, private video is explicitly forbidden as a means of verification in case of a protest. All other sources of evidence are implicitly allowed.

In the discussion, some people argued that every available information that can lead to finding the 'truth' should be allowed to use. How can we forbid a referee to use the information if he wants to use it in order to make a fair decision?

Others maintained that using private video can lead to biased verdicts: one rider might be DQ'd because a private video showed his late foot-lifting in wheel walk, while another got away with it because no footage was available (or shared). Another argument is that with the growing availability of smartphones and other devices that can record video, referees might be swamped in video footage.

My proposal tries to satisfy both lines of argument. It allows the use of private videos, but explicitly states that the referee decides whether he wants to use it, and also that the objective is to judge all riders as fairly as possible. This implies that if using private video would decrease the fairness of judging, it should not be used. This decision rests with the referee.

In the revised proposal, all of the above is still true, but I tried to incorporate a few points on which consensus seems to exist.

References

Link to original discussion: http://iuf-rulebook-2016.committees.unicycling-software.com/discussions/116

Discussion

View Discussion

Change Log:

Revision 2 changed by Klaas Bil (31 Jan 07:48)

I processed the discussion, notably Olaf's contributions, as follows:

In the first sentence, I added the start and finish lines as possible examples of official video.

The following sentences were literally added (the last one was already partially in the original proposal):

If someone submits a protest and has evidence that he wants to be considered, he must state that with his protest.
If possible, it is recommended that digital material is copied onto an ‘official’ computer for analysis. As an alternative, the evidence must be readily accessible, e.g. through a contact person and phone number.
In case of video evidence (regardless of its origin), a referee without good skills in video analysis should ask for a skilled assistant in order to prevent incorrect interpretations.
The referee decides which evidence he will consider, and the ‘value’ he assigns to the various pieces of information. Generally, official camera footage and judge reports will have higher ‘value’ than private evidence.

Finally, for easier reading I changed "Chief Judge or Referee" into just "referee".

Revision 1 changed by Klaas Bil (18 Jan 14:58)

Votes on this proposal:

14 out of 24 voting members have voted.

Agree: 11, Disagree: 1, Abstain: 2.