The following proposals passed:

Proposal 10: Equitable Awards

Committee: Main Committee

Vote Summary:

Passed on December 19, 2016

Votes on this proposal:

17 out of 24 voting members have voted.

Agree: 17, Disagree: 0, Abstain: 0.

Background

An effort to make awards as equitable as possible.

Proposal

Old:

1C.8 Awards

The type, number, and quality of awards are the choice of the convention host. Because awards are paid for out of the convention budget, the host may determine the amount and level of those awards. Generally there are trophies for“top” events, medals for “subtop” events, and ribbons or certificates for lower events or places. The IUF has most frequently awarded 1st-3rd place in most events, but this too is up to the convention host.

New:

1C.8 Awards

Because awards are paid for out of the convention budget, the type, number, and quality of awards are the choice of the convention host. However, these awards must abide to these stipulations:

male and female competitors must be awarded equitably
Standard Class and Unlimited Class competitors must be awarded equitably within the same competition (ie. 10k Standard and 10k Unlimited)
awards should be equal within the ranks of Teams, Age Groups, and Champions (ie. 0-14 in Freestyle must be awarded equitably to 16-17 Muni Cross Country)

Generally there are trophies for Champions or for 1st-3rd places in finals, medals for 1st-3rd places in each Age Group for each event, and optionally ribbons or certificates for lower places. The IUF has most frequently awarded 1st-3rd place in most events, but this too is up to the convention host. Once the competition has finished, a personal certificate must be made available to each competitor with a summary of their complete results. This can be done as an online download, and/or sent through e-mail, and/or made available as a physical copy on the event itself.The design of the certificates is up to the convention host.

Body

The consensus was that awards should be equitable between gender, class, and category.

References

Proposal 87: What supporting evidence for a protest is valid

Committee: Main Committee

Vote Summary:

Passed on February 09, 2017

Votes on this proposal:

14 out of 24 voting members have voted.

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

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

Proposal 61: Unicycle wheel size

Committee: Main Committee

Vote Summary:

Passed on January 23, 2017

Votes on this proposal:

16 out of 24 voting members have voted.

Agree: 13, Disagree: 1, Abstain: 2.

Background

Started with the Hockey trouble with 24" wheel size a discussion about wheel size definition was started which end in new names for the wheel sizes and in changing back 700c to 29 Clas and deleting BSD as size and exchange it with maximum outside diameter like any other Class already use. ALso the " will disapear while the Proposal already show that the name without " sounds a bit strange when you speak it. However, a majority want to get rid of it and if you change your mind, feel free to post it it and we maybe add it again :) The Proposal show track race rules as a sample while this size should be used in general and only in case of a different Class this should be named in the rule chapter like "beside default 24 Class wheels also 24" Muni tires are allowed in Hockey even they brake the outside diameter limit" as a sample.

This new System delete the confusion that we used names like 24" and outside diameter in mm at the same time. It also delete the inconsistence that we use sometime outside diameter and sometime BSD. It should make it more easy now for riders and hosts.

SOrry, I cant use tables here so its not that good to read as it should be.

Proposal

A new naming and some changes in the definition of 700c which is replaced now with 29 Class will be invented with this Proposal if it pass. It will affect the complete rulebook, the following old/new rule is just one sample what will be changed exactly and in the end you find the full set of wheel size definition. It should appear also in Chapter 1 under definitions.

OLD RULE:

2B.2 Unicycles

Only standard unicycles may be used. Riders may use different unicycles for different racing events, as long as all comply with the rules for events in which they are entered. For events divided by wheel size, there is a maximum allowable tire diameter and minimum crank arm length for each category:

Unicycle Maximum Wheelsize - Minimum Crank arm length - Gearing allowed?

Standard 700c - Rim bead seat diameter (BSD) no larger than 622mm - no limit - no

Standard 24” - tire no larger than 618mm - 125mm - no

Standard 20” - tire no larger than 518mm - 100mm - no

Standard 16” - Tire no larger than 418mm - 89mm - no

For any tire in question, its outside diameter must be accurately measured. Crank arm length is measured from the center of the wheel axle to the center of the pedal axle. Longer sizes may be used.

2B.5 Wheel Size Categories

Wheel sizes for track racing are 20”, 24” and 700c. Additional groups for 16” or other wheels can be added. When not otherwise specified, 24” is the maximum wheel size above age 10. For age groups with a maximum age of 10 or younger, the maximum wheel size is 20” (or less, if smaller sizes are also used). The youngest age group for 24” wheels should have a minimum age of 0, so riders 10 and younger have the option of racing on 24” with those groups (e.g. 0-13 or 14-16). All riders in age groups with a maximum age of 10 or younger will race a 10m Wheel Walk, and 10m Ultimate Wheel, if used (instead of 30m).

NEW RULE:

2B.2 Unicycles

Unicycle Class - maximum outside diameter - minimum Crank arm length - Transmission system

16 Class - 418mm - 89mm - ungeared

20 Class - 518mm - 100mm - ungeared

24 Class - 618mm - 125mm - ungeared

29 Class - 778mm - No limit - ungeared

For any tire in question, its outside diameter must be accurately measured. Crank arm length is measured from the center of the wheel axle to the center of the pedal axle. Longer sizes may be used.

2B.5 Wheel Size Categories

Wheel sizes for track racing are 20 Class, 24 Class and 29 Class. Additional groups for 16 Class or other wheels can be added. When not otherwise specified, 24 Class is the maximum wheel size above age 10. For age groups with a maximum age of 10 or younger, the maximum wheel size is 20 Class (or less, if smaller sizes are also used). The youngest age group for 24 Class wheels should have a minimum age of 0, so riders 10 and younger have the option of racing on 24 Class with those groups (e.g. 0-13 or 14-16). All riders in age groups with a maximum age of 10 or younger will race a 10m Wheel Walk, and 10m Ultimate Wheel, if used (instead of 30m).

Additional here is the Full Set of Wheel Class which can be placed in Chapter one under definitions maybe:

Unicycle Class - maximum outside diameter - minimum Crank arm length - Transmission system

16 Class - 418mm - 89mm - ungeared

20 Class - 518mm - 100mm - ungeared

24 Class - 618mm - 125mm - ungeared

29 Class - 778mm - No limit - Ungeared

Unlimited Class - no limit - no limit - no limit

Body

The new system makes it very clear and simple to measure if a unicycle fits to a discipline for the rider and the host.

References

Proposal 65: Gender instead of Sex references - exchange Gender/Sex with male/female

Committee: Main Committee

Vote Summary:

Passed on January 29, 2017

Votes on this proposal:

17 out of 24 voting members have voted.

Agree: 17, Disagree: 0, Abstain: 0.

Background

Based on the discussion "Gender instead of Sex references" it seems to be the best decission to change the wording in the rulebook from "Gender" or "Sex" to "male / female" at any place where it is use

Proposal

Sections: 2D-7 - 3B.6.7 - 4D.6 - 4D.8 - 4D9.3 - 4D.14 - 8A.1 - 12D.11

I have made all of the changes. Sometimes it is extremely difficult to rewrite the rule in a concise fashion without using a singular word (sex or gender). Specifically in section 4D.6. I think the rule is now less clear. If someone has an edit there, please advise.

The new rules follows the old rule in each section. I hope it is obvious.

2D.7 Race Configuration

… There will be no mixing of age groups, or sexes, in heats except with permission from the Racing Referee. …

… There will be no mixing of age groups, or males and females, in heats except with permission from the Racing Referee. …

3B.6.7 Stillstand

… The overall results will be determined by the best results per gender.

… The overall results will be determined by the best results for males and females respectively.

4D.6 Ungeared Awards

At Unicon, for each gender (male and female) where there are five or more geared riders in an Unlimited event, the fastest three ungeared riders from that gender will be awarded with an ungeared title for that event. …

At Unicon, if there are five or more geared male riders in an Unlimited event, the fastest three ungeared male riders will be awarded with an ungeared title for that event.
Similarly, if there are five or more geared female riders in an Unlimited event at Unicon, the fastest three ungeared female riders will be awarded with an ungeared title for that event. …

4D.8 Starting Order

The goal in determining the starting order is to sort racers fairly by speed while still making sure that genders race amongst themselves. …

The goal in determining the starting order is to sort racers fairly by speed while still making sure that males and females race amongst themselves. …

4D.9.3 Mass Start

A mass start is a start in which all racers of a certain class (such as Standard or Unlimited) start together. Genders start at the same time.

A mass start is a start in which all racers of a certain class (such as Standard or Unlimited) start together. Males and Females of the same class start at the same time.

4D.14 Special Marathon Events

… Start groups do not have to be per gender and/or wheel size …

… Start groups do not have to separate males/females and/or wheel sizes …

8A.1 Definition (in Standard Skill chapter)

… Group Standard Skill is similar to Individual Standard Skill, but with four person teams of any sex, on standard unicycles only. …

… Group Standard Skill is similar to Individual Standard Skill, but with four person teams (comprised of males and/or females), on standard unicycles only. …

12D.11 Final

… Male and female finalists may have different lines depending on the overall ability of each gender. …

… Male and female finalists may have different lines depending on the overall ability of each group. …

Body

nothing more to explain here, its all in the discussion thread.

References

Proposal 88: Final IUF Rulebook - Vote only

Committee: Main Committee

Vote Summary:

Passed on June 02, 2017

Votes on this proposal:

20 out of 24 voting members have voted.

Agree: 18, Disagree: 2, Abstain: 0.

Background

All proposals from this round of the IUF Rulebook Committee have been applied to the document and a final version has been prepared. Thanks to everyone who helped in the committees and especially to those people who have helped to read through the changes and check for edits and typos.

You can find a summary of the changes made here.

You can find an exact word-for-word changes document here. (Note this document is automatically generated by software, so it can often be confusing to read.)

Proposal

Voting confirms that the document available here (the finished 2017 IUF Rulebook) will be the current document governing all IUF competitions including Unicon. This document is simply the application of all proposals which have passed in these committees to the old 2015 IUF Rulebook (reorganized format). All additional edits have been carefully made to not change any rules.

This vote by the Main Committee is required before this document can be published as the new rulebook.

Body

You can find a summary of the changes made here.

You can find an exact word-for-word changes document here. (Note this document is automatically generated by software, so it can often be confusing to read.)

References

Proposal 77: Merge 1C.10 and 1C.11

Committee: Main Committee

Vote Summary:

Passed on January 22, 2017

Votes on this proposal:

15 out of 24 voting members have voted.

Agree: 15, Disagree: 0, Abstain: 0.

Background

See Body.

Proposal

OLD RULE:

1C.10 Protests

(text to be edited as per the relevant proposal if it passes)

1C.11 Protests

(text to be edited as per the relevant proposal if it passes)

PROPOSED RULE:

1C.10 Protests

(content of current section 1C.11 followed bij 1C.10, edited as they may be)

Body

As it happens, there are discussions c.q. proposals running for both 1C.10 Protests and 1C.11 Protests. That's fine.

This proposal is not about the content of these sections, but to merge them into one section 1C.10 Protests.

I think the content of 1C.11 (including the proposed edits if the relevant proposal passes) should logically come first, followed by the content of 1C.10 (again, edited if the relevant proposal passes).

All subsequent sections must obviously be renumbered (1C.12 becomes 1C.11, etcetera).

References

Proposal 55: Clear up definitions around start beeps

Committee: Track and Field

Vote Summary:

Passed on January 21, 2017

Votes on this proposal:

10 out of 14 voting members have voted.

Agree: 10, Disagree: 0, Abstain: 0.

Background

This proposal does two things:

(1) define that the correct moment to start is the beginning of the last beep

(2) change that the last beep should be slightly higher that the other beeps. There is no reason to prescribe that it is only slightly higher - on the contrary: the riders should easily distinguish the last beep by its higher tone.

Proposal

Old rule is one paragraph under 2B.6.7:

As an alternative a start-beep apparatus can be used. In that case we have a six-count start. Example: “beep - beep -beep - beep - beep - buup!” The timing between beeps is one second. The first 5 beeps have all the same frequency. The final tone (buup) has a slightly higher frequency, so that the racer can easily distinguish this tone from the rest.

New rule, replace by this paragraph:

As an alternative a start-beep apparatus can be used. In that case we have a six-count start. Example: “beep - beep -beep - beep - beep - buup!” The timing between beeps is one second. The first 5 beeps have all the same frequency. The final tone (buup) has a higher frequency, so that the racer can easily distinguish this tone from the rest. The proper moment to start is the beginning of the final tone.

Body

I put everything under Background; see also the discussion.

References

Proposal 39: Clarifying unicycles allowed in flat

Committee: Flat & Street

Vote Summary:

Passed on January 13, 2017

Votes on this proposal:

9 out of 10 voting members have voted.

Agree: 8, Disagree: 1, Abstain: 0.

Background

Too much text for no reason. This section is intended for riders, so the "event organizer" info shown here doesn't belong. It is also mentioned later in the even organizer section.

Proposal

OLD:
10B.2 Unicycles

Standard unicycles only (see definitions in chapter 1D.1), though any number can be used. Unicycles with metal pedals and marking tires are allowed, so these competitions are generally intended for outdoors.

NEW:
10B.2 Unicycles

Any number of standard unicycles (see definitions in chapter 1D.1) may be used.

Body

All info up there.

References

Proposal 30: Removing Advanced category

Committee: Flat & Street

Vote Summary:

Passed on January 01, 2017

Votes on this proposal:

9 out of 10 voting members have voted.

Agree: 6, Disagree: 2, Abstain: 1.

Background

See discussion

Proposal

10D.4 Categories

Male and female competitions should be offered in each of the following categories:
Junior Expert (0-14), Expert (15+), and Advanced. If there are less than 3 Junior
Expert competitors they may choose whether to compete in Expert or Advanced. If
there are less than three females or less than three males overall, the male and female
categories are merged.

NEW:

10D.4 Categories

Male and female competitions should be offered in each of the following categories:

Junior Expert (0-14), Expert (15+). Advanced category is optional however not allowed at Unicon.
If there are less than 3 Junior Expert competitors they may choose whether to compete in Expert or Advanced.
Ifthere are less than three females or less than three males overall, the male and female categories are merged.

Body

For other smaller and local competition I think an advanced category can be very good to motivate younger and not-yet-expert rider, but should be out of question for World Championships.

The competition is about finding the world best, not having a competition at the best of the not best.

References

Proposal 1: Rule 14B.2 Unicycles - Maximum Wheel Size Clarification

Committee: Hockey

Vote Summary:

Passed on January 21, 2017

Votes on this proposal:

8 out of 8 voting members have voted.

Agree: 8, Disagree: 0, Abstain: 0.

Background

see discussion

Proposal

14B.2 Unicycles

OLD: The maximum wheel size is 618 mm (24").

NEW: The maximum outer diameter of the wheel is 618 mm.

Body

Note that there will be a separate proposal called

"Increasing the maximum wheel size from 618 to 640 mm".

If that passes, the number 618 will have to be changed to 640.

References

Proposal 14: 4C.2.4 The Timer - End of a period or game

Committee: Hockey

Vote Summary:

Passed on December 28, 2016

Votes on this proposal:

7 out of 8 voting members have voted.

Agree: 7, Disagree: 0, Abstain: 0.

Background

For the moment a period or games end with the whistle blow of the timer. But in reality on the most playgrounds we use the technique of the score board of the gym or external computers. We should officially allow these kinds of technique.

Proposal

Old:

4C.2.4 The Timer

The Timer checks the time of play with a stopwatch.

The watch is started whenever the Referee starts the game by blowing the whistle.

At the end of each period, the Timer stops the game by blowing the whistle.

The Timer also stops the time whenever the Referee requests a time out.

New:

4C.2.4 The Timer

"The Timer checks the time of play with a stopwatch and/or with a score board."

"The watch time is started whenever the Referee starts the game by blowing the whistle."

"Each period is ended by the sound of the score board (e.g., horn, bell, gong) or the blowing of a whistle by the timer."

The Timer also stops the time whenever the Referee requests a time out. (No change!)

Body

The wording "score board" should be used for all kinds of technique but whistle.

References

Proposal 5: corner marks

Committee: Hockey

Vote Summary:

Passed on December 11, 2016

Votes on this proposal:

6 out of 8 voting members have voted.

Agree: 6, Disagree: 0, Abstain: 0.

Background

see discussion

Proposal

14D.3.3 Markings

OLD: "The corner marks are on the extension of the goal lines, 1.0 m in
from each side line."

NEW: "The corner marks are on the extension of the goal lines, 1.0 m in
from the boundaries."

Body

see discussion

References

Proposal 19: Starting Configuration

Committee: Muni (including Cyclocross)

Vote Summary:

Passed on December 31, 2016

Votes on this proposal:

17 out of 21 voting members have voted.

Agree: 11, Disagree: 1, Abstain: 5.

Background

In an effort to create fair races for the top male and female riders, the gaps between the fastest heats will have a longer duration. The will clear the trail and give riders an open course and hopefully avoid passing between genders of the top riders.

Proposal

Old:

5D.7 Starting Configuration

There are three different types of starting modes, that can be used in muni races.

1. Mass starts: All riders start at the same time. Mass starts must not be used when the race duration is expected to be shorter than 30 minutes. The track must provide sufficient space for passing in the first section, so that the field of starters is aligned before the track narrows down. Space for passing must be given along the track. Mass starts with more than 40 riders have to be split to avoid accidents.

3. Individual starts: Individual riders start at intervals that can vary from 30 seconds to a few minutes.

New:

5D.7 Starting Configuration

There are three different types of starting modes, that can be used in muni races.

2. Heat starts: Groups of riders start at intervals that can vary from 30 seconds to a few minutes. The maximum number of riders per heat is determined by the average width of the first 100m of the track. There can be one rider for each meter in width. The first heats must be separated based on gender with the first heat consisting of the top males and the second heat consisting of the top females. After the top males begin, there must be a 10 minute time interval before the top females start. After the top females start there must be a 5 minute time interval before the next heat begins.

3. Individual starts: Individual riders start at intervals that can vary from 30 seconds to a few minutes.

Body

This is the text that was added:

The first heats must be separated based on gender with the first heat consisting of the top males and the second heat consisting of the top females. After the top males begin, there must be a 10 minute time interval before the top females start. After the top females start there must be a 5 minute time interval before the next heat begins.

Races at Unicon will always be either a Heat Start or Individual Start because of the way the rule for the mass start is written. I think this already allows for small competitions to pass by this rule because they can have a mass start.

References

Proposal 17: Rule 14B.9.3. SUB & Rule 14B.9.2 Clarification

Committee: Hockey

Vote Summary:

Passed on December 31, 2016

Votes on this proposal:

7 out of 8 voting members have voted.

Agree: 7, Disagree: 0, Abstain: 0.

Background

see discussion

Proposal

OLD Rule 14B9.2:

A player who is idling or resting on the stick must be evaded.

NEW Rule 14B9.2:

A player who is idling or resting on the stick must be evaded. However,
the idling or resting player must ensure the stick does not SUB players
as per rule 14B 9.3.

OLD Rule 14B9.3:

A player who holds his or her stick in a way that someone else rides
over or against it is committing a foul.

NEW Rule 14B9.3:

A player who holds his or her stick in a way that someone else rides
over or against it is always committing a foul regardless of the
situation.

Body

clarify SUB and idling player

References

Proposal 56: Make age group ranking optional instead of forbidden

Committee: Track and Field

Vote Summary:

Passed on January 21, 2017

Votes on this proposal:

10 out of 14 voting members have voted.

Agree: 8, Disagree: 1, Abstain: 1.

Background

In all track races except slow races, and in many other unicycling disciplines, riders are ranked in Age Groups. Since the last revision in 2015, the rulebook explicitly states in 3B.6.4.3 that in Slow Racing at International and Large Competitions, Age Groups are NOT ranked. The reason seems to be that it is difficult to judge a large number of riders, because this has to be done by human judges who are inherently subjective, even though the rules are stated in a strictly objective fashion.

If a technical solution would become available to check adherance to the rules, then there is no need anymore to NOT use Age Group ranking. Although by no means ready to use, there are some promising developments in this direction, see discussion.

In 3B.6.4.4, for smaller, regional or national championships, the decision to apply Age Group ranking is OPTIONAL, and a decision of the host. I would like to expand this option to all competitions, including Unicon.

Reasons:

Before mid 2019 (when the next rulebook comes into play) there might be a reliable and ready-to-use technical solution to check adherance to the rules. In that case, it would be a shame if our rules explicitly forbid to rank Age Groups. If there is no such solution (in the opinion of the host), he can still choose not to rank Age Groups - this applies to any host. In other words: nothing is lost.
The results from preliminary rounds are apparently good enough to decide which riders continue to the final round. In my opinion, that makes them also good enough to base Age Group ranking upon. If a host disagrees, he would (even with this modified rule) still have to option NOT to rank Age Groups.

Proposal

OLD RULES:

Under 3B.6.4
...on a 10 m x 15 cm board...

3B.6.4.3 Rules For International and Large Competitions
These rules are required to be used at Unicon.
Qualification round:
• Riders must complete a time equal or greater than 45 seconds to move on to the
finals.
• Riders get two attempts to complete this result.
• Previous results are valid: If a rider has already completed a result of 45 seconds
or greater at another competition, they can start automatically in the finals and
they don’t have to take part in the qualification round, provided that the result
can be found in an official result list.
• The boards can be marked with tape on the floor.
• No age groups will be ranked.
• Results will not be valid for records (world, continental, national and regional
records).
Final round:
• There will only be one team of judges, in order to have a fair competition.
• All riders who are qualified for the final round start here.
• Riders get two attempts.
• Only results from the finals will be valid for records ( world, continental, national
and regional records).
• The champion is the rider who performs the best result in the final round.

3B.6.4.4 Options for Smaller Competitions
At regional or national championships, the host can decide to offer age groups ranking
and awards, and adjust the qualification time to a lower time as needed. If the hosts
decides to offer age groups, the results from the qualification round count for age group
results. However, the final round is still required. The results from the final round will
also be included in the ranking for age group results. Previous results from other events
are not valid to be included in the age group results. If the host decides to offer age
groups, the board size of 10 m x 30 cm can be used for the 0-10 age group.

3B.6.5 Slow Backward
This is the same as the Slow Forward race, with the following differences:
• Riders ride backward.
• It is an error to ride forward.
• Riders ride on a 10 m x 30 cm board.
• If the host of a national or regional championship decides to offer age groups, the
board size of 10 m x 60 cm can be used for the 0-10 age group.
• Riders move on to the finals if they have completed a time equal or greater than
40 seconds, previous results are valid.

NEW RULES:

Under 3B.6.4
...on a 10 m x 15 cm board (or if Age Groups are ranked, optionally a 10 m x 30 cm board for Age Group 0-10 may be used)...

3B.6.4.3 Qualification and Final rounds, Age Group ranking
At any competition, the host may decide not to offer Age Group ranking and awards. Qualification and Final rounds are always required, and results from both count for Age Group ranking (if Age Groups are ranked), but previous results from other competitions are not valid to be included in Age Group results.
Qualification round:

For Unicon, riders must complete a time equal or greater than 45 seconds to move on to the finals. For other competitions than Unicon, the host may adjust the qualification time to a lower time as needed.
Riders get two attempts to complete this result.
Previous results are valid: If a rider has already achieved the qualification time (or better) at another competition, they can start automatically in the finals and they don’t have to take part in the qualification round, provided that the result can be found in an official result list.
The boards can be marked with tape on the floor.
If judged by eye (as opposed to by an objective technical means), results from the qualification round will not be valid for records (world, continental, national and regional records).

Final round:

All riders who are qualified for the final round start here.
In order to have a fair competition, there will be a single team of judges, or (insofar available) an accurate and reliable technical means to check adherence to the rules.
Riders get two attempts.
Results from the finals will be valid for records (world, continental, national and regional records), regardless of whether they are judged by eye or by a technical means.
The champion is the rider who performs the best result in the final round.

3B.6.4 Slow Backward
This is the same as the Slow Forward race, with the following differences in italic:

Riders ride backward.
It is an error to ride forward.
Riders ride on a 10 m x 30 cm board (or if Age Groups are ranked, optionally a 10 m x 60 cm board for Age Group 0-10 may be used).
For Unicon, riders move on to the finals if they have completed a time equal or greater than 40 seconds.

Note: The numbering of sections after this needs to be adjusted, since with this proposal two ‘old’ sections have merged into one.

Body

Reasons:

Before mid 2019 (when the next rulebook comes into play) there might be a reliable and ready-to-use technical solution to check adherance to the rules. In that case, it would be a shame if our rules explicitly forbid to rank Age Groups. If there is no such solution (in the opinion of the host), he can still choose not to rank Age Groups - this applies to any host. In other words: nothing is lost.
The results from preliminary rounds are apparently good enough to decide which riders continue to the final round. In my opinion, that makes them also good enough to base Age Group ranking upon. If a host disagrees, he would (even with this modified rule) still have to option NOT to rank Age Groups.

Also, this subject is extensively debated in the discussion.

References

Proposal 11: Uphill course specifications

Committee: Muni (including Cyclocross)

Vote Summary:

Passed on December 19, 2016

Votes on this proposal:

16 out of 21 voting members have voted.

Agree: 15, Disagree: 1, Abstain: 0.

Background

Right now, section 5D.1.1 about Uphill courses just includes a single sentence:
"Uphill courses must be primarily uphill but may include flat or downhill sections."

This is a very broad definition and it's lacking detail. The XC and DH disciplines have much more refined course specifications (see 5D.1.2 and 5D.1.3).

Racing tracks at IUF events should be designed with the top riders in mind. Therefore, it would be good to give more detailed specifications to ensure a certain level of how challenging the course is.

For example, the Uphill course for last Unicon was both very short and pretty easy technically. Top riders finished in less than a minute, which led to medals being decided by split-seconds. Also, pretty much all expert riders could consistently ride the course without any dismounts.

For big events like Unicons the introduction of separate Uphill competitions for Beginners/Advanced/Experts on different tracks, similar to what we usually have for DH and XC, should be encouraged so that every participant can compete on a worthy and fun track.

This proposal adds requirements to the length or elevation difference in case the terrain is easy to ride. By choosing more challenging terrain, the track does not need to follow those rules. Therefore, these specifications still allow plenty of freedom for the host regarding the selection of the uphill courses.

The course specifications are only a must for Unicons - still, they are recommended for any other kind of Uphill competition.

Proposal

OLD 5D.1.1 Uphill
Uphill courses must be primarily uphill but may include flat or downhill sections.

NEW 5D.1.1 Uphill
Uphill courses must be primarily uphill but may include flat or downhill sections. At Unicon, if the terrain is technically easy (i.e., smooth to ride, no or only very small rocks and roots), the main course has to be longer than 500 m or have a height difference greater than 100 m. If the terrain is more difficult, the course may be shorter or have less elevation gain. The event hosts may consider additionally offering Beginner/Advanced categories competing on shorter and easier tracks or on selected parts of the main course. It is recommended that Uphill courses at other types of events or competitions adhere to these rules as well."

Body

Discussion thread

References

Proposal 8: [TRIALS] Score card: Easy 1 point, Medium 3 points, Hard 7 points

Committee: Trials and Jumps

Vote Summary:

Passed on December 14, 2016

Votes on this proposal:

7 out of 14 voting members have voted.

Agree: 6, Disagree: 0, Abstain: 1.

Background

Current rules are, each line are worth 1 point, easy line, medium line, expert line, all worth 1 point each.

I have discussed this with some riders already, and I think it would be a better idea if the easy lines were not worth as much as a hard line. For example easy line 1, medium 2, expert 3, or easy 1, medium 3, expert 5.

While the current system allows for a very easy counting of the score cards, it also disadvantages riders what got harder lines, and that's unfair.

Proposal

Old: Each section is worth one point, and the objective is to score points by successfully riding (“cleaning”) as many sections as possible within the specified time period.

New: The course is divided in different sections, easy, medium and hard lines. Easy lines are worth 1 point, Medium lines are worth 3 points and Hard lines are worth 7 points. The goal is to clear successfully as many line as possible in the time frame specified.

Body

It's unfair that a rider that did 5 easy lines gets a better score than a rider who did 4 medium or 4 hard lines. Let's make it better.

References

Example of scorecard: https://www.dropbox.com/s/b1glun2wf1dihql/Trials_score_card_sample.png

Proposal 51: 6B.2 Cyclocross: Unicycles and Categories

Committee: Muni (including Cyclocross)

Vote Summary:

Passed on January 16, 2017

Votes on this proposal:

16 out of 21 voting members have voted.

Agree: 13, Disagree: 2, Abstain: 1.

Background

At the CX in Spain it were better to have only one category instead of two, because of the very technical and short circuit.

The separation of 27,5" from 29" should always be avoided.

Proposal

OLD:

6B.2 Unicycles

For Cyclocross, Unlimited is deﬁned as any standard unicycle (see deﬁnition in chapter 1D.1) with a rim with a bead seat diameter (BSD) of 622 mm (700c) or larger. Unlimited

also includes a unicycle with a rim smaller than a 622 mm BSD only if it has a functioning gearing system which will yield a virtual wheel size greater than a 622 mm BSD. The

Standard category only includes standard unicycles without gearing and with a rim less than 622 mm BSD. There are no restrictions on crank length. For example, the following

wheel sizes generally ﬁt the above deﬁnitions:

- Unlimited: 28/29/36, geared 24/26/28/29/36 inch

- Standard: 24/26/27.5 inch

NEW:

6B.2 Unicycles and categories

Separating categories depends on the course. If the course is not favoring any type of unicycle, no separate categories should be made. If the course is favoring big wheels and geared unicycles, the recommended categories are:

- Limited: Ungeared unicycles up to and including 29" (BSD 622mm) wheels. No restrictions on cranks and pedals.

- Unlimited: Ungeared unicycles greater than 29" and geared unicycles. No restrictions on cranks and pedals.

Body

The separation of categories should depend on the course.

Similar wheel sizes should not be separated.

References

Proposal 6: [Flat] Scoring when a rider falls mid-combo

Committee: Flat & Street

Vote Summary:

Passed on December 09, 2016

Votes on this proposal:

7 out of 10 voting members have voted.

Agree: 6, Disagree: 0, Abstain: 1.

Background

The rules currently states "If a rider completes part of a combo and then falls, they are awarded points for everything they did up until the fall."

The point of a combo is that it's a combo... double or nothing. When you link tricks together you gather more points, but if you fall, everything done beforehand doesn't... unless it was like a crazy motherfucking combo then you may give some partial points.

Every game or anything that has "combo" usually if you fail at some point during the combo, it's over you lost everything.

Proposal

Old: "If a rider completes part of a combo and then falls, they are awarded points for everything they did up until the fall."

New: Just remove that sentence.

Body

The point of the combo is going double or nothing.

References

Proposal 7: [FLAT] Number of last trick attempts in QUALIFICATION (2 vs 3)

Committee: Flat & Street

Vote Summary:

Passed on December 09, 2016

Votes on this proposal:

6 out of 10 voting members have voted.

Agree: 6, Disagree: 0, Abstain: 0.

Background

For preliminary round, the rules currently state "After the time has ended, the rider has 3 attemps [attempts*] to perform a last trick."

I'm pretty sure we've been using 2 attempts only as far as I can remember as it saves time and only you need to be really consistant in your qualification run.

Proposal

Old: "After the time has ended, the rider has 3 attemps [attempts*] to perform a last trick."

New: "After the time has ended, the rider has 2 attempts to perform a last trick."

Body

Everything has been said.

References

Proposal 47: Update on choosing officials for Event Organizers

Committee: Flat & Street

Vote Summary:

Passed on January 22, 2017

Votes on this proposal:

8 out of 10 voting members have voted.

Agree: 8, Disagree: 0, Abstain: 0.

Background

Here's an update on what I think should be done. Event organizer chooses Flatland director. The flatland director chooses the chief judge not the even organizer. Also a little helpful sentence to help even organizers

Proposal

OLD:

10D.2 Officials

The host must designate the following officials for flatland:

• Flatland Director

• Chief Judge

NEW:

10D.2 Officials

The host must designate the Flatland Director well in advance of the event. For an international events, it is recommended that the Flatland Director is chosen at least 1 year in advance so that they may be consulted on scheduling.

Body

All info is up there.

References

Proposal 28: [FLAT] Now scoring system

Committee: Flat & Street

Vote Summary:

Passed on December 27, 2016

Votes on this proposal:

9 out of 10 voting members have voted.

Agree: 8, Disagree: 0, Abstain: 1.

Background

Hello,

The current system of poins for Flatland is

Difficulty /30
Consistency & Flow / 30
Variety / 30
Last trick /9
Total /99

There are a few issues I would like to fix.

CONSISTENCY & FLOW
Consistency is a mathematical fraction of # of trick landed on # of tricks attempted while flow is pretty much your style and how clean you are (so.. also style). Mixing those two categories together makes no sens to me as consistency purely objective and style is mostly subjective.

DIFFICULT TO GIVE SCORE
We always have a hard time finding competent judges, let alone find enough judges at all. Having judges for many years using this system, I find it pretty hard to give a score on 30 in each category. I've been finding myself giving score on /10 and multiplying by 3 on most occasions, as it is easier mentally to give a score out of 10, rather than 30. I know my feelings are shared among other people of have judged.

CLARIFYING LAST TRICK'S WORTH
Current last trick is worth roughly 9% of the rider score. After years of repeated reminders that it's worth less than 10% of the score and more of a tie breaker, the rider seem not to fully understand this concept. I think increasing the value of a last trick by a little bit would help somehow. The current last trick is noted on 9 points, giving a score out of 9 points also is a unintuitive way.

Proposal

OLD:

10C.4 Flatland Judging and Scoring

10C.4.1 Judging Criteria

Preliminary rounds and battles are judged using the following criteria: Difficulty, consistency, variety, and last trick contribute to the total score. Scoring: A total of 99 points is possible. Higher numbers are better scores. The judges will add up all scores for each competitor and rank then accordingly. Rankings from individual judges are averaged to determine overall ranking. The points are allocated as following:

Variety:

(Score of 1-30 is given:)

High scores are awarded to competitors who perform a wide range of tricks and combos. Lots of repeated tricks or similar tricks will receive low scores.

Consistency/Flow:

(Score of 1-30 is given:)

Fewer falls relative to number of landed skills results in higher score. Higher points are rewarded to skills completed smoothly with minimal corrective hops or drastic movements to regain balance.

Difficulty:

(Score of 1-30 is given:)

High scores are given for technical, difficult tricks and combos, if they are completed successfully. If a rider completes part of a combo and then falls, they are awarded points for everything they did up until the fall.

Last Trick:

(Score of 0-9 is given:)

The last trick demonstrates how strong the rider is, physically and mentally, in the end. The rider will have 3 attempts to perform a final trick. Partial points may be given for a trick that is almost landed. Only the last attempt will be scored, other failed attempts do not subtract from the score. The rider is not obligated to try the same trick in every attempt.

NEW:

10C.4 Flatland Judging and Scoring

10C.4.1 Judging Criteria
Preliminary rounds and battles are judged using the following criteria:

Difficulty (0 to 10 points)
Score is given for technical difficulty of the tricks and combos landed during the battle/preliminary

Consistency (0 to 10 points)
Score is given for number of landed trick/combos on total of number of tricks/combos attempted during the battle/preliminary

Variety (0 to 10 points)
Score is given for variation in the types of tricks done during the battle/preliminary

Flow (0 to 5 points)
Score is given for cleanliness and style of rider during the battle/preliminary
Last trick (0 to 5 points)
Score is given for technical difficulty, novelty, creativity, and flow.
There are 2 attempts in preliminary. There are 3 attempts for each rider in battles. Rider will take turn attempting their last trick. The rider is not obligated to use all attempts or to try the same trick every attempt. Only the last attempt will be scored. Other failed attempts do not subtract from the score. The rider who started the battle starts the last trick.

Guide on how to score points for last trick

- 0 point: nothing landed / unworthy trick
- 1 point: passable trick / almost landed great or insane trick
- 2 point: okay trick / almost landed very insane trick
- 3 points: good trick
- 4 points: great trick
- 5 points: insane trick
TOTAL (0 to 40 points)

10C.4.2a Preliminary round

At the end of every preliminary run, the judges add up a rider's score. Once all preliminary runs are over, the judges add up points for each rider and then rank the riders accordingly to their total number of points.

10C.4.2b Battle Advancement

Judges must determine a winner individually. The chief judge collects the results from each judge and then the winner is announced.

Body

WHAT I PROPOSE

Difficulty /10
Consistency /10
Variety / 10
Style / 5
Last trick /5

Total /40

10 point categories
I think having score based on 10 points would simply the judges work as it's more intuitive. For people saying there will be more tie brakes, hold up. While it is pretty rare to see half points given on score out of 30, I believe judges will intuitively give half point when the score is out of 10 points, hence seeing 6.5, 7.5, 8.5 etc.

5 point categories
Style is one of the biggest thing that divides flatland and freestyle. I think it is important to disassociate consistency & style/flow as I mentioned above. Giving subjective point in an objective category was ridiculous to me. Now having a style/flow category being worth about 12% of the total rider's score.

With this in mind, it increases the value of the last trick by roughly 3%, passing from 9% to 12%. This percentage of the total score seems to match more the general idea of what a last trick seem to be valued in the mind of riders.

Last trick
Giving a score up to 9 made it pretty difficult. Having a score out of 5 points simplifies scoring a last trick. The rulebook could even include a guide on how to score a last trick as follow. Keep in mind that partial points are allowed for tricks that were almost landed.

Last trick
0 point: nothing landed / unworthy
1 point: passable trick / almost landed great or insane trick
2 point: okay trick / almost landed very insane trick
3 points: good trick
4 points: great trick
5 points: insane trick

-----

I believe this system would make judging easier and clearer. Let me know what you think about it.

-Emile

References

Proposal 2: 14D.4 Ball

Committee: Hockey

Vote Summary:

Passed on December 04, 2016

Votes on this proposal:

7 out of 8 voting members have voted.

Agree: 7, Disagree: 0, Abstain: 0.

Background

The street hockey ball is not used anymore and can be deleted from the rules.

Proposal

OLD RULE 14D.4:

A "dead" tennis ball that reaches 30 percent to 50 percent of its original height after bouncing onto concrete is used. Alternatively, a street hockey ball can be used. The choice is made by the hosting organization if the opposing teams do not agree on which ball to use. The chosen type of ball must be announced well in advance of the competition, and must be obtainable in all participating countries.

NEW RULE 14D.4:

A "dead" tennis ball that reaches 30 percent to 50 percent of its original height after bouncing onto concrete is used.

Body

The street hockey ball is not used anymore and can be deleted from the rules.

References

Proposal 4: Safety Clarification

Committee: Hockey

Vote Summary:

Passed on December 16, 2016

Votes on this proposal:

6 out of 8 voting members have voted.

Agree: 6, Disagree: 0, Abstain: 0.

Background

The current safety rules are split into sections 14B.1 and 14B.11 for no
good reason. The general remarks in 14B.1 can be used as an introduction
for 14B.11, and the specific clothing rules in 14B.1 can be added as a
new section to 14B.11.

Proposal

Delete 14B.1 and move the slightly modified text to 14B.11:

----- START NEW RULES

14B.11 Safety

Attention must be drawn to the safety of the players and spectators.
Thus, the safety rules have to be obeyed strictly and all equipment must
be in good condition.

14B.11.x Clothing

All items that protrude from the body that may cause injury (for example
watches, necklaces, earrings) must be removed. In instances where this
is impossible, the items must be covered sufficiently to remove
likelihood of injury. Shoes must be worn and shoe laces must be short or
tucked in. The following optional clothing is suggested: knee pads,
gloves, helmets, safety glasses and dental protection.

----- END NEW RULES

For consistency, we also need to adjust "14C.2.5 Before The Game":

OLD:

"Did all players take oﬀ their watches and jewelry that might injure others?"

NEW:

"Do all players fulfill the safety rules for clothing (14B.11.x)?"

Body

Apart from joining the separate safety sections, the modifications are:

1) Allow covering jewelry when removing is impossible.

2) Distinguish better between mandatory and optional safety suggestions.

References

Proposal 13: Number of attemps for Long and Highjump

Committee: Trials and Jumps

Vote Summary:

Passed on December 27, 2016

Votes on this proposal:

9 out of 14 voting members have voted.

Agree: 7, Disagree: 2, Abstain: 0.

Background

To make jumps prelims shorter and to have a better wording all over in the rules we start this proposal

Proposal

Old rule:

13B.5 Number of Attempts

Prelims: In the preliminary round, riders have 12 attempts to complete their best performance. These attempts can be at any distance and there is no additional limit to the number at any one distance. However each attempt must be at the same or better distance. Thus a rider cannot attempt a longer distance, fail, and then attempt a shorter distance. The best successfully completed attempt is the rider’s result.

Finals: Riders get three attempts for each distance. Riders must successfully complete each distance before moving on to the next distance.

New rule:

13B.5 Number of Attempts

Prelims: In the preliminary round, riders have 12 attempts in total to complete their best performance. The maximum number of attempts per rider at any one distance/height is three. If a rider attempts any distance/height, he must successfully complete it before attempting a higher distance/height. Attempts can be made at any distance/height, whereby riders may skip distances/heights as they choose. However each attempt must be at the same or higher distance/height. This means that a rider cannot attempt a longer distance/height, fail, and then attempt a lower distance/height. The best successfully completed attempt is the rider’s result.

Finals: Same rules as for Prelims, except that there is no maximum for the total number of attempts.

Body

everything is discussed already, if the group want additional wording / changes, post it in the discussion thread

References

Proposal 20: High Stick

Committee: Hockey

Vote Summary:

Passed on December 31, 2016

Votes on this proposal:

7 out of 8 voting members have voted.

Agree: 6, Disagree: 0, Abstain: 1.

Background

see discussion

Proposal

OLD:

14B.11.2 The Lower End Of The Stick

The lower end of the stick must always be below the players’ hips to
avoid injury to other players.

NEW:

14B.11.2 High Stick

The blade of the stick must always be below the players' own hips and
the hips of all players in the vicinity who might be endangered.

-----

14B.9.1:

OLD:

If the opponent's stick is raised above the height of their hips

NEW:

If the opponent's stick is raised to a high stick (rule 14B.11.2)

Body

clarify who "players’ hips" refers to

References

Proposal 40: Moving "MUSIC" to Event Organizer rules

Committee: Flat & Street

Vote Summary:

Passed on January 13, 2017

Votes on this proposal:

9 out of 10 voting members have voted.

Agree: 9, Disagree: 0, Abstain: 0.

Background

Hello, this is not a rule, nor something that directly applies to the competitors. It is a copy paste section from freestyle, and doesn't belong it flat. I believe it should be moved from "Competitors rules" (10B) to the "Event Organizer" (10D) rules.

Proposal

OLD:

10B.6 Music

In Flatland, a DJ plays music for the competition. Competitors may optionally bring their own music but is not

judged. The DJ has the right to not play the request song. Competitors who bring music must provide it in a form that is supported by the DJ.

NEW:

10D.1.4 Music

In Flatland, a DJ plays music for the competition.

Body

All info up there

References

Proposal 54: Wheel walking can be with one or both feet

Committee: Track and Field

Vote Summary:

Passed on January 21, 2017

Votes on this proposal:

10 out of 14 voting members have voted.

Agree: 8, Disagree: 0, Abstain: 2.

Background

This proposal does not have its 'own' discussion. Rather, it came out of discussion 64 At which moment finishing "in control" must be assessed.

It was found that the definition of Wheel Walking in 1D.1 implicitly allows one or both feet being used for propulsion, because a statement is included that a non-pushing foot may rest on the fork.

This proposal is to bring the rulebook in line with this. Changes occur both in 1D.1 itself (to remove a possible internal contradiction), and in 2B.6.5.

Proposal

1D.1 Definitions, lemma "Wheel walking"

Old rule:
Wheel walking: Propelling the unicycle by pushing the top of the tire with the feet. Feet touch wheel only, not pedals or crank arms. A non-pushing foot may rest on the fork.

New rule:
Wheel walking: Propelling the unicycle by pushing the top of the tire with one or both feet. Feet touch wheel only, not pedals or crank arms. A non-pushing foot may rest on the fork.

= = = = = =

2B.6.5 Wheel Walk Race

Old rule:
Riders start mounted, with their feet on the tire, and propel the unicycle only by pushing the tire with their feet. No contact with pedals or crank arms is allowed. No crank arm restrictions.

New rule:
Riders start mounted, with one or both feet on the tire, and propel the unicycle only by pushing the tire with one or both feet. No contact with pedals or crank arms is allowed. No crank arm restrictions.

Body

I put everything under background.

References

Proposal 29: Make use of the penalty / micro-error system in slow racing optional

Committee: Track and Field

Vote Summary:

Passed on January 10, 2017

Votes on this proposal:

9 out of 14 voting members have voted.

Agree: 6, Disagree: 1, Abstain: 2.

Background

Traditionally, slow racing has been judged by human judges, checking adherance to the rules by eye. Because human judges cannot reliably detect small errors, a system of assigning penalty seconds has recently been introduced. In that system, penalty seconds are assigned for so-called micro-errors, or in case the judges are in doubt whether a rule was broken or not.

I see several issues with this rule:

It leaves a grey are between micro-errors and real errors. For example: the rule states that twisting the wheel 46 or 48 degrees is reason for a micro-error, but twisting 90 degrees should result in DQ. What to do with a 50 degree twist? 80 degree?
Such penalty rules do not exist elsewhere in unicycle racing. It would be very strange (I think) if a penalty second were assigned if the referee isn't sure about a false start in track racing and then calls it a "micro-error". Fortunately, we have a technical means (light beam) to detect false starts objectively and accurately.

It would be much better to develop somehow technical solutions to check if the rules of slow racing are followed or not. Proof of principle has already been demonstrated with the "Gyro Judge" (see References), but this idea needs further development and testing before it can be used in competitions. I would encourage the "slow racers community" to investigate these ideas further. That might well be done before the rulebook that we are discussing will be superseded, which is probably well into 2019.

For the meantime, I propose to make the system of penalty seconds optional. Especially in cases where a reliable technical means to check for errors is used, assigning penalty seconds is not needed, and the rulebook should allow for that situation.

Proposal

OLD RULE:

3B.6.4.2 Penalty Rules

The judges give penalties to riders who seem to make “micro-errors” (for example twisting about 46 or 48 degrees or vibrations of the wheel) or if they are in doubt if an error was made. Each penalty deducts one second from the ridden time. Riders are still disqualified if their wheel comes off the board or other obvious errors are made, for example dismounting or twisting 90 degrees.

= = = = =

PROPOSED RULE:

3B.6.4.2 Optional Penalty Rules

Optionally, a host can decide to use a system wherein the judges may give penalties to riders who seem to make “micro-errors” or if the judges are in doubt whether an error was made. Examples of micro-errors are twisting about 46 or 48 degrees, or vibrations of the wheel. Each penalty deducts one second from the ridden time. Riders are still disqualified for clear errors, such as riding off the board, dismounting or twisting 90 degrees.
Using these penalty rules is especially discouraged for possible errors for which a reliable objective detection system is being used.

Body

See discussion.

References

Gyro Judge:

http://www.unicyclist.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1644737#post1644737

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnWOU6-4Ndg

The Android app is available on Google Play.

Proposal 9: Cyclocross passing rules and course design

Committee: Muni (including Cyclocross)

Vote Summary:

Passed on December 17, 2016

Votes on this proposal:

11 out of 21 voting members have voted.

Agree: 11, Disagree: 0, Abstain: 0.

Background

1) Cyclocross passing: the current rule includes "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? The discussion resulted in a wish for less regulation regarding passing rules and therefore for the deletion of this part of the rule.

2) Experiences from previous races have resulted in a desire to avoid situations where there are just too many riders on a too short or narrow course. A general recommendation in the rulebook regarding the design of cyclocross courses could help: "The course should be designed to avoid bottlenecks and give riders enough room to pass each other, especially after the start."

Proposal

OLD 6B.5.2 Passing

In the case of a rider being lapped, the passing rider has the right-of-way. The approaching rider needs to alert the slower rider of their intentions to pass. Special care at international events should be taken due to language differences.

NEW 6B.5.2 Passing

The approaching rider needs to alert the slower rider of their intentions to pass. Special care at international events should be taken due to language differences.

OLD 6D.1 Venue

It will be a multi-lap event featuring a bit of cross country trail, grassy fields and natural and man-made obstacles where dismounting will be necessary. A course should have no fewer than two and no more than six obstacle or barrier sections where riders normally dismount and run with the unicycle. The starting and finishing stretches shall be free of obstacles within 10 meters.

It is suggested that the length of the course (used by both classes) not be much shorter than 1 km in length and no longer than 2.5 km in length. Organizers should keep in mind that most of the course should be visible from several vantage points.

NEW 6D.1 Venue

It will be a multi-lap event featuring a bit of cross country trail, grassy fields and natural and man-made obstacles where dismounting will be necessary. A course should have no fewer than two and no more than six obstacle or barrier sections where riders normally dismount and run with the unicycle. The starting and finishing stretches shall be free of obstacles within 10 meters. The course should be designed to avoid bottlenecks and give riders enough room to pass each other, especially after the start.

It is suggested that the length of the course (used by both classes) not be much shorter than 1 km in length and no longer than 2.5 km in length. Organizers should keep in mind that most of the course should be visible from several vantage points.

Body

See discussion about this topic.

References

Proposal 16: Finish rules

Committee: Track and Field

Vote Summary:

Passed on January 14, 2017

Votes on this proposal:

9 out of 14 voting members have voted.

Agree: 8, Disagree: 1, Abstain: 0.

Background

This proposal is based on two discussions that are both about section 2B.6.15:

At which moment finishing "in control" must be assessed; and
How to finish wheel walking in control.

Proposal

OLD RULE:

2B.6.15 Finishes

These are determined by the front of the tire crossing over the edge of the finish line that is nearest to the starting line. Riders are timed by their wheels, not by outstretched bodies. Riders must cross the line mounted and in control of the unicycle. “Control” is defined by the rearmost part of the wheel crossing completely over the finish line with the rider having:

(a) Both feet on the pedals in normal races; or

(b) One foot on a pedal in one foot races; or

In races where dismounting is allowed (800m, Relay, etc.), in the event of a dismount at the finish line the rider must back up, remount and ride across the finish line again. In races where dismounting is not allowed, the rider is disqualified.

= = = = =

PROPOSED RULE:

2B.6.15 Finishes

The finish moment is when the front of the tire crosses the finish. The exact location of the finish is the edge of the finish line that is nearest to the starting line. Riders are thus not timed by outstretched bodies. At the finish moment, riders must be mounted and in control of the unicycle. “Control” is defined as follows:

(a) in regular races: the rider has both feet on the pedals; or

(b) in one-foot races: the rider has one foot on a pedal; or

In races where dismounting is allowed (800m, Relay, etc.), in the event that a rider does cross the finish line but not in control, the rider must back up on foot, remount and ride across the finish line in control. In races where dismounting is not allowed, the rider is disqualified.

Body

Apart from a few edits for clarity, the essential changes are two-fold:

The judgement of "in control" is exercised when the front (as opposed to the rear) of the wheel crosses the finish line. This is because it is not logical to require "in control" to be demonstrated after the race is over.
"In control" in wheel walking is no longer defined as having one foot on the wheel, as in modern wheel walking technique this is often not the case. A lot of unrightful DQ's would occur if the old rule were strictly applied! Rather, the new criterion is that wheel walking is still occurring when crossing the finish.

References

Proposal 21: 14B.9.2 Right of Way Clarification

Committee: Hockey

Vote Summary:

Passed on December 31, 2016

Votes on this proposal:

7 out of 8 voting members have voted.

Agree: 5, Disagree: 1, Abstain: 1.

Background

see discussion

Proposal

14B.9.2 Right of Way Clarification, bullet point number 4

OLD:

If two players are approaching each other directly or at an obtuse
angle, the one with the ball has the right of way.

NEW:

If two players are approaching each other directly or at an obtuse
angle, both must take care to avoid contact. If contact occurs, the
referee will penalise the player deemed to have caused the contact.

Body

emphasize that both players must take care to avoid contact

References

Proposal 15: How to deal with hindrance/interference

Committee: Track and Field

Vote Summary:

Passed on January 10, 2017

Votes on this proposal:

9 out of 14 voting members have voted.

Agree: 6, Disagree: 0, Abstain: 3.

Background

This is to give some guidelines to Referees as to what constitutes hindrance or interference.

Secondly, as was discussed, an option is added that not only the hindered rider, but also other riders from the same heat can drop their previous result and redo their heat. I think this is especially important if awards are at stake (but this notion is not included in the proposed rule).

Proposal

OLD RULE:

2B.6.14 Second Attempt After Interference

If a rider is hindered due to the actions of another rider, or outside interference, either during the start or during the race, he may request to make a second attempt. The Referee decides if the request is granted. In non-lane races, if a rider is forced to dismount due to a fall by the rider immediately in front, it is considered part of the race—not a reason to grant a second attempt—and both riders may remount and continue. The Referee can override this rule if intentional interference is observed.

If the request is granted, it may occur that the rider has to ride his second attempt with another age group. If all heats are finished, the rider decides if he wants company or not. He can pick the riders, but cannot hold up the proceedings to wait for them, if other riders are available. The resulting time of the accompanying riders is not official. The Referee has the final say as to which extra riders are allowed to participate in such heats.

A second attempt must not be granted in the case where a rider is disqualified based on something that happened before he was hindered.

If the rider is allowed to do a second attempt and decides to do so, the first run is canceled and only the second run counts regardless of the result. In the case where a second attempt was incorrectly granted, for example when the rider was disqualified based on something that happened before he was hindered, the result of the second attempt does not count and the result from the first run stands.

==================

PROPOSED RULE:

2B.6.14 Second Attempt After Hindrance or Interference

If a rider is hindered due to the actions of another rider, or outside interference, either during the start or during the race, he may request to make a second attempt. The Referee decides if the request is granted. A second attempt must not be granted to a rider who is disqualified based on something that happened before he was hindered.

No complete definition of hindrance or interference can be given, but it does include cases where a rider swerves, hesitates and/or decelerates because this is arguably necessary in order to avoid a crash or potential crash.

If the request is granted, the Referee may decide to offer the other riders from the heat in which the hindrance or interference occurred, the opportunity to re-run that heat along with the rider that needs the re-run. Those who do, have the option before the re-run of discarding their existing result, or keeping it. However, any riders from the heat in which the hindrance occurred who were disqualified in that heat, cannot get a new result, unless their disqualification was because of their 'legitimate' reaction to a hindrance (e.g. they fell, or swerved outside their lane).

If the Referee decides not to re-run the heat, it may occur that the rider has to ride his second attempt with another age group. If all heats are finished, the rider decides if he wants company or not. He can pick the riders, but cannot hold up the proceedings to wait for them if other riders are available. In these cases, the resulting time of the accompanying riders is not official. The Referee has the final say as to which extra riders are allowed to participate in such heats.

In all cases, if the hindered rider is allowed to do a second attempt and decides to do so, the first run is canceled and only the second run counts regardless of the result. In the case where a second attempt was incorrectly granted, for example when the rider was disqualified based on something that happened before the hindrance in question occurred, the result of the second attempt for that rider does not count and the result from the first run stands.

In non-lane races, if a rider is forced to dismount due to a fall by the rider immediately in front, it is considered part of the race—not a reason to grant a second attempt—and all riders involved may remount and continue. The Referee can override this rule if intentional interference is observed.

Body

I have indicated the changes in red font, not sure if this is preserved when submitting.

In the revision, this may not be complete anymore.

References

Proposal 38: Removing "rider summary 10A.2" in Flatland Chapter

Committee: Flat & Street

Vote Summary:

Passed on January 13, 2017

Votes on this proposal:

9 out of 10 voting members have voted.

Agree: 8, Disagree: 0, Abstain: 1.

Background

Hello,

Rider summary 10.A.2 is completely useless in the flatland chapter because all of his content is then repeated IMMEDIATELY right after. No need for repetition here.

Proposal

Hello,

Rider summary 10.A.2 is completely useless in the flatland chapter because all of his content is then repeated IMMEDIATELY right after. No need for repetition here.

OLD:
10A Overview

10A.1 Definition
[...]

10A.2 Rider Summary

This section is intended as an overview of the rules, but does not substitute for the actual rules.
Riders must wear shoes. No additional safety equipment is needed.
Any number or type of unicycle is allowed.

10B Competitor Rules
10B.1 Safety

Riders must wear shoes. No additional safety equipment is needed.

10B.2 Unicycles
Standard unicycles only [...]

NEW:
10A Overview

10A.1 Definition
[...]

10B Competitor Rules
10B.1 Safety

Riders must wear shoes. No additional safety equipment is needed.

10B.2 Unicycles
Standard unicycles only [...]

Body

All info is up there

References

Proposal 26: XC Course specification

Committee: Muni (including Cyclocross)

Vote Summary:

Passed on February 06, 2017

Votes on this proposal:

13 out of 21 voting members have voted.

Agree: 9, Disagree: 4, Abstain: 0.

Background

The shape of the courses in past Unicons and continental championships did not satisfy riders due to short length or amount of walking sections.
Important events did not fulfill to distance recommendations of minimum 10km. (UNICON 17 - 9.5km; UNIOEC - 9.5 km; UNICON 18 - 8.3 km)

In respect to riders wish for more endurance testing race and to prevent shortening racing time below 1 hour, proposed are new recommendations of distance 20km ± 5km and expected completion time 1h30m.

In respect for reducing walking by top riders which occurs on uphill sections, proposed are recommendations to reduce difficulty of uphills related to strength difficulties, NOT technical difficulties.

Due to high advantage of use geared unicycles and their high costs, proposed is proper recommendation for course shape.

Due to increase of distance and reduce difficulty on uphill sections new recommended score of 24 points Unicycle XC Scale is proposed for Expert category.

To help competitors with selection proper category the naming of categories will be standardized according to distance/difficulty, providing the character of XC race is upheld.

New names: Novice and Intermediate correspond to terminology used in Freestyle.
Recommendations for Novice (past, Beginners) category remain with maximum 15 points Unicycle XC Scale, the recommended distance is set between 3-10km.
Recommendations for Intermediate category fulfill the gap between Novice and Expert

Above recommendations are to be valid for Unicons and Continental Championships.

Proposal

5.D.1.3
OLD:

A Cross Country race should be at least 10 km or longer, depending on available terrain, trails and schedule time. The overall course difficulty must be rated with the Unicycle XC Scale. If multiple laps need to be completed, then the whole distance is the basis for the rating. A minimum score of 20 points is recommended. Courses with scores below 15 points should be labeled “beginner XC” for clarity. If only shorter trails are available, riders can be required to complete two or more laps of the course.

NEW:

A Cross Country course should be held primarily off-road but may consist of gravel and paved roads. There is freedom for the amount of downhill, flat and uphill sections, as long as the course is not primarily downhill or uphill.

Special recommendations for Unicon and Continental Championships:

There are four main categories based on distance and difficulty. The overall course difficulty must be rated with the Unicycle XC Scale. If multiple laps need to be completed, then the total distance is the basis for the rating.

Main categories:
1. Beginners - distance 3-7km, max 15 points Unicycle XC Scale
2. Intermediate - distance 8-13km, 16-21 points Unicycle XC Scale
3. Elite - distance 15-25 km, minimum 24 points Unicycle XC Scale, suggested to last 1h30min for fastest riders.
4. Marathon - longer than 30 km, suggested to last 3-5 hours for fastest riders.

The elite category with subcategories Male and Female is required to be run. Other categories are run on the host discretion.

The Elite Cross Country course should be designed such that the fastest rider completes the race in about 1 hour 30 minutes, but never less than 1 hour. The course should be chosen such that geared riders do not have an undue advantage. Unrideable sections should be avoided to prevent riders from walking however uphill sections may include technical difficulties. Long and gentle uphills are preferred over short and steep ones. If only shorter trails are available, riders can be required to complete multiple laps of the course.

Body

discussion thread

References

Proposal 53: Jumping the gun

Committee: Hockey

Vote Summary:

Passed on January 21, 2017

Votes on this proposal:

8 out of 8 voting members have voted.

Agree: 8, Disagree: 0, Abstain: 0.

Background

see discussion

Proposal

OLD:

14B.8.5 Start and Stop

Starting and resuming the game is always initiated by the Referee’s
whistle.

14C.2.6 General

If the teams start to play even though the game had not been started by
the Referee, it is stopped immediately by two or more quick consecutive
blows of the whistle.

NEW:

14B.8.5 Start and Stop

Starting and resuming the game is always initiated by the Referee's
whistle. If a team starts to play before the Referee's whistle, it is
stopped immediately by two or more quick consecutive blows of the
whistle. Then, the previous Referee ruling is repeated.

14C.2.6 General

(remove the corresponding paragraph from this section)

Body

see discussion

References

Proposal 42: Making double elimination brackets optional

Committee: Flat & Street

Vote Summary:

Passed on January 13, 2017

Votes on this proposal:

8 out of 10 voting members have voted.

Agree: 5, Disagree: 0, Abstain: 3.

Background

Yes you read right. Double elimination brackets are supposed to be mandatory at Unicon, but most of Flatland riders would rather not have double elimination. Let's make it optional!

Proposal

OLD:
10B.6.5.1 Battle Assignments

Battles will proceed according to the following brackets, depending on whether 4, 8, or 16 riders advance. Due

to time constraints the losers bracket may be disregarded at the host’s discretion. At Unicon, the full bracket must

be used in the Jr. Expert and Expert competitions.

http://www.printyourbrackets.com/pdfbrackets/4teamDouble.pdf

http://www.printyourbrackets.com/pdfbrackets/8teamDouble.pdf

http://www.printyourbrackets.com/pdfbrackets/16teamdouble.pdf

NEW:

10B.6.5.1 Battle Assignments

Battles proceed according to the following brackets. The use of the double elimination bracket is optional.

http://www.printyourbrackets.com/pdfbrackets/4teamDouble.pdf

http://www.printyourbrackets.com/pdfbrackets/8teamDouble.pdf

http://www.printyourbrackets.com/pdfbrackets/16teamdouble.pdf

Body

All info up there

References

Proposal 37: New flat definition

Committee: Flat & Street

Vote Summary:

Passed on January 13, 2017

Votes on this proposal:

9 out of 10 voting members have voted.

Agree: 9, Disagree: 0, Abstain: 0.

Background

Updated definition, in accordance to my proposal on the REWRITING of the FLATLAND CHAPTER.

Proposal

NEW: Flatland is a skills competition where riders perform tricks on a flat surface. The competition consists of preliminary rounds, followed by a battle-style final.

OLD: Flatland is a skills competition where riders perform tricks on a flat surface (usually pavement). Judging is based on technical skill, including combinations, transitions be-tween skills, flow, and variety.The competition consists of preliminary rounds, followed by a battle-style final.

Body

All info is there.

References

Proposal 41: Removing "COSTUME & PROPS" from Flatland chapter

Committee: Flat & Street

Vote Summary:

Passed on January 13, 2017

Votes on this proposal:

9 out of 10 voting members have voted.

Agree: 9, Disagree: 0, Abstain: 0.

Background

Hello, this is something that doesn't apply at all to flatland, hence shouldn't belong here. Why talk about something that is not being judge, when all the judging criteria are mentioned shortly after.

Proposal

NEW:
NOTHING

OLD:

10B.7 Costume and Props

Clothing has no influence on the score. Riders are encouraged to dress in the uniform of their national teams or clubs,

or in clothing that represents their teams, groups or countries. No props allowed, other than what is included in the performing area.

Body

All info up there

References

Proposal 27: Definitions of unlimited unicycle, gearing and freewheel #2

Committee: Road

Vote Summary:

Passed on January 15, 2017

Votes on this proposal:

11 out of 17 voting members have voted.

Agree: 11, Disagree: 0, Abstain: 0.

Background

This is a replacement of the proposal started by Maksym due to problems with the discussion.

Present definitions in section 1.D.1 lack for definitions of "gearing" and "transmission".

Proposal include change definition of "Unlimited unicycle" and add definitions of used terms: "Gearing" and "Freewheel"

Proposal

In section: 1.D.1

OLD:

Unlimited unicycle: Multiple wheels are permitted, but only one may touch the ground and nothing else. Is human powered only. Gearing and/or a transmission are allowed.

NEW:

Unlimited unicycle: Is powered, balanced and controlled by the rider only. Gearing, shiftable or not, and/or freewheel are allowed. Multiple wheels are permitted, but it must not be possible to ride the unicycle when more than one wheel touches the ground.

Gearing: Any mechanism that transfers the rotation speed of crank arms to a different rotation speed of wheel.

Freewheel: Mechanism allowing the wheel to rotate while the cranks are stationary.

Body

Previous (closed) Discussion thread here.

References

Proposal 46: Removing "battle manager"

Committee: Flat & Street

Vote Summary:

Passed on January 13, 2017

Votes on this proposal:

9 out of 10 voting members have voted.

Agree: 9, Disagree: 0, Abstain: 0.

Background

The battle manager may be any one of the judges or the time keeper. “Battle manager” is a term never defined or that never existed in the rulebook. This decision can be taken by the chief judge and it's okay like that. A judge may notify the chief judge, and the chief judge works that decision out. No need to create sub sub sub sub sub sub sub sub job titles.

Proposal

OLD:
10C.4.3 Sportsmanship

If a rider distracts or delays other riders, judges, commentator, or shows unsportsmanlike conduct, the judges

may choose to warn or eliminate that rider. The chief judge may decide to name a battle manager to take care of

these decisions. The battle manager may be any one of the judges or the time keeper. “Battle manager” is a term

never defined or that never existed in the rulebook anyway

NEW:

10C.4.3 Sportsmanship

If a rider distracts or delays other riders, judges, commentator, or shows unsportsmanlike conduct, the judges

may choose to warn or eliminate that rider.

Body

All info up there

References

Proposal 12: Trials Finals when there are few competitors

Committee: Trials and Jumps

Vote Summary:

Passed on December 30, 2016

Votes on this proposal:

8 out of 14 voting members have voted.

Agree: 8, Disagree: 0, Abstain: 0.

Background

In this rule it says that the minimum number of riders for a finals is 6. However, it never says anything about what happens if there are fewer than 6 competitors. For example, at NAUCC there are typically fewer than 6 females who compete in the advanced category. This year, there were only 3. And because there weren't enough for finals the females didn't have finals and so there was no North American Female Trials champion despite there being female competitors.

I would suggest amending the rule to have something like, "If there are fewer than six competitors in the highest level category, no final is necessary. The results from the prelims will be taken as the final results and the top rider will be declared the champion."

Proposal

Old: not applicable

New: "If there are fewer than six competitors in the highest level category, no final is necessary. The results from the prelims will be taken as the final results and the top rider will be declared the champion."

Body

All info in background

References

Proposal 18: Multiple touches of ball during free shot rule change

Committee: Hockey

Vote Summary:

Passed on January 24, 2017

Votes on this proposal:

7 out of 8 voting members have voted.

Agree: 7, Disagree: 0, Abstain: 0.

Background

More detail on how the Free Shot and 6.5m penalty should be taken. Details that players may only touch the ball once and that the ball shall be hit with the stick, not dragged, flicked or lifted on the stick.

Proposal

14B.7.1 Free Shot

The free shot is the standard penalty for all violations of the rules. It is applied in all cases except for those explicitly mentioned in sections 14B.7.2–14B.7.4. The free shot

is executed from the point where the violation was done. Exceptions: If a team gets a free shot within the opponents’ goal area, the free shot is executed at the closest corner mark (corner shot). If a team gets a free shot within their own goal area, the free shot is done at a distance of 1 m in front of the goal line (goalkeeper’s ball). The free shot is indirect. The player executing the free shot may only touch the ball once. Then another player has to touch the ball. Opposing players must keep a distance with their unicycles and their sticks of at least 2.0 m from the ball.

New Rule

14B.7.1 Free Shot

The free shot is the standard penalty for all violations of the rules. It is applied in all cases except for those explicitly mentioned in sections 14B.7.2–14B.7.4. The free shot is executed from the point where the violation was done. Exceptions: If a team gets a free shot within the opponents’ goal area, the free shot is executed at the closest corner mark (corner shot). The free shot is indirect. The player executing the free shot may only touch the ball once until a contact by another player occurs. The ball shall be hit with the stick, not dragged, flicked or lifted on the stick. Opposing players must keep a distance with their unicycles and their sticks of at least 2.0 m from the ball.

Old Rule

14B.7.2 6.5 M

If legal playing would have led to a direct chance to score a goal, a “6.5 m” is given. This includes fouls outside the goal area. The ball is placed at the 6.5 m mark. A player of the defending team goes to the goal and must sit with the bottom of the wheel of their unicycle within 0.5 m of the goal line. The other team chooses a player to shoot the 6.5 m. All other players must leave the goal area. After the Referee’s whistle the goalkeeper must ride the unicycle freely and not rest on the goal. If no goal is scored, play continues as soon as the ball touches the post, the keeper touches the ball or the ball crosses the extended goal line.

New Rule

4B.7.2 6.5 M

If legal playing would have led to a direct chance to score a goal, a “6.5 m” is given. This includes fouls outside the goal area. The ball is placed at the 6.5 m mark. A player of the defending team goes to the goal and must sit with the bottom of the wheel of their unicycle within 0.5 m of the goal line. The other team chooses a player to shoot the 6.5 m. All other players must leave the goal area. After the Referee’s whistle the goalkeeper must ride the unicycle freely and not rest on the goal. The ball shall be hit with the stick, not dragged, flicked or lifted on the stick. If no goal is scored, play continues as soon as the ball touches the post, the keeper touches the ball or the ball crosses the extended goal line.

NOTE: Proposal 66 is voting to include the words "The 6.5 m is direct. The player executing the 6.5 m may only touch the ball once." if this is passed proposal 66 should be added BEFORE the words proposed in this addition to the rules.

Body

Explains how a free shot and 6.5 should be executed in regards to slap shots and flick shots.

References

Proposal 22: New Ball Rule

Committee: Hockey

Vote Summary:

Passed on January 01, 2017

Votes on this proposal:

8 out of 8 voting members have voted.

Agree: 8, Disagree: 0, Abstain: 0.

Background

Take out maximum height requirement, put in a minimum height requirement. Word the sentence better to remove confusion.

Proposal

Old Rule

14D.4 Ball

A “dead” tennis ball that reaches 30 percent to 50 percent of its original height after

bouncing onto concrete is used. Alternatively, a street hockey ball can be used. The

choice is made by the hosting organization if the opposing teams do not agree on which

ball to use. The chosen type of ball must be announced well in advance of the competition,

and must be obtainable in all participating countries.

New Rule

14D.4 Ball

A tennis ball that rebounds off concrete greater than 30 percent of the height from which it was dropped is used.

Body

I think this explains it sufficiently

References

Proposal 52: 14B.7.2 6.5m awarded at the end

Committee: Hockey

Vote Summary:

Passed on January 21, 2017

Votes on this proposal:

7 out of 8 voting members have voted.

Agree: 7, Disagree: 0, Abstain: 0.

Background

If a referee blows his whistle during the play time close to a period end, maybe there is no or not enough time to award the prior situation.

For the moment a period/game ends with a sound from the timer/scoreboard and the referee is unable to penalties afterwards.

Allowing a referee to give a 6.5 after the end of the period/game ensures no teams will commit fouls in the last instances of the game to waste the remaining time.

Proposal

Old:

14B.7.2 6.5 M

...

This paragraph tells us nothing about the time to award a 6.5 m

New:

14B.7.2 6.5 M

...

After the last sentence of the above paragraph the following sentence should be added:

A 6.5 m awarded at the end of, or after a time period has ended is still executed but play does not continue after an unsuccessful shot.

Body

Please see discussion.

References

14C.2.4 The Timer "At the end of each period, the Timer stops the game by blowing the whistle."

14B.7 Penalties "In every instance of a violation of the rules the Referee must penalize the offending team,..."

Proposal 24: [Plaform High Jump] Adjusting landing surface area

Committee: Trials and Jumps

Vote Summary:

Passed on January 22, 2017

Votes on this proposal:

8 out of 14 voting members have voted.

Agree: 8, Disagree: 0, Abstain: 0.

Background

Everybody uses pallet for high jump, but the minimal size of landing area of platform high jump is just a tad bigger, making organizer platform high a pain in the ass.

Proposal

OLD:

"The structure consists of two parts: a platform and a landing surface. The top surface of the platform must be at least 120 x 120 cm in size, the maximum and recommended size is 120 cm wide by 160 cm long. The sides of the platform must be nearly perpendicular with the ground to ensure its presence does not hamper riders. The landing surface consists of a flat piece of wood of the same dimensions as the platform (120 x 120 cm to 120 x 160 cm) that is firmly affixed to the top of the platform."

NEW:

"The structure consists of two parts: a platform and a landing surface. The top surface of the platform must be at least 120 x 80 cm in size. The sides of the platform must be nearly perpendicular with the ground to ensure its presence does not hamper riders. The landing surface consists of a flat piece of wood firmly affixed to the top of the platform that is 120 x 80 cm in size. If the top surface of the platform is larger than 120 x 80 cm, the landing surface must be attached to the platform such that one of the 120 cm sides is aligned with the edge of the platform."

Body

Hello,

The current rulebook states:

"The structure consists of two parts: a platform and a landing surface. The top surface of the platform must be at least 120 x 120 cm in size, the maximum and recommended size is 120 cm wide by 160 cm long. The sides of the platform must be nearly perpendicular with the ground to ensure its presence does not hamper riders. The landing surface consists of a flat piece of wood of the same dimensions as the platform (120 x 120 cm to 120 x 160 cm) that is firmly affixed to the top of the platform."

I firmly believe we should change the current measurements for platform high jump landing surface as most rider trains, and all competitions use pallets. Most of the times these pallets will be the "EUR" or "EURO" standard pallet which have a size of 80 x 120cm. Using a pallet and a half makes the competition much slower and very complicated to add or remove cm to the current height of the platform.

So I believe we should just change the 120 x 120cm minium to 120 x 80 cm, which is the size of a pallet.

Even at Unicon the platform high jump were not according to rules as only pallets we used for it, nobody said anything because everybody knows that using pallets is totally fine and was most riders use anyway.

To make it fair across competitions, and since the rider has to stay on top of the pallet for 3 seconds for the jump to be validated, I think the difference in landing area shouldn't be so big. Thus reducing the maximal landing area would make it more fair.

References

EUR-Pallet standard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EUR-pallet

Proposal 50: 5B.5.5 Passing

Committee: Muni (including Cyclocross)

Vote Summary:

Passed on January 16, 2017

Votes on this proposal:

16 out of 21 voting members have voted.

Agree: 15, Disagree: 0, Abstain: 1.

Background

Too precise rule when using naked eye measurement.

Proposal

OLD:

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.

NEW:

5B.5.5 Passing

Riders must keep attention while passing and avoid physical contact as far as possible. Violations of this passing rule may result in disqualification or a time penalty, to be determined and announced before the race start

Body

The actually rule is too elaborated and not workable.

References

Proposal 34: Heat Start

Committee: Road

Vote Summary:

Passed on January 10, 2017

Votes on this proposal:

13 out of 17 voting members have voted.

Agree: 12, Disagree: 1, Abstain: 0.

Background

This rule ensures fair racing conditions for the top male and female riders, those competing for the world champion title. This rule adds a minimal amount of time to the overall in order to achieve this.

Proposal

Old:

4D.9.2 Heat Start

Heats should consist of at least 12 riders, either male or female (no mixed heats). Heats are sorted by speed with the fastest heat going first. Heats should be started every one to five minutes.

Example configuration:

The first three heats might contain the fastest men, then a heat of the fastest women who are of proportionate speed with the third heat of men. This format makes sure that the top women start together while still giving them the opportunity to race and pace off of men of similar speed.

New:

4D.9.2 Heat Start

Heats should consist of at least 12 riders, either male or female (no mixed heats). Heats may vary in size. Heats are sorted by speed with the fastest heat going first. The first heat should be devoted to the fastest males. The second heat should be devoted to the fastest females. The top males and the top females must have equivalent racing conditions. The following heats should be sorted by speed. The time intervals between heats should run as follows:

For non-lapped races, there should be a time interval of at least 5 minutes (for the 10K) or 10 minutes (for the Marathon) between heats 1 and 2, as well as between heats 2 and 3. This is to ensure safe and fair racing for the top male and top female heats.
For lapped races, the time intervals between heats 1, 2, and 3 should be set up such that following heats have the least chance of interfering with the top male and female riders.

Body

See discussion

References

Proposal 33: Route signaling: How, when, and what to do if (even late) changes occur.

Committee: Muni (including Cyclocross)

Vote Summary:

Passed on January 11, 2017

Votes on this proposal:

15 out of 21 voting members have voted.

Agree: 15, Disagree: 0, Abstain: 0.

Background

Unicon 18 Cross Country has shown that lack of signaling can greatly disturb a race: riders getting lost, final ranking being changed, course becoming dangerous, even races being canceled.

This proposal was dedicated to what could be added in the rulebook in order to make the Cross country race more fair in the sense of avoiding riders to get lost.

Proposal

OLD, in 5D Event OrganizerRules/5D.1 Venue/5D.1.3 Cross Country:

..."Courses must be clearly marked, so that riders can easily see where to go".

...

NEW, in a new sub-section named "Route signaling" of chapter 5D.

"Courses must be clearly marked. At each intersection, the right direction must be indicated by at least one of the following ways:

Way 1 : Painting or chalk marking (Only if authorized by authorities). Arrows showing the direction to take must be drawn 5 to 10 meters before the intersection, at the intersection and 5 to 10 meters after the intersection. Crosses must be drawn on each wrong direction at the intersection and 5 to 10 meters after the intersection.

Way 2 : Using bands. Small pieces of bands (<1m) are used instead of arrows to show the right way to go. Longer pieces of bands barring the wrong paths over their entire width are used instead of crosses. These bands can lie on the ground if they cannot be hung in the air because of any restriction.

Way 3 : Using any other clear signaling method. Chipped wood or large signs with printed arrows or crosses are examples. The same spirit of signaling any intersection 5 - 10 meters before, at, and 5 - 10 meters after must be respected, as well as signaling very clearly any wrong direction at the intersection, and 5 - 10 meters after it.

Any element of the route such as ground, trees, rocks, barriers can be used for marking or hanging bands, as long as the result is easily visible and not likely to be erased/removed by the passage of riders or other occupants. If the weather forecast predicts rain, prefer Way 2 or 3 to Way 1. At major intersections, having a volunteer signaling the correct way, in addition to marks or bands, is highly recommended. Any way of signaling can also be used on any long section between intersections, only to confirm riders that they are still on the right track.

If authorized by authorities, an effort must be made to mark the courses a few days before they occur, so riders can practice on it.

Any change in the track from the one given in the website/book must be announced by email as soon as this is known, even if this is a short amount of time before the race. If the change occurs the day of the race, riders must also be told on the start line that there has been a change."

Body

After discussion, this proposal was extended to also apply for Uphills & Downhills as we can expect to have longer Uphills and Downhills in next competitions.

References

Proposal 86: Delete 4D.7, Race configuration

Committee: Road

Vote Summary:

Passed on January 26, 2017

Votes on this proposal:

11 out of 17 voting members have voted.

Agree: 11, Disagree: 0, Abstain: 0.

Background

See Body

Proposal

Sorry about the misleading Proposal title. Initially, I wanted to merge 4D.7 and 4D.9, keeping only 4D.9.
While writing the proposal, I decided otherwise, but I forgot to reflect that in the title. Now I can revise the proposal itself, but not its title.

OLD RULE:

4D.7 Race Configuration
All riders may race together and be separated by age group afterward.
Riders can be divided by age and/or unicycle type, such as 24” and 700c track unicycles,
Standard (any size wheel and cranks), and Unlimited (see definition in chapter 1D.1).

4D.9 Starting Configuration
.....
Standard racers should always start separately from Unlimited racers, also in the case of a mass start or heat starts. Unlimited racers should start first, unless there is no risk that Unlimited riders have to pass standard riders (for example they race on different days).
.....

NEW RULE:

4D.7 Race Configuration
Riders are usually divided by age group and unicycle type, such as Class 24 versus Class 29 track unicycles, and/or Standard (any size wheel and cranks) versus Unlimited (see definitions in chapter 1D.1).

4D.9 Starting Configuration
.....
The various classes may share the race course, but Standard racers should always start separately from Unlimited racers, also in the case of mass starts. Unlimited racers should start first, unless there is no risk that Unlimited riders have to pass standard riders (for example they race on different days).
.....

Body

The current 4D.7 Race Configuration and 4D.9, Starting Configuration seem contradictory, or at least confusing, in that 4D.7 states that Riders CAN be divided by unicycle type such as Standard and Unlimited, while 4D.9 says that Standard racers should ALWAYS start separately from Unlimited racers.

I think what is meant is that if the same course is used for Standard and Unlimited, they must start separately (as per 4D.9), but one class doesn't need to finish before the other starts. So they may be on the same course at the same time. By the way, starting separately doesn't necessarily mean "at different moments". The starts might also occur simultaneously but be separated spatially, e.g. Standard starts at point A, and at the same time Unlimited starts at point B on the other side of the loop. This would probably not be very practical, though.

The first sentence of 4D.7 has moved to 4D.9 (in edited form), see the first 8 words of 4D.9. The remainder of 4D.7 has stayed there, but is also edited.

The two quoted sentences of 4D.9 are to be replaced by the two proposed sentences, in the same place.

Note that no rule changes are intended with this proposal, just a clarification of the existing rules.

And let me say once more: I think the whole Rulebook needs a close read by a thorough native English speaker (or perhaps several of them) to clear up issues like this. This was really only an example. With the new structure of the Rulebook, it just got worse.

References

Proposal 64: 5B.5.6.1 Dismounts: Uphill

Committee: Muni (including Cyclocross)

Vote Summary:

Passed on January 21, 2017

Votes on this proposal:

11 out of 21 voting members have voted.

Agree: 11, Disagree: 0, Abstain: 0.

Background

In case of an amount of riders, trying to get over a difficult section, referees have a hard job to determine the point of remount of each rider.

Proposal

OLD:

5B.5.6.1 Dismounts: Uphill

If the Uphill race is run as a time trial, riders are intended to ride the entire distance.

In the event of a dismount, the rider must remount the unicycle:

(a) At the point where the dismount occurred if the unicycle falls back down the course

toward the start.

(b) Where the unicycle and/or rider come to a stop after dismounting. Excessive

running/walking/stumbling after a dismount may be grounds for a penalty at the

discretion of the Referee.

to remount, if they prefer the terrain there.

NEW:

5B.5.6.1 Dismounts: Uphill

Riders must ride the entire course. In the event of a dismount, the rider must remount the unicycle at the location of the wheel at the moment of the dismount. Riders may also choose to back up (toward the start line) to remount, if they prefer the terrain there.

Body

This rule-change is intended to facilitate the job of the referees especially in case of an amount of riders in difficult sections. Moreover it should help a bit to avoid large amounts of riders at difficult points.

References

Proposal 63: 5B.5.7 Finishes

Committee: Muni (including Cyclocross)

Vote Summary:

Passed on January 21, 2017

Votes on this proposal:

11 out of 21 voting members have voted.

Agree: 11, Disagree: 0, Abstain: 0.

Background

The CX in Spain showed that the actually rule is not working well.

Moreover the rule should respect situations like "broken unicycle, injured rider"

Proposal

OLD:

5B.5.7 Finishes

Riders must also ride completely across the ﬁnish line.

Riders must cross the line mounted and in control of the unicycle. “Control” is deﬁned

by the rearmost part of the wheel crossing completely over the ﬁnish line with the rider

having both feet on the pedals. In the event of a dismount at the ﬁnish line the rider

must back up, remount and ride across the ﬁnish line again.

NEW:

5B.5.7 Finishes

At Unicons and continental championships, a camera has to be set up by the Muni Officials (section 5C) to record the finish line from a suitable angle. The official footage from this camera serves as evidence in case of dismounts over the finish line or other protests after the race. Further requirements on finishes depends on disciplines:

UPHILL
Riders must cross the finish-line mounted on the unicycle, having both feet on the pedals. In the event of a dismount at the ﬁnish line the rider must back up, remount and ride across the ﬁnish line again.

CROSS COUNTRY AND DOWNHILL

Riders can cross the finish-line mounted as well as walking. To respect that riding over the finish-line requires more skill in case of close finishes, walking as well as falling over the finish-line will be penalized by adding 10 penalty-seconds.

OLD: (Cyclocross)

6B.5.5 Finishes

Riders must ride mounted completely across the ﬁnish line. They may not run across

the ﬁnish line.

Riders must cross the line mounted and in control of the unicycle. “Control” is deﬁned

by the rearmost part of the wheel crossing completely over the ﬁnish line with the rider

having both feet on the pedals. In the event of a dismount at the ﬁnish line the rider

must back up, remount and ride across the ﬁnish line again.

NEW: (Cyclocross)

6B.5.5 Finishes

Riders can cross the finish-line mounted as well as walking or running.

Body

This rule-change should facilitate the job for timing-people and the referees at the finish line, especially in CX. In XC and DH competitors should be allowed to finish the race even in case of defect (unridable) unicycle. The new rule should respect that riding over the finish-line needs more skill than walking.

References

Proposal 69: 14B.2 Unicycles (Maximum wheel size from 618 to 640 mm)

Committee: Hockey

Vote Summary:

Passed on January 21, 2017

Votes on this proposal:

7 out of 8 voting members have voted.

Agree: 3, Disagree: 0, Abstain: 4.

Background

Discussions about possible pros of allowing the same size wheel as Basketball suggest that allowing slightly larger wheels could have an overall benefit are unlikely to have negatives.

The pro's of allowing a 640mm tyre

Enables more participation from new riders who may not have a legal unicycle to take part without modification to their unicycle (even the Nimbus E-Sport 24"" Baskeball unicycle which looks like a decent all round unicycle if you want a 24" is slightly over 618mm

May increase participation from Unicycle basketball players as they are unlikely to have a hockey legal tyre and unlikely to swap tyres over to play hockey. Forces them to choose one sport.
May enable a league of some type in the future in basketball dominated countries (France) There are a few serious teams in France that I know of, they would struggle to set up a league and draw in more teams/players when most don't have a legal tyre.
For the moment it fixes most issues with "legal tyres"
24" wheels are becoming less common in the bike world and with it less tyres. I know the Halo tyre was previously used as a good tyre with legal size however I think this is no longer made. Enabling a larger size enables a greater number of tyres to be sourced.

The cons of allowing a 640mm tyre

You are still going to have the problem of having to measure tyres that are near the maximum allowable size.
You will have to make a new tyre measurement box
Goalies will have more goal covered - yes this is true by a small amount. Everyone will be allowed to use the same size however and the goalie must weigh up the difference in harder to move their wheel quickly vs covering an extra 2cm of goal. Most good shooters should not be affected by the small increase.

Proposal

Old Rule: Only standard unicycles may be used. The maximum wheel size is 618 mm (24”). The unicycles must not have sharp or protruding parts anywhere that might cause injuries. This refers especially to quick-release levers and bolts. The pedals must be plastic or rubber.

New Rule: Only standard unicycles may be used. The maximum wheel size is 640 mm (24”). The unicycles must not have sharp or protruding parts anywhere that might cause injuries. This refers especially to quick-release levers and bolts. The pedals must be plastic or rubber.

Body

Note: In line with Proposal 1: Rule 14B.2 Unicycles - Maximum Wheel Size Clarification, it is possible that the wording describing maximum wheel size could change from "OLD: The maximum wheel size is 618 mm (24")" to "NEW: The maximum outer diameter of the wheel is 618 mm)"

THIS PROPOSAL will word itself in line with the unchanged rule with the only change being the SIZE in millimetres of the wheel. If the other proposal should pass the wording describing maximum wheel size will change.

References

Proposal 76: Amendment to Second Attempt after Hindrance or Interference

Committee: Track and Field

Vote Summary:

Passed on January 29, 2017

Votes on this proposal:

8 out of 14 voting members have voted.

Agree: 8, Disagree: 0, Abstain: 0.

Background

See Body (what is the difference in the first place?)

Proposal

OLD RULE (Note: this is not from the old rulebook, but from the passed proposal regarding this section):

PROPOSED RULE:

2B.6.14 Second Attempt After Hindrance or Interference

If a rider is hindered due to the actions of another rider, or outside interference, either during the start or during the race, he may request to make a second attempt. The Referee decides if the request is granted. A second attempt must not be granted to a rider who is disqualified based on something that happened before he was hindered.

No complete definition of hindrance or interference can be given, but it does include cases where a rider swerves, hesitates and/or decelerates because this is arguably necessary in order to avoid a crash or potential crash.

If the request is granted, the Referee has two options:
Option 1. Re-run the whole heat in question. In general, this option is preferred only if the heat includes the fastest riders within an age group. For the other riders in the heat, riding again is optional. If they decide to ride again, they agree to discard their previous result. If they don’t ride again, their previous result stands. If none of the other riders want to ride again, the Referee reverts to option 2.
Option 2. Do any of (a), (b) or (c), depending on the conditions. In general, this option is preferred if the heat in question did not include the fastest riders within an age group:
(a) If possible, the rider is added to an upcoming heat in his own age group; or
(b) If possible, the rider is added to an upcoming heat in another age group; or
(c) If none of the above is possible, the rider does his second attempt in a dedicated heat. The rider decides if he wants company or not. He can pick the riders, but cannot hold up the proceedings to wait for them if other riders are available. The Referee has the final say as to which extra riders are allowed to participate in such a heat. It must be stated clearly to any accompanying riders that their result is not official.

In all cases, if the hindered rider is allowed to do a second attempt and decides to do so, his first run is cancelled and only his second run counts regardless of the result. In the case where a second attempt was incorrectly granted, for example when the rider was disqualified based on something that happened before the hindrance in question occurred, the result of the second attempt for that rider does not count and the result from the first run stands.

In non-lane races, if a rider is forced to dismount due to a fall by the rider immediately in front, it is considered part of the race—not a reason to grant a second attempt—and all riders involved may remount and continue. The Referee can override this rule if intentional interference is observed.

Body

My proposal to change 2B.6.14 Second Attempt After Interference has already passed, but I propose yet another change:

The essential change is that in case of a whole-heat re-run, riders who opt to ride again must give up their previous result. In the proposal that has passed, this was merely an option for them.
Besides, with so many options the text became unclear. I have tried to structure it better, intending not to change the meaning (except for the above change).

See discussion for details.

References

Proposal 70: Protest time

Committee: Track and Field

Vote Summary:

Passed on January 21, 2017

Votes on this proposal:

9 out of 14 voting members have voted.

Agree: 8, Disagree: 0, Abstain: 1.

Background

For smaller events where the finals are held subsequent to the age group heats 30 minutes protest time are a long time. With the new rule we want to give hosts of this conventions the power to shorten the default protest time of 30 minutes to a protest time of minimum 15 minutes. Provided that every deviation from the default has to be clearly announced, including stating the protest deadline on the results list itself.

Proposal

Old rule:

2B.4 & 3B.4 Protests

Protests must be filed on an official form within 30 minutes of the posting of event results. For a large event (like Unicon) this period should be extended to 60 minutes, if possible. The time may also be extended for riders who have to be in other races during the protest period. All protests will be handled within 30 minutes from the time they are received. Mistakes in paperwork, inaccuracies in placing, and interference from other riders or other sources are all grounds for protests. All Referee decisions are final, and cannot be protested.

==================

Proposed new rule:

2B.4 & 3B.4 Protests

Protests must be filed on an official form. Mistakes in paperwork, inaccuracies in placing, and interference from other riders or other sources are all grounds for protests. All Referee decisions are final, and cannot be protested. For a large event such as Unicon or continental championships, the default protest time is 60 minutes (counting from the posting of results), the minimum is 30 minutes. For smaller events, the default protest time is 30 minutes, the minimum is 15 minutes. Every deviation from the default protest time has to be clearly announced when the results are posted, including stating the protest deadline on the results list itself. The protest time may be extended for riders who have to be in other races during the protest period. All protests will be acknowledged within 30 minutes from the time they are received, and an effort will be made to settle the issue within those 30 minutes.

Body

See discussion for more details.

References

Proposal 62: Move race distance requirements from "Wheel Size Classes" to the appropriate section in Event Flow

Committee: Track and Field

Vote Summary:

Passed on January 21, 2017

Votes on this proposal:

9 out of 14 voting members have voted.

Agree: 9, Disagree: 0, Abstain: 0.

Background

This proposal originates from Discussion #52 "Maximum Wheel Size Clarification". I noticed that the distance of Wheel Walk and Ultimate Wheel are given under "Wheel Size Categories" and nowhere else. This proposal is to move it to where it belongs. No changes in the actual rules are intended, but I did tighten up the wording a little.

By the way, a separate proposal will be (or has been) submitted to replace"Categories" by "Classes".

Proposal

OLD RULE

2B.5 Wheel Size Categories
All riders in age groups with a maximum age of 10 or younger will race a 10m Wheel Walk, and 10m Ultimate Wheel, if used (instead of 30m).

2B.6.5 Wheel Walk Race
(race distance is not addressed)

3B.6.11 Ultimate Wheel Race
... The traditional distance is 10m for 0-10 riders, and 30m for 11-UP riders. ...

= = = = = = =

NEW RULE

2B.5 Wheel Size Categories
(delete above sentence)

2B.6.5 Wheel Walk Race
(add at the end) Riders in age groups with a maximum age of 10 or younger will race a 10m Wheel Walk. All other riders will race a 30m Wheel Walk.

3B.6.11 Ultimate Wheel Race
(replace that sentence by) ... Traditionally, for riders in age groups with a maximum age of 10 or younger the race distance is 10m, while for all other riders it is 30m. ...

Body

(Repeated from background)

This proposal originates from Discussion #52 "Maximum Wheel Size Clarification". I noticed that the distance of Wheel Walk and Ultimate Wheel are given under "Wheel Size Categories" but it doesn't belong there. This proposal is to move it to where it belongs. No changes in the actual rules are intended, but I did tighten up the wording a little.

By the way, a separate proposal will be (or has been) submitted to replace"Categories" by "Classes".

References

Proposal 57: Qualification round results for Slow Races should be published

Committee: Track and Field

Vote Summary:

Passed on January 23, 2017

Votes on this proposal:

9 out of 14 voting members have voted.

Agree: 8, Disagree: 1, Abstain: 0.

Background

See Body.

Proposal

3B.6.4.3

OLD RULE

(does not specify this)

NEW RULE

(to be added at the end of 3B.6.4.3)

Results of both the Preliminary and the Final Rounds will be published.

Body

This issue has been discussed in Discussion #76 "Slow races: why no age group ranking? why are qualification round results not published?". I have created a separate proposal about Age Group ranking which is linked to said discussion, since this was the most contentional issue. The present proposal addresses the publication of qualification round results. The reason this is a separate proposal, is that we can separate votes on it, rather than accept or reject them only as a combination.

At Unicons, the new system of Qualification and Final Rounds has only been used once (Unicon18, Spain). I was surprised that the results of the Qualification Round were not published. According to 1C.17, all results should be published, including details such as time and distance. To me this is only logical, because the essence of a competition is that all riders see their results published, not just the riders in the Final. And surely the Preliminary Round is part of the competition?

Just to be sure, I propose that we include a statement to this effect in the rules under Slow Races.

See also Background and Discussion #76 for more information.

References

Proposal 78: Revamping Event Flow part

Committee: Flat & Street

Vote Summary:

Passed on January 22, 2017

Votes on this proposal:

6 out of 10 voting members have voted.

Agree: 6, Disagree: 0, Abstain: 0.

Background

Hello,

this is mainly a structural thing, a few sentences changed though. There was a lot of repeated information, especially for last trick. I redivided into clearer sections so it's easier to follow how the event is ran, and that no information is repeated.

Now flatland is divided into 2 sections

Preliminary round & Battles.

Each section is divided into parts.

Preliminary round:
-Timed preliminary
-Last trick (preliminary)

Battles:
-Times battles
-Last trick (battles)
-number of competitors... (same)
-Battle assignments... (same)

Last trick in preliminary are battles are different so they needed a separate paragraph each.

Proposal

NEW:

10B.6 Event Flow

10B.6.1 Riders Must Be Ready

The Chief Judge chooses how to handle the riders who are not ready at their scheduled competition time. They may be disqualified or allowed to perform after the last competitor in their age group.

10B.6.3 Preliminary Round

Each rider’s preliminary round is divided in two parts, “timed preliminary” and “last trick”. Top scoring riders of the preliminary round will continue to the battle finals.

10B.6.3.1 Timed Preliminary

The preliminary round is 1 minute. Any tricks completed after the 1 minute has elapsed will not be counted. If the rider is in a combo when the time ends, they are not allowed to start another trick and extend the combo, they must end their combo with their current trick. Once the time is up, the rider moves from “timed preliminary” to “last trick”.

10B.6.3.2 Last Trick (Preliminary)

There are 2 attempts in the preliminary round. The rider is not obligated to use all attempts or to try the same trick every attempt. Riders may skip an attempt. Only the last attempt will be scored. A failed attempt does not subtract from the score.

10B.6.4 Battles

In a Flatland battle, two riders compete head to head, taking turns performing tricks. Battles are separated into two parts; “timed battle” and “last trick”. The winner of each battle is determined immediately after the battle by the judges. The winner continues to the next battle and the loser is eliminated, unless the battle is in a double-elimination bracket.

10B.6.4.1 Timed Battle

Battles last 2 minutes each. Semi-Final and Final battles last 2 to 4 minutes, upon agreement of battling riders. The rider with better ranking from the preliminary round chooses which rider starts the battle. There are 2 countdown timers, one for each rider (each with half the battle duration). The corresponding rider’s timer will be started and stopped when they start and stop riding. Any tricks completed after the rider’s time has elapsed will not be counted. If the rider is in a combo when the time ends, they are not allowed to start another trick and extend the combo, they must end their combo with their current trick.. After one rider’s time runs out, the other rider will ride for their remaining time. Once the time is up for both riders, the riders go from “timed battle” to “last trick”.

10B.6.4.2 Last Trick (Battles)

There are 3 last trick attempts for each rider in battles. The rider who started the battle starts the last trick. Riders will take turns attempting their last trick. Riders are not obligated to use all attempts or to try the same trick every attempt. Riders may skip an attempt. Only the last attempt will be scored. Other failed attempts do not subtract from the score.

10B.6.4.3 Number Of Competitors Entering Battles* (currently a separate proposal)

The highest-scoring competitors from the preliminary round proceed onto the final battles. The number of competitors that move onto the finals is determined by a vote from the judges, but it cannot be more than 16 riders. Only a simple majority is needed for the vote. If a number of other 4, 8 or 16 is chosen, byes are used to expand the group of rider to the next largest bracket. (E.g. 11 riders would use the 16 rider bracket and the top 5 riders would have a bye for the first round of battles)

10B.6.4.4 Battle Assignments

Battles proceed according to the following brackets. The use of the double elimination bracket is optional.

http://www.printyourbrackets.com/pdfbrackets/4teamDouble.pdf http://www.printyourbrackets.com/pdfbrackets/8teamDouble.pdf http://www.printyourbrackets.com/pdfbrackets/16teamdouble.pdf

OLD:

10B.8 Event Flow

10B.8.1 Riders Must Be Ready

Riders who are not ready at their scheduled competition time may or may not be allowed

to perform after the last competitor in their age group.

10B.8.2 Competition Format

Riders perform a one minute preliminary run and the top riders continue on to tournamentstyle

Battle finals.

10B.8.3 Preliminary Round

The preliminary round will last one minute. No tricks after time is called will be counted.

If a rider is in a combo when their time ends, they may end the trick they are performing

but are not allowed to go into another trick. After the time has ended, the rider has 3

attemps to perform a last trick.

10B.8.4 Battle-style Overview

In a Flatland battle, two riders compete head-to-head, taking turns performing lines of

tricks. The winner of each battle is determined immediately following the battle by the

judges. The winner continues to the next battle and the loser is eliminated.

At the conclusion of each battle, the rider(s) will have 3 attempts to perform a last

trick.

10B.8.5 Number Of Competitors Entering Battles

The final battles will consist of up to the 16 highest-scoring riders. To decide on the

number, the judges will vote. A simple majority is needed to decide whether 4, 8, or

16 riders will advance. However, a number other than 4, 8, or 16 may be chosen if the

judges unanimously agree that a different number would be more conducive to the goal

of producing the most exciting battles for riders and spectators. In this case, byes would

be used for this group to fit the next largest bracket (for example, 11 riders would use

the 16 rider bracket, and the top 5 riders would get a bye for the first round of battles).

10B.8.5.1 Battle Assignments

Battles will proceed according to the following brackets, depending on whether 4, 8, or

16 riders advance. Due to time constraints the losers bracket may be disregarded at the

host’s discretion. At Unicon, the full bracket must be used in the Jr. Expert and Expert

competitions.

http://www.printyourbrackets.com/pdfbrackets/4teamDouble.pdf

http://www.printyourbrackets.com/pdfbrackets/8teamDouble.pdf

http://www.printyourbrackets.com/pdfbrackets/16teamdouble.pdf

10B.8.6 Battle Finals

Each battle will last two minutes, except for the final 4 battles. These semifinal and

final battles will last three minutes, unless another duration between 2 and 4 minutes

is agreed upon by both riders. The rider with the better ranking from the preliminary

round must choose if he or she wishes to start the battle or go second (and may ask the

other rider for a preference). There will be two countdown timers, one for each rider,

and each of these will be set to one minute. Each timer will be started and stopped

when each rider starts and stops. Riders should aim to complete each turn in about 15

seconds. No tricks after time is called will be counted. If a rider is in a combo when

their time ends, they may end the trick they are performing but are not allowed to go

into another trick. After one rider’s time runs out, the other rider will ride for the rest

of their time and then both will proceed to Last Trick. The rider who started the battle

will also go first for the last trick. The riders must alternate between attempts until

they complete the trick or use up all attempts.

Body

All info up there

References

Proposal 83: Moving workshop responsibility from Event Organizer to Flatland Director.

Committee: Flat & Street

Vote Summary:

Passed on January 22, 2017

Votes on this proposal:

6 out of 10 voting members have voted.

Agree: 6, Disagree: 0, Abstain: 0.

Background

Hello,

This proposal is about this paragraph:

10D.6 Judges Workshop

The hosts of the convention must provide for a judge’s workshop at least 24 hours prior to the start of the first competition. A minimum of 3 hours must be set aside, in a classroom or similar environment. If possible, it is strongly recommended to have more than one workshop to accommodate schedules. Variations on this can be approved by the Chief Judge. Workshop schedule(s) must be announced to all judges at least three weeks prior to the start of the competition.

Now that we know what we are talking about. Here is the deal. This is a second try for a similar proposal that has failed. I think it was misunderstood. The point is not to remove the workshop for judging from Flatland event, but rather have it organized by the right people.

As of now, the Event Organizer must set the judges workshop. I believe this responsibility should be of the Flatland director. I also believe that the content of this paragraph includes rules that have never been followed ever and that will not be followed ever either, so it would be pointless to keep it as is. Here is the reality of flatland:

No workshop ever lasted 3 hours.
No workshop has ever been done a minium 24 hours prior to the first competition.
No workshop schedule has ever been announced a minimum of 3 weeks prior to the competition.

So why keep a paragraph with unrealistic rules that have never been followed (and really most likely will never be)?

So once again for people getting scared of being no workshop, worry not, there still is! All the information is under the "10C Judges and Officials Rules" rather than 10D Event Organizer Rules". So we would keep the little bits of information that is important in current 10D.6 (having a workshop) and include it in 10C.3.4 Training [of Judges].

Here is what "Training" chapter would look like

10C.3.4 Training
The judges workshop is set by the Flatland Director or Chief Judge*. The Chief Judge* runs the workshop. The workshop must be help before the competition. Judges should have read the rules prior to the start of the workshop. The workshop will include a practice session. Each judge will read the rules, attend the workshop agree to follow the rules and agree to their potential removal from the list of available judges if accuracy scores show excessive judges weaknesses, as determined by the Chief Judge.

*Note that the Flatland Director and the Chief Judge might be the same person.

Proposal

NEW:
10C.3.4 Training
The judges workshop is set by the Flatland Director or Chief Judge*. Either the Flatland Director or the Chief Judge run the workshop. The workshop must be help before the competition. Judges should have read the rules prior to the start of the workshop. The workshop will include a practice session. Each judge will read the rules, attend the workshop agree to follow the rules and agree to their potential removal from the list of available judges if accuracy scores show excessive judges weaknesses, as determined by the Chief Judge.

OLD:

10D.6 Judges Workshop

Body

All info up there.

References

Proposal 73: Preface

Committee: Hockey

Vote Summary:

Passed on January 24, 2017

Votes on this proposal:

7 out of 8 voting members have voted.

Agree: 7, Disagree: 0, Abstain: 0.

Background

see discussion

Proposal

OLD:

14A.1 Definition

Hockey on unicycles is similar to floor hockey. Normal hockey sticks are
used. A tennis ball is used in place of a puck. Players on the court,
including the goalie, must be mounted on their unicycle in order to
participate in the play.

NEW:

14A.1 Preface

Unicycle hockey is a variant of hockey which is played on unicycles with
a tennis ball. It is usually played in a gym. These rules cannot cover
every situation. Teams have to agree on a specific amount of elbowroom
before playing. The different backgrounds of the players and the
conditions of the location have to be considered. Fairness of everyone
involved is vital.

Body

see discussion

References

Proposal 81: Selecting judges and rating their performance

Committee: Flat & Street

Vote Summary:

Passed on January 22, 2017

Votes on this proposal:

6 out of 10 voting members have voted.

Agree: 6, Disagree: 0, Abstain: 0.

Background

To clarify and simplify the selection of judges. Some repeated or useless information thrown out + making the rule consistant with their sentence structure.

Here are differences:

10C.3 Judges

10C.3.1 Judging Panel

There must always be an odd number of judges to prevent ties.

10C.3.2 Selecting Judges

A person should not judge an event if he or she is:

1. A parent, child or sibling of a rider competing in the event.

2. An individual or team coach, manager, trainer, colleague who is member of the same club (specified in the registration form) colleague’s family etc. of a as a rider competing in the event.

3. More than one judge from the same family on the same judging panel. judging the same event at the same time.

If the judging pool is too limited by the above criteria, restrictions can be eliminated starting from the bottom of the list and working upward as necessary only until

enough judges are available. If there are some candidates who have the same level of restrictions and judging score, their agreement about publishing the results

need to be considered. The eliminations must be agreed upon by the Chief Judge and Flatland Director, or next-highest ranking street oﬃcial if the Chief Judge and

Flatland Director are the same person.

10C.3.3 Judging Panel May Not Change

The individual members of the judging panel must remain the same for an entire category; for example one judge may not be replaced by another except between categories. In the event of an medical or other emergency, this rule can be waived by the Chief Judge.

10C.3.3.1 Rating Judge Performance

Judges are rated by comparing their scores to those of other judges at previous competitions. Characteristics of Judging Weaknesses: If a judge’s performance is determined to be too weak, they may be removed from the judging panel.

• Excessive Ties: Using ties frequently (it defeats the purpose of judging.) A judge should be able to diﬀerentiate between competitors. Though tying is most definitely acceptable, excessive use of tying defeats the pur-pose of judging.

• Group Bias: If a judge places members of a certain group or nation significantly lower or higher than other judges. diﬀerent from the other judges. This includes a judge placing members significantly higher or significantly lower (a judge may be harsher on his or her own group members) than the other judges.

• Inconsistent Placing: If a judge places a large number of riders significantly diﬀerent from the average of the other judges.

Proposal

NEW:

10C.3 Judges

10C.3.1 Panel

There must always be an odd number of judges to prevent ties.

10C.3.2 Selection

A person should not judge an event if they are any of the following:

A parent, child or sibling of a rider competing in the event.

A coach, manager, trainer or colleague of the same club/team as a rider competing in the event.

More than one judge from the same family on the same judging panel.

If the judging pool is too limited by the above criteria, restrictions can be eliminated starting from the bottom of the list and working upward as necessary, but only until enough judges are available.

10C.3.3 Panel May Not Change

The individual members of the judging panel must remain the same for an entire category. In the event of an emergency, this rule can be waived by the Chief Judge.

10C.3.3.1 Performance Rating

Judges are rated by comparing their scores to those of other judges at previous competitions. If a judge’s performance is determined to be too weak, they may be removed from the judging panel.

Excessive Ties: Using ties frequently (it defeats the purpose of judging.)
Bias: Placing members of certain groups or nations significantly lower or higher than other judges.
Inconsistence: Ranking a large number of riders significantly different from the average of other judges.

OLD:

10C.3 Judges

10C.3.1 Panel

There must always be an odd number of judges to prevent ties.

10C.3.2 Selection

A person should not judge an event if they are any of the following:

A parent, child or sibling of a rider competing in the event.

A coach, manager, trainer or colleague of the same club (specified in reg. form) as a rider competing in the event.

More than one judge from the same family on the same judging panel.

10C.3.3 Panel May Not Change

The individual members of the judging panel must remain the same for an entire category. In the event of an emergency, this rule can be waived by the Chief Judge.

10C.3.3.1 Performance Rating

Judges are rated by comparing their scores to those of other judges at previous competitions. If a judge’s performance is determined to be too weak, they may be removed from the judging panel.

Body

All info up there

References

Proposal 84: Flatland Director + Chief Judge new definitions

Committee: Flat & Street

Vote Summary:

Passed on January 22, 2017

Votes on this proposal:

6 out of 10 voting members have voted.

Agree: 6, Disagree: 0, Abstain: 0.

Background

Hello,

Often in smaller competition the Flatland Director and Chief Judge are the same person. I thought it would be important to indicate this. Here are some updated definitions with a goal of making them shorter and clearer to what their purpose are.

Note: 10C.3.3 Judging Panel May Not Change is already a section, so this text can be removed from these sections.

Proposal

NEW:

10C.1 Flatland Director
Flatland Director is the head organizer and administrator of Flatland. With the convention host, they are responsible for the event logistics, the equipment and the system used to run the event. They must select the Chief Judge. They are in charge of keeping the event on schedule and answering questions about the event. The Flatland Director is the highest authority on everything to do with the Flatland competition, except for decisions on rules and results.

10C.2 Chief Judge

The Chief Judge is the head Flatland official. They are responsible for selecting the judges, overseeing the competition, handling protests, ensuring the event rules are followed, and answering questions about the rules and judging. The Chief Judge is also responsible for the accuracy of all judging point tabulations and calculations.
An interruption of judging can result from material damage, injury of a competitor or interference with a competitors by a person or object. The Chief Judge determines if the rider is at fault. If they are not, the Chief Judge chooses when to insert the rider back into the competition, along with the rider's remaining time. The Chief Judge may be the same person as the Flatland director.

OLD:

10C.1. Flatland Director

The Flatland Director is the head organizer and administrator of the flatland competi-tion. With the Convention Host, the Flatland Director determines the system used to run the event. The Flatland Director is responsible for the logistics and equipment for all flatland events. With the Chief Judge, the Flatland Director is in charge of keeping events running on schedule, and answers all questions not pertaining to rules and judg-ing. The Flatland Director is the highest authority on everything to do with the flatland competition, except for decisions on rules and results.

10C.2 Chief Judge

The Chief Judge is the head flatland official, whose primary job is to make sure therules are followed. The Chief Judge oversees the competition, deals with protests, and answers all rules and judging questions. The Chief Judge is responsible for seeing thatall judges are trained and ready. The Chief Judge is also responsible for the accuracy of all judging point tabulations and calculations. The Chief Judge will remember to consider language barriers, and that riders may be engaged in convention work to slow them down. A rider may not perform before a different set of judges than those that judged the rest of their age group. An interruption of judging can result from material damage, injury or sudden illness ofa competitor, or interference with a competitor by a person or object. If this happens, the Chief Judge determines the amount of time left and whether any damage may be the fault of the competitor. Re-admittance into competition must happen within the regulatory competition time. If a routine is continued and the competitor was not at fault for the interruption, all devaluations coming forth from the interruption will be withdrawn.

Body

All info up there.

References

Proposal 75: Guidelines for penalties

Committee: Hockey

Vote Summary:

Passed on January 24, 2017

Votes on this proposal:

7 out of 8 voting members have voted.

Agree: 7, Disagree: 0, Abstain: 0.

Background

see discussion

Proposal

OLD:

14B.7.5 Penalty Box

The Referee can send a player off the field for two minutes, five minutes or for the remainder of the game. This is done in the case of unsporting behavior and also for intentional or dangerous disregard of the rules. While a player is in the penalty box, the team may not substitute a replacement for that player.

---------------------

NEW:

14B.7.5 Penalty Box

The referees should consider the following guidelines when punishing a player:

2 minutes:

Intentional delay of the game
Repeated fouls by the same player
Intentional foul
Dangerous play
Backchat to referee (Constant backtalking to the referee or questioning decisions)
Intentional usage of incorrect equipment and clothing
Intentionally having too many player on the field

5 minutes:

Repeated fouls of a player who has already received 2 minutes before
Intentional dangerous foul
Violent conduct against other players, their team officials or spectators

Off for the remainder of the game:

Repeated fouls of a player who has already received 5 minutes before
Repeated violence of a player who has already received 5 minutes before
Violence against referees

Body

see discussion

References

Proposal 49: Pubblication of the informations about the racing courses and practice possibilities

Committee: Muni (including Cyclocross)

Vote Summary:

Passed on January 16, 2017

Votes on this proposal:

16 out of 21 voting members have voted.

Agree: 15, Disagree: 0, Abstain: 1.

Background

At UNICON 18 in Spain there were no official practice possibilities for the XC course. The GPS-track was even not pubblished.

Proposal

OLD:

5D.3 Communication

The host must publish two lists of results for each discipline after the competition: Age
group based ranking and overall ranking (separating male/female).
If the hosts wish to include events other than the first three (Up, DH, XC), they must
remember to provide detailed rules for these events at the same time the events are
announced.
Details of all non-track racing events, or other events with unique courses or details
must be published as soon as they are known. This is to provide competitors with the
information they need to train, and to help them prepare the appropriate unicycles.
These are major needs for attendees from far away. Necessary details depend on the
event, but include things like course length, elevation and elevation change, steepness,
level of terrain difficulty, amount of turns, riding surfaces, course width, etc. Maps should
be provided when possible. While sometimes courses cannot be planned until weeks or
days before the convention, as soon as they are known the details must be posted to
the convention web site and/or all places where convention information is posted. It is
acceptable to publish tentative courses while waiting for permits to be approved, etc.

NEW:

5D.3 Communication
The host must publish two lists of results for each discipline after the competition: Age group based ranking and overall ranking (separating male/female).
If the hosts wish to include events other than the first three (Up, DH, XC), they must remember to provide detailed rules for these events at the same time the events are announced. Details of all non-track racing events, or other events with unique courses or details must be published as soon as they are known. This is to provide competitors with the information they need to train, and to help them prepare the appropriate unicycles. These are major needs for attendees from far away. Necessary details depend on the event, but include things like course length, elevation and elevation change, steepness, level of terrain difficulty, amount of turns, riding surfaces, course width, etc. A GPS-track must be published on the web site at least one month prior to the convention. It is acceptable to publish tentative courses while waiting for permits to be approved, etc.

OLD:

5D.5 Practice
For all muni races, every rider must get the chance of at least one test run to get familiar
with the track before the actual race. If possible, the track should be open for training
during all days of the event prior to the race. For multi-day events the muni competitions
should take place during the second half of the event in order to give riders more time
to practice on the course.
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. Organizers must therefore ensure that course marking and set-up are done by
non-competing staff/volunteers.

NEW:

Body

Competitors should have detailed informations about the racing courses sufficiently early to adapt training.

To avoid rectrictions on who can compete and to avoid complications during the race like people going lost, the host must assure practice possibilities for every course.

References

Proposal 58: Referee is touched by the ball

Committee: Hockey

Vote Summary:

Passed on January 22, 2017

Votes on this proposal:

8 out of 8 voting members have voted.

Agree: 6, Disagree: 0, Abstain: 2.

Background

see discussion

Proposal

Add a new paragraph to section 14C.2.6 "General":

START NEW TEXT

If a referee is hit by the ball, the game is only interrupted if the
contact has changed the course of play to benefit either team. In this
case, the game is resumed with a face-off.

END NEW TEXT

Body

see discussion

References

Proposal 66: 14B.7.2 6.5 M Clarification III (Execution of 6.5 m)

Committee: Hockey

Vote Summary:

Passed on January 22, 2017

Votes on this proposal:

8 out of 8 voting members have voted.

Agree: 8, Disagree: 0, Abstain: 0.

Background

In the associated discussion a kind of technique how to execute a 6.5 m could not find a majority.

But it was clear to everybody in the hockey committee that the execution of a 6.5 m in contrast to a free shot is direct. In accordance with the execution of a free shot the player may touch the ball only once. These clarifications should be added to the rule.

Proposal

14B.7.2 6.5 M

Old:

" ... After the Referee’s whistle the goalkeeper must ride the unicycle freely and not rest on the goal. If no goal is scored, ..."

New:

" ... After the Referee’s whistle the goalkeeper must ride the unicycle freely and not rest on the goal. The 6.5 m is direct. The player executing the 6.5 m may only touch the ball once. If no goal is scored, ..."

Body

In the discussion it was outlined that in contrast to a free shot a 6.5 m is direct. I added this to the proposed text as an additional clarification because it is missing in the rules.

References

14B.7.1 Free Shot

Proposal 80: More Event Organizer Rules

Committee: Hockey

Vote Summary:

Passed on January 25, 2017

Votes on this proposal:

6 out of 8 voting members have voted.

Agree: 6, Disagree: 0, Abstain: 0.

Background

see discussion

Proposal

OLD:

14D.1 Venue

Hockey should be play in a gym that is large enough to house the playing
field.

14D.5 Practice Time

(this section does not exist yet)

NEW:

14D.1 Venue

Hockey should be played in a gym that is large enough to house the playing
field. The surface should be smooth to protect stick blades while still
allowing traction for tires. Indoor court surfaces that provide some
absorption of falls such as sprung floors are ideal to reduce injuries.

14D.5 Practice Time

At a tournament, sufficient practice time and/or warm up time must be
offered to the participants.

Body

see discussion

References

Proposal 67: 14B.7.3. Penalty Goal Clarification

Committee: Hockey

Vote Summary:

Passed on January 22, 2017

Votes on this proposal:

8 out of 8 voting members have voted.

Agree: 8, Disagree: 0, Abstain: 0.

Background

In the discussion "14B.7.2 6.5 M Clarification"we could find a big majority for the part of the wording to clarify a goal movement so far.

But we worked out that the wording from the paragraph "penalty goal" should be amended. With the wording "...illegal play of the ball..." we really limit a illegal play to the combination with the ball. If we delete the words "of the ball" from this sentence the referee is able to punish more kinds of illegal play, e.g. illegal movement of the goal.

In an other current rule 14B.8.8 (moving the goal) a referee is forced to interrupt the game in all circumstances if a player moves the goal and the opposing team gets a free shot. This stands in contrast to our discussions. depending on the situation the referee should have all options to react (advantage, free shot, 6.5 m, penalty goal).

Proposal

14B.7.3. Penalty Goal

Old:

"If the defending team prevents a goal from being scored through an illegal play of the ball and if, in the opinion of the Referee, the ball was travelling directly toward the goal and would definitely have entered the goal without being touched by another player, a penalty goal may be awarded. [...]"

New:

"If the defending team prevents a goal from being scored through an illegal play of the ball and if, in the opinion of the Referee, the ball was travelling directly toward the goal and would definitely have entered the goal without being touched by another player, a penalty goal may be awarded. [...]"

14B.8.8 Moving The Goal

Old:

"If a player moves the goal, the game is interrupted and the opposing team gets a free shot."

New:

The players are not allowed to move the goal."

Body

Please see discussion "14B.7.2 6.5 M Clarification" it is an out take from there.

References

Proposal 71: Update Long Jump to Platform dimensions to limit rolling hops

Committee: Trials and Jumps

Vote Summary:

Passed on January 19, 2017

Votes on this proposal:

9 out of 14 voting members have voted.

Agree: 9, Disagree: 0, Abstain: 0.

Background

The idea of the Long Jump to Platform event is to create an long jump that is geared to non-rolling hops. There was a mistake in the original proposal in the previous rulebook committee. This proposal is to fix that problem.

The new dimensions are roughly a take-off platform of 5 EUR pallets and a landing of 3 EUR pallets.

Also, the rules have been updated so that the rider must actually land and remain on the landing platform for the jump to count in order to encourage a more static-style competition.

(in the old rule, strikethrough indicates removed and italics indicates updated.)

Proposal

OLD:

13B.10 Event Flow: Long Jump on Platform

In the Long Jump on Platform competition, the rider attempts to jump as far as possible from a short pallet run-up to a landing pad without a dismount. Following the jump, the rider must then stay mounted and in control on the unicycle for 3 seconds on the landing pallets or in the landing half-circle (described in setup below).

Riders may jump with the wheel going forward or sideways. The rider may break off the attempt as long as they are still on the pallet run-up. As soon as they jump in any direction from the pallet run-up, it counts as an attempt. The farthest non-fouling, successful jump is recorded.

The rider must start on the run-up and land on the landing platform without touching the ground. After landing, the rider must remain mounted and on the landing platform or in the 3 meter half circle for 3 seconds, as counted by a judge. The rider may do any form of idling, hopping or stillstanding during the 3 seconds. Once the judge has counted 3 seconds, the jump is complete.

To avoid endless competitions, the length to jump will always increase by 5cm for each round. Once there are only 5 riders left, the final starts and it’s up to the riders to decide in which steps they continue.

13D.7 Setup: Long Jump on Platform

The riding area consists of a starting run-up of pallets which is between 7.5 and 8.5 meters long, 1 to 1.5 meters wide and 40 to 45 cm (3 pallets) high. A landing platform of the same height and width as the run-up is required. The landing platform should be approximately 4.5 meters long and fixed together so that they do not move when landed on. It is recommended to cover the pallets with plywood or a similar material. Behind the landing platform a half circle with 3 meter in diameter has to be marked. If Euro pallets are used, the setup would be a run-up of 15 pallets stacked 5 long and 3 high and a landing platform of 9 pallets stacked 3 long and 3 high. Thus a minimum of 25 Euro pallets would be needed. A Long Jump on Platform competition needs a minimum area of 20x2 meters.

NEW:

13B.10 Event Flow: Long Jump on Platform

The rider must start on the run-up and land on the landing platform without touching the ground. After landing, the rider must remain mounted and on the landing platform for 3 seconds, as counted by a judge. The rider may do any form of idling, hopping or stillstanding during the 3 seconds. Once the judge has counted 3 seconds, the jump is complete.

13D.7 Setup: Long Jump on Platform

The riding area consists of a run-up platform and landing platform of the same height and width.

Both platforms should be a fixed together so that they do not move when jumped from or landed on. It is recommended to cover the pallets with plywood or a similar material of sufficient friction to allow for safe landings. If EUR pallets are used a minimum of 24 EUR pallets would be needed (with spares recommended). A Long Jump on Platform competition needs a minimum area of 12x2 meters.

Run-up platform:
If EUR pallets are used the platform must be three pallets high by five pallets long, requiring 15 pallets. The pallets should be placed the "wide" way such that the dimensions of the run-up platform are 43.5cm H x 4m L x 1.2m W.
If EUR pallets are not used the run-up platform must be between 3.5 and 4.5 meters long, 1 to 1.5 meters wide and 40 to 45 cm high.

Landing platform:
If EUR pallets are used the platform must be three pallets high by three pallets long, requiring 9 pallets. The pallets should be placed the "wide" way such that the dimensions of the take-off platform are 43.5cm H x 2.4m L x 1.2m W.
If EUR pallets are not used the take-off platform must be between 2 and 3 meters long, 1 to 1.5 meters wide and 40 to 45 cm high.

Body

See background.

References

Proposal 68: 14C.2.7 Referee Hand Signs

Committee: Hockey

Vote Summary:

Passed on January 22, 2017

Votes on this proposal:

8 out of 8 voting members have voted.

Agree: 6, Disagree: 0, Abstain: 2.

Background

see discussion

Proposal

Add 3 new referee hand signs to section 14C.2.7:

START NEW TEXT

- "SUB and SIB"

Hit your shinbone with the edge of your hand.

- "Obstacle"

Cross arms in front of the chest.

- "Body contact"

Strike the clenched fist of one hand into the open palm of the other
hand directly in front of the chest.

END NEW TEXT

New high-resolution pictograms for the new signs as well as for the
existing signs have been created (and converted to vector pdfs by
Scott). They are available here

http://www.rolf-sander.net/tmp/hockey_pictograms.zip

and should be used for the new rulebook.

Body

see discussion

References

Proposal 60: 14A.2 Rider Summary

Committee: Hockey

Vote Summary:

Passed on January 22, 2017

Votes on this proposal:

8 out of 8 voting members have voted.

Agree: 7, Disagree: 0, Abstain: 1.

Background

see discussion

Proposal

Replace the current Rider Summary (14A.2) with the following text:

START NEW TEXT

This section is intended as an overview of the rules, but does not
substitute for the actual rules.

- A player may only take part in a game when riding the unicycle. After
falling off he or she has to mount at the same spot, but if necessary
move out of the way of play first.

- A player must not rest on the goal or the wall.

- The game is non-contact in order not to endanger others. Only in the
vicinity of the ball, the opponent's stick may be touched by the own
stick. However, this contact may not be hard.

- At the beginning and after each goal all players have to go to their
own half. Then the game starts as soon as a player of the team in
possession or the ball crosses the center line.

- The player may touch the ball once with the flat hand (but not to
score a goal directly).

- The upper end of the stick must always be covered with one hand to
avoid injuries of other players.

- The blade of the stick must always be below the hips of all players in
the vicinity.

- A player who holds his stick in a way that someone else rides over it
is committing a foul, regardless of intention.

- A goal is disallowed if the ball was in one's own half when shot and
wasn't touched by anyone afterwards (long shot).

- The free shot is indirect, i.e. after the shot another player has to
touch the ball.

END NEW TEXT

Body

see discussion

References

Proposal 82: Add 10D.1.5.Unicycle allowance

Committee: Flat & Street

Vote Summary:

Passed on January 22, 2017

Votes on this proposal:

7 out of 10 voting members have voted.

Agree: 7, Disagree: 0, Abstain: 0.

Background

Make it clear for host they must allow marking tires (and metal pedals even though nobody uses them in flat anymore)

Simply add this into the Even Organizer section

10D.1.5.Unicycle allowance

Flatland unicycles have marking tires and may have metal pedals. Event host must organize the competition where marking tire and metal pedals are allowed.

Proposal

10D.1.5.Unicycle allowance

Flatland unicycles have marking tires and may have metal pedals. Event host must organize the competition where marking tire and metal pedals are allowed.

Body

All info provided.

References

Proposal 59: 6.5 M Clarification

Committee: Hockey

Vote Summary:

Passed on January 24, 2017

Votes on this proposal:

8 out of 8 voting members have voted.

Agree: 8, Disagree: 0, Abstain: 0.

Background

see discussion

Proposal

OLD:

14B.7.2 6.5 M

If legal playing would have led to a direct chance to score a goal, a “6.5 m” is given. This includes fouls outside the goal area. The ball is placed [...]

NEW:

14B.7.2. 6.5 M

If legal playing would have led to a direct chance to score a goal, a “6.5 m” is given. The following situations are a prevention of a direct chance to score and should be punished with a 6.5 meter penalty:

An attacking player is fouled in the opposition goal area while in a strong position to score
An attacking player on field is fouled when moving towards the opposition goal with a single opponent in front

The ball is placed [...]

Body

see discussion

References

Proposal 79: 10B.6.5 Number Of Competitors Entering Battles

Committee: Flat & Street

Vote Summary:

Passed on January 22, 2017

Votes on this proposal:

6 out of 10 voting members have voted.

Agree: 6, Disagree: 0, Abstain: 0.

Background

Structural change so it's clearer. Thanks to Jenni for the text.

Proposal

OLD:

The final battles will consist of up to the 16 highest-scoring riders. To decide on the number, the judges will vote. A simple majority is needed to decide whether 4, 8, or 16 riders will advance. However, a number other than 4, 8, or 16 may be chosen if the judges unanimously agree that a diﬀerent number would be more conducive to the goal of producing the most exciting battles for riders and spectators. In this case, byes would be used for this group to fit the next largest bracket (for example, 11 riders would use the 16 rider bracket, and the top 5 riders would get a bye for the first round of battles).

NEW:
The highest-scoring competitors from the preliminary round proceed onto the final battles. The number of competitors that move onto the finals is determined by a vote from the judges, but it cannot be more than 16 riders. Only a simple majority is needed for the vote. If a number of other 4, 8 or 16 is chosen, byes are used to expand the group of rider to the next largest bracket. (E.g. 11 riders would use the 16 rider bracket and the top 5 riders would have a bye for the first round of battles)

Body

All up there

References

Proposal 72: False starts

Committee: Muni (including Cyclocross)

Vote Summary:

Passed on January 21, 2017

Votes on this proposal:

11 out of 21 voting members have voted.

Agree: 10, Disagree: 1, Abstain: 0.

Background

So far, no guidelines at all exist for false starts in muni races. The proposed rules, based on those from Road racing, solve this issue. The new sections provide a definition of false starts, introduce the person responsible (Starter) and offer several options how to deal with false starts.

Proposal

OLD -nothing-

NEW

5B.5.5 False Starts
A false start occurs if a rider’s wheel moves forward before the start signal, or if one
or more riders are forced to dismount due to interference from another rider or other
source.

5C.3 Starter
The starter starts races; explains race rules; and calls riders back in the event of false
starts. The starter is in charge of checking riders for correct unicycles and safety equip-
ment.

5D.8 False Starts
There are several options on how to deal with false starts:
•Time Penalty:
In case of a false start, the heat is not restarted. If a false start occurs by one or
multiple riders, these riders receive a time penalty (10 seconds is recommended).
•One False Start Allowed Per Rider:
In case of a false start, the heat is restarted. Any rider(s) who caused their personal
first false start may start again. Any rider(s) causing their personal second false
start are disqualified.
•One False Start Allowed Per Heat:
In case of a false start, the heat is restarted. For the first false start of a particular
heat, all riders may start again. Thereafter, any rider(s) causing a false start are
disqualified.

It is highly recommended to use the time penalty method for all different kinds of starts (i.e. mass, heat, and individual starts as described in section 5D.7). If no false start rules are announced prior to the race, this is the default method. In case of a purposeful false start several seconds before the official start, violating rider(s) should be disqualified at the discretion of the Starter.

At Unicons and continental championships, a camera has to be set up by the Muni Officials (section 5C) to record the start of all waves from a suitable angle. The official footage from this camera serves as evidence in case of disputed false start events or other protests after the race.

Restarting heats (options 2 & 3) should be avoided. If a heat has to be restarted for any reason, the Starter will immediately recall the riders, for example
by firing a gun or blowing a whistle or any other clear and pre-defined signal.

Body

See discussion & rulebook (chapter 4 Road racing in particular)