DH walking and running rules
This discussion has an associated proposal. View Proposal Details here.Comments about this discussion:
Started
Right now, according to the downhill rules, running is not allowed. However, it is really hard for the marshalls to know if a riding is running (and thus should be DQed) or if they are just falling quickly. I think this rule needs at minimum an update.
Perhaps it makes sense to change how the DH race is run entirely, to put more of a focus on completing technical sections, or perhaps that belongs in an entirely separate event (DH Tech).
Comment
It is very hard to create a rule that makes a downhill race absolutely fair without changing the idea of Downhill racing. Downhill racing is all about "who can ride down a track from the start to the finish line the fastest".
I think if we consider giving points for completely ridden through sections or having other decisions by judges, it will become even more unfair due to different perspections of different people - this is human.. And I personally want to avoid these suggestions right from the beginning.
IMOP only a stop watch and a light barrier should/can be able to determine the fastest rider at a competition.
In the past i counted on the fairness of every competitor and it worked out a long time. Since the sport has become bigger and since the season 2014 I see no other way than setting up cameras at critical sections to determine how a rider cleared it. Either the race comittee or the community can make the decision afterwards if a placement was earned or not. (Side effect: less volunteers needed, no objective judging).
Comment
Yes, cameras can be a great help and once riders know that the full track is covered by cameras the number of attempts to run is reduced extremly.
Comment
Idea with cameras is good but bit expensive on long DH with many technical sections. Also, time race as it is should be mainteined.
How about walking? How fast can we walk? This concern all muni disciplines. Maybe less in DH, but fast walking can be faster than riding some technical sections.
I have strange idea, propably bit crazy, but might work. How about walking backwards only?
Comment
A human judge on walking/running is a difficult call. Some way to make it objective would be great. A camera system would be nice, but would it be feasible?
I like the idea of thinking a way to get around it, but I don't think walking backwards is in the best interest of safety.
Comment
The main Problem is about observing a rule, not to decide if a rider is allowed to walk / run / walk backwards / jump on one feet :)
In bike DH races I usually see a big number of volunteers which all have a whistle and use it always if a rider pass their section to hand over attention to the next volunteer and so on. In Unicycle DH I see mostly the simple problem in less volunteers and bad skilled volunteers which are not able to see who is running and who is simply try to keep alive after bad dismounting :) ALso often they just stay there and look arround and dont seems to be focused on the riders action.
So cameras would be a dream but some poor guys have to watch al lthe footage then after a race. this can be easy 10 to 20 hours of video footage :( So beside from the options to get hands on 10 to 20 or more cameras it would be only a option if all would be live connected to screens which are observed by some judges.
So to have enough volunteers for a race and train them well before seems for me so far the only option to make a race safe from cheeting.
About the rule itself, I most like the 10 Meter rule as it target the problem Maksym came up with. WIth the 10 Meter rule you usually have to remount in a technical section and so you lost more time then if you can completely fast walk a technical section. Chicken ways are even more great and would make it possible to stop walking completely but it is very difficult to find tracks that provide a great challange and always chicken ways where they are needed.
No easy solution for this, maybe one has the genious idea!
Comment
I agree that something needs to be done regarding the walking/running rule. Basically we want to reward any riders that ride difficult sections, either uphill, downhill, xc, etc. and not put them to a disadvantage to someone who is walking/running.
In Italy for the XC race anyone that couldn't ride a section (specifically the hard uphill part) were supposed to have to go outside of the trail (which was taped off) and then walk up. I'm guessing this is called a "chicken way". In theory this added on time to anyone that chose to walk instead of ride. Unfortunately it wasn't enforced and everyone just walked up on the trail. If it was enforced at all the difficult sections, than this could be an one option.
Another option which sounds silly but might actually work is the walking backwards thing. Never thought of it before but it would accomplish exactly what we are trying to do here. If you fall off, you would be required to go back up to the spot you fell and either get back on or walk backwards until you want to remount. I'd love to hear everyone's opinions on this, more specifically why you think this wouldn't work or what is bad about doing it this way?
Comment
About the "chicken way", it is usually a easy to ride part that is that much longer then the technical part that you lost time there even if you are a fast rider. It can be also a walk way that eat riders time and keep the track free fro those who ride.
About walking backwards, I see two adantages in it. First is that it will prevent you t walk slowly as fast backwards downhi walking sounds very difficult for me :) Second is that a backwards walking rider will see imeditaly a rider on the track and can leave the track fast enough that way! So it is a crazy Idea but crazy must not mean bad.
Maybe it can make sense to have two discussion threads here, one to find good system to walk / not run ... amd one to discuss about ideas how to observe it seriously.
Comment
One other idea I heard mentioned was a maximum 3-step- rule: if you fall off, you have to go back to where you started and ride. If you can't ride, you get a maximum of 3 steps to get pass a techy section. Having said that, I think I like the backwards walking better.
Comment
I think that walking backwards is extremely dangerous, especially as the trails continue to get more and more technical.
Comment
I do not believe that walking backward is dangerous enough to rule out the idea. However it does seem a little silly.
One thing we also need to consider is penalties for riders that completely disregard the walking rules. For example, if a ride is caught running a hard section and warned by a judge to stop running but then continues to do so.
Comment
Sorry I'm late in the conversation, I just started receiving notifications from this rulebook committee.
Just some background story. At Unicon 17, we had an issue where some spectator complained that some riders had run some section during the DH Finals. This was vaguely confirmed but some refeere, but definitly not strongly enough for any kind of disqualification. No refeere took notes of the people identification number or of the time and location of the "mistake" or any information that would have confirmed a clear violation of the rules. Also, I did manage to get my hands on some footage (that I could share with this commitee for analysis) from some riders but the videos were not long enough nor representative enough to make a clear decision on disqualifying a rider. Also, that "request" was coming from a parent of a rider also in the same competition and the disqualification of the concerned rider would have led to that parent's rider to win a better place on the podium. AKA: we needed some major proof to make a disqualification.
Anyway, all of this to point out some things from the DH from Unicon 17:
- Refeere were definitly not well trained and qualified for the job. Even tho all of them had the nescesary material, none of them took notes
- Running during the DH course was really just an issue during the DH finals with the elits riders. The finals had enough room to fit all the best riders so no good rider would have been prevented from doing the finals by being overplace by someone who would have run in the qualifications
- Mostly 100% of the girls in the DH Finals had to walk most of the course and many of them did what we qualify as "running", aka having both feet off the ground at the same time.
- On the other side, 100% of the male riders of the finals were able to complete 100% of the lines in their practice making he course very "realistic"
My suggestion:
- Running in qualifications are usualy not a big issue. We don't need cameras, only get trainned Refeere in technical sections that will slow down riders that would walk too fast or disqualify on the spot for OBVIOUS RUNNING (with the unicycle in their hands, not pushing it for example).
- DH finals are cool, very spectactor frendly, allow other rider to see the best do their thing and very fun for the elite riders, especialy with 2 runs, so make it essential to Unicons.
- Also, since all riders in the finals are talented ones and can ride the course, have them ride EVERY sections of the course. If you fall in a technical section, a refeere blow a wishle and you need to go up that section and ride it until you can clear it. No need for points, no need for cameras, no need for awkard and dangerous penalty like walking backward and it's definitly something that riders CAN do if they practice the course before the race (which normaly they should). No elite riders would need more than 2-3 tries on a technical section to complete it, it's not a big penalty, but enough to prevent riders from running and it would allow for a clear distinction inbetween their level of riding.
That way, during the finals, elite riders would actualy take their time completing a section because they would be afraid of falling and having to go back up, thus loosing time. This would make a great show because as of rightt now, a DH race looks like a bunch of people falling non-stop because they rush themselve down while knowing that they can fast-walk or run some sections without nobody saying anything. In the footage I have from the race, we see a lot of riders falling in a technical section, jumping down the rest of it and walking forward quickly forward while trying to mount. All of it is very hard to judge as "running" or against the rule because the rider is "falling" at the same time, but it's very "trashy" and ugly in my opinion and it's a very sad interpretation of DH riding.
DH is about clearing technical sections as fast as possible. So let's make them "CLEAR" the sections! ;-)
B.
Comment
Very good post by Benoit and I think it is the right concept, although I would propose some modifications.
1) A course which is, let's say, 2 km long can't be fully observed by judges (and cameras as well). There are definitely some sections which are easier and the riders can be pretty sure that no judges are around. If they crash (can always happen), will they really walk back up?
2) Some riders can't clear the most technical sections. Benoit mentioned the female DH finals as an example. This would lead to some people not being able to finish the course.
In order to address these problems we could define some sections which have to be ridden 100% (applying Uphill rules) and if a rider cannot ride it, he/she has to go back up were the dismount happened, then leave the course and walk down until the end of the section. Once you have decided to leave the course you must not enter it again until the end of the section.
These sections have to be well marked and communicated in advance. All competitors in the finals have to walk the track in advance together with a judge who shows them these sections. The boundary of the section has to be defined by a tape or strip and it should be defined on which side the riders are allowed to walk down. People watching the race should only be allowed to stand on the other side.
Personally, I would favour judges (if well trained) instead of cameras because they can immediately enforce the rules, telling riders to walk back up or even disqualify them. With cameras you have to watch a lot of footage and it would not be possible to determine the winner on the day of the race. A ceremony at the location of the DH track right after the race would however be very nice and spectator friendly.
Cameras would be great if we can connect them and use them for live streaming. Then a judge watching the stream can also decide immediately if rule violations have taken place. And it would be awesome for people not being able to attend Unicon to follow the event in the internet. That would be the dream, but it's a huge logistical effort.
I would discard the idea of walking backwards because it could seriously damage the image of muni downhill. Some people may regard muni alone as a silly thing, but what would they think when they see riders going down the track backwards. I guess they would think the whole thing is a joke.
Comment
As Ben said, well trained judges are most important and they should have right to stop and disqualify runners. It might be a problem with biased judges though.
I very like the spirit of clearing sections. But not every sections are safely rideable by less skilled riders. Let them allow passing this sections. Chicken ways do perfect job, but we cannot build them every were. The trail selection is difficult and all of this section markings mentioned by Ben will make another extra job. The rule proposal for leaving the trail is nice if there is enough room to go. But not always it is.
Walking backwards is silly but walking is also silly. Personally, if I feel unsafe on some sections I would prefere to walk backwards than trying to clear it. And walking backwards on steep sections is even more safe than front walking, but very slow and this is OK. In other case, where the sections are difficult but I feel safe I will prefere to clear it. And because walking backwards is very slow indeed, people will try to mount and ride the sections instead. This may limit walking to huge extent, because trying to ride will be still faster than walking. It is also easier for judges to see if the riders keep to the rules.
My proposal:
- Do chicken ways if possible
- Tape the trail, and if somebody do not feel able to ride it can walk behind the tape.
- On the trail, allow only backwards walking. - Riders will be pushed to ride, or walk very slow.
- Put 2 judges toghether, instruct them, and give the power for disqualification.
- If possible, install cameras, but for protest purpose only.
It is very important to make the rules simple, easy to understand, easy to judge, and easy to build suited trails.
Comment
I think walking backward is probably the most dangerous way to penalize riders. Walking backward with a unicycle in your hand trying to go down a slippery gap or drop will most probably end up with some riders falling backward down the trail. You would need extra medics everywhere as it has a important potential of very bad injuries to the head. We must think about a rule that can be applied in any given conditition no matter how technical the trail is. I am personnaly 100% against forcing people to walk backward in a DH course, please do not under estimate how dangerous that could be.
May I reesthablish some facts:
- at Unicon 17, the running problematic was only for the finals, not during the qualifications. I see no need to add more rules than what there is rght now. No need to force people to clear the sections, only stress on the no running rule with good trained refeere doing their job. We had no problem at Mont-Tremblant to find the adequate number of them for our 2km course.
- Inforcing the "clearing section" rule is only a problem when the course is badly designed, as it was the case for the women finals at Unicon 17. No need for additional rules for the males finals as 100% of them were able to theoricaly complet all sections. As for the qualification race, we had no problem in finding the adequate number of refeere for the smaller DH final course.
- A women final course should be provide and if well designed, it will not be a problem to enforce the "clearing section" rule.
- Walking the final courses with all riders and pointing the "sections" were they will be forced to clear is a good idea and will allow clear and respectfull communication toward the riders.
Comment
Based on a big discussion about doing female DH Tracks, I can report that all serious female DH riders don't want it and feels discriminated just by the idea.
Comment
Walking backward:
I think it's a very bad idea. I'm trying to picture myself walking down the Italy Expert Downhill course. I'm thinking I might be the one ending up in a helicopter from that. Or even trying to cover the non-Expert Downhill course in Montreal? Many of the technical spots were narrow and very chunky. I don't want to have people getting hurt when they're off the unicycle. We wear helmets, but most of the helmets we wear are designed to protect primarily to impacts in the front, and are pretty weak in the back. No walking backward.
Cameras along the course:
Sounds like a great hobby project for a team of people with the time, money and skills to make it all work. But even if you capture all kinds of footage, people have to look at it an make judgements based on what they see. I think it would be easier to just use humans along the course (see below).
Running:
Current rules just say "Running is not allowed, except momentarily to slow down after a dismount." But we don't provide a definition of how to identify running vs. walking. Having both feet off the ground at once seems like a good working definition, and we should add it.
Enforcement:
A rule is no good if it's not enforced (or if it's enforced irregularly). If we mean to enforce the non-running rule, we must have a method. Mostly we have relied on rider honesty so far, which only works for honest riders. If we have officials on the race course, they have to have instructions. In less-formal events those instructions could be to verbally slow riders: "NO RUNNING!" but again this is only truly effective if all riders obey. For those that don't there is no penalty if you don't have a process in place.
So, if you have officials scattered along the course, they should be positioned in the areas where people are most likely to want to run. Those officials must have clipboard and paper (or some other way to make notes). They must note rider numbers as they come through, in case they have to make notes about that rider. For riders seen to clearly run beyond when they've recovered from a dismount, the distance should be noted. We should set a limit of how far gets you disqualified. If a rider accumulates, say 10 meters or more of post-recovery running, they should be disqualified.
Like most forms of bike racing, Downhill unicycle racing is, as defined in 4.10, "a test of speed and ability to handle terrain." With the emphasis on speed, it will be in the best interests of some riders to walk sections they feel they are likely to fall on. Requiring all riders to ride all sections would be a different type of event. This one is about speed. Top riders can ride most downhill things faster than walking speed. But others may choose a self-imposed time penalty to walk some sections, then continue riding fast on everything they are confident to ride.
If we intend every rider to ride every meter of the course, we will need observers on every meter of the course to enforce this. And many riders will end up being a lot slower, or not be able to finish at all. An event like that should be separate, and have a different name such as Downhill Trials.
At the Montreal Unicon, I enjoyed the (non-Expert) Downhill course more than any other event I entered. I had a blast! And I walked lots of little sections. While I would enjoy to also try riding that same trail without dismounts, it would be a totally different experience for me, and take considerably longer.
Comment
Okay lets try to be real:
1) Installing cameras is neither expensive nor a lot of work. A lot of riders have gopros and I personally would not mind to have someone watching the race and at the same time taking care of my camera. Also there is no need to go through 10 hours of footage since it may just be reviewed when concern or doubt arises.
2) Lets not make this sport look silly. If we are e.g. forced to walk backwards I can only imagine how people react if they see footage or a race - it would look ridiculous :D
3) Having judges blow a whistle can be sooooo unfair. There is no clear line if someone has to do it over again (for instance if just one foot touches the ground but the rider still keeps riding - no need to do it over again)
4) Well trained judges - in unicycling? i cannot see how this would be accomplished.
-----> It´s so easy: Timed course, special sections camera-surveilled and if needed evaluated.. I would not want to be exposed to the unicycle community cheating down a mountain..
Comment
Hi everyone. Lots of good thoughts and comments! I was one of the two people having to make a decision during last Unicon, thank you Benoit for writing it down. Since then, I have talked the running-issue trough a couple of times with many different riders. In the end, we always came to the same conclusion (for many of the reasons named above):
1. It all comes down to well trained judges. In the rules I would put more emphasis on briefing all judges well (very well) and make them understand how important it is that they do their job well. We didn't do that well enough last Unicon, so lets learn from it. Also, let's somehow encourage communication between past and future organizers and directors. We can learn a lot from each other. And another thought: Why not try and make the riders who didn't make it into the final judges?
2. Put cameras on critical sections, just in case you need it as proof.
3. Have the awards ceremony right after the race. If everything goes right, this ensures the winners get their well deserved moment of fame. If someone cheated and that person will have to give back their medal later, everyone will know and that false fame will be gone.
Being one of the female expert competitors from last Unicon, I am going to write down my thoughts on this as well. I definitely couldn't ride all of the course. Actually, I could hardly ride any of it. Still, it would feel weird to have a second, easier course for the women. Simply because it would not allow any woman to be as good as the men. I'd rather walk most of the course and gladly applause to those female riders who could ride more of it, than seeing a single woman, who could actually ride all or almost all of the course, having to ride on a track that is far below her potential. And yes, there are women out there who can ride sections that some of the best male riders can't.
Comment
@John, you said:
"If we intend every rider to ride every meter of the course, we will need observers on every meter of the course to enforce this. And many riders will end up being a lot slower, or not be able to finish at all. An event like that should be separate, and have a different name such as Downhill Trials. At the Montreal Unicon, I enjoyed the (non-Expert) Downhill course more than any other event I entered. I had a blast! And I walked lots of little sections. While I would enjoy to also try riding that same trail without dismounts, it would be a totally different experience for me, and take considerably longer."
1 - We would not have to enforce the rule on every meter of the course but only on the technical sections where cheating/problems might occure. For U17 we found enough people in team of two to stand at each technical section to enforce the rules. If we had trained them appropriately, they would have being very useful that day...
2 - Like I said, this rule would only applied to finals/expert races, definitly not for qualification. In a well designed course, all Elite riders should be able to complete each and every line with a rather good successful ratio after 1-2 days of practice. Definitely nothing impossible here and 100% inline of the current Downhill mentality and philosophy. No need to create a new competition. Obviously, this is taking into consideration that the concept of Finals would be use in next Unicons.
@ Gerald, please do not under estimate additional work when we are talking about Unicons, nothing is "easy" or "cheap". Following your points:
1 - It is false to assume that enough riders will want to lend their cameras to officials for a long duration of time, eg: the duration of the competition + the duration of the protest period. Also an organizer cannot count on that to organize an event. Counting on the fact that enough volunteer will show up is already very stressful that I would not recommend to organizers to count on their participants's personal belonging. Remember that only Officials can make a decision and are representative of the IUF, thus they would have the responsibility of the camera. What if that Official would lose the camera? It would then be the host responsibility to pay that rider a new one? I would personally not risk using material that are not of the propriety of the organization.
3 - We are talking about dismounting (two feet on the ground) or falling followed by fast walking/running the technical section to pass it before re-mounting. Touching a stone with one foot before clearing the section is called clearing a section in my book, we are not doing trials after all.
Video Analysis
From the footage we collected of the U17 Downhill course, those of you who saw it might recall that the most controversial "cheating" were not obvious running with the unicycle in both hands. Rather, the issue was sometime with some riders falling, then barely trying to complete a section, using their momentum to fall forward as far as possible before re-mounting.
I took the time to upload 3 clips from the DH Finals of U17 to further analyse different situations.
Note: The video is private, use code "rulebook" to view it. Also, for obvious reasons do not use the riders name to discuss the video, but rather mention them as "rider #1", "rider #2", etc. https://vimeo.com/114516060. Here is my personal analysis:
Rider #1 - "Perfect". Bail with rider stopping as soon as possible with a near static remount only 2-3 meters away from the bail.
Rider #2 - "Ambiguous". The rider is falling on a rocky surface, runs (both feet are in the air at times) down the section with his unicycle behind him, walks some more meter before finally remounting about 10m away from the bail. For me this is awkward as it feels rushed, but it's not really "rulebook illegal" as the running happen during the falling.
Rider #3 - "Cheating". The rider falls in between two steep sections, goes back to grab his unicycle but instead of remounting there, he start running down the next technical section entirely until he finally remounts. Hard to prove 100% if it was running or fast walking since you can't see his feet, but from the general motion of the body it's most probably running.
Alternative
Contrary to MTB where fast walking with your bike is MUCH slower than speeding down on it, in Muni it's very "lucrative" to fall off a technical section to run some of it before remounting. Other footage from the same course effectively show some sections been complete on the unicycle that would have being faster on foot. In my opinion, the very nature of a TIMED DH competition without STRONG rules preventing people from voluntarily skipping some technical sections is resulting in boring and awkward scenes.
An alternative to forcing riders to complete each and every "sections" would be to force a remount at the exact same spot, or a few meter BEFORE where the dismounting/bail occurred. This is the case for Uphill indeed.
I would propose a "4.10.2 Dismounted Riders in Finals" article mentioning that during those events, upon falling, a rider must remount no further than where both of his feet left the unicycle's pedals at the beginning of the bail (or something like that). A referee in place could judge if the rider is respecting the rule.
Sorry for the long post, great discussion here.
B.
Comment
"A lot of riders have gopros and I personally would not mind to have someone watching the race and at the same time taking care of my camera. Also there is no need to go through 10 hours of footage since it may just be reviewed when concern or doubt arises." -- They would need your camera for the whole day. And they wouldn't be able to rely on cameras to borrow, unless all of that were arranged in advance with every volunteer showing up and having their camera ready to use. So in reality it would be quite messy. For reviewing, would it be fair to only look at the places where people made complaints about riders/other riders? To enforce our rules, all of it should be reviewed.
"1 - We would not have to enforce the rule on every meter of the course but only on the technical sections where cheating/problems might occur." -- But we don't know where cheating and problems may occur. Of course we'll know the technical spots, but all of us have had dismounts at "mystery" spots. If the rule is to rid every meter, than every meter must be observed.
"2 - Like I said, this rule would only applied to finals/expert races, definitly not for qualification. " -- That makes more sense. And in that case, we would need to add more rules/descriptions, like you mentioned above. Basically a different set of requirements for qualification and finals. I think you would still have to pay attention during qualifying, where it would be convenient to run every technical section where you might fall and lose speed.
Thank you for putting together that "training" video, a great example of what we should probably have for all disciplines. Something I noticed from watching that was the number of witnesses that were already there, but just hadn't been equipped to do the necessary enforcement.
If the idea is to ride every section of the DH Final, maybe it should be run like the Uphill. That is, any time you UPD you have to back up to a place before your dismount and restart from there. The built-in time penalty would be steep enough to have riders really trying to not fall off. The job for officials would be simpler, in that they would only have to confirm that the rider had backed up enough to start again. Do you think that might make the system easier (for the Finals at least)?
Comment
Great effort on the video Benoit, thanks! This clearly shows how difficult is it to make a difference of what is against the rules or not, as I said, there is such a thin line to judge. And no matter how well trained judges are, they are still human and might make a wrong decision. (Like World Cup Soccer and many other sports..)
I would personally avoid any kind of people judging other people, since this will lead to controversy for sure.
In a race there are only a few spots where a rider would be faster running than riding. In Montreal i believe, 5 cameras would have been enough to make sure how a rider cleared a course. All the other "mysterious spots" are 100% faster on a unicycle, we are just talking about crazy, technical and slow sections.
Here is an example of how setting up a camera could work, this was uploaded by a spectator at the Austrian Championships altough he missed to film the difficult section^^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPI12OJZe88
Comment
Video vs human decission is a long discussion and it depends beside from a skilled person how the judge and the camera is placed. For the Downhill walking rule it is not that critical but for longjum / race start ... we had a lot of discussions about videos because they also dont tell you the truth as a bad angle combined with 25 fps are in no way comparable to an Eye:) Beside this the video will be judged then by humans anyway and one get the bad part to decide so with a camera you simply move the human decission to a later time.
I'm also not sure if it can be a solution to block a rider completely from walking as it can happen also for a good rider that he is not able to manage a section. He can have for example a small injury, some slightly damaged parts, the weather could make a section unridable ...
So to force a rider always to remount where he fall can end up also in some problems. Thats why I liked the 10Meter rule a lot but this rule needs even more skilled judges :) Also it is not a fact that people only cheat at technical tracks, I also see people using shorts in fast parts of a track and I see riders using a uni setup which makes it 100% impossible to ride techical parts while they are very fast on the rest of the track.
The system to remount always at the bail point would provide so far the most easy to judge system (while it still need a lot of volounteers) but the problems I mentioned above are not solved with it. Especialy at rainy days a section can move from fun to hell inner 15 minutes.
Independent from the rules I still see the best way to observe the rules is to have al lthe track obeserved by humans and optional additional the "special" sections by a camera. All the track means all the track as spaces inbetween kill the system. The judges have to be marked clear and also the track have to be marked clear. This is how they do MTB Downhill and this is how it works good as a rider see no option to cheat at all. He is observed 100%
Comment
The video vs. no video discussion does not really tackle the underlying issue. Video footage can be used to provide additional evidence for controversial decisions, but the decisions itself must be based on clear rules. Otherwise the video footage does not add any additional value (it would just result in lengthy, annoying discussions and delays until materials are copied and reviewed).
Rules have to be clear enough so that a trained judge can make an instant yes or no decision.
- distances must be measurable by observation (e.g. number of steps in favour of meters)
- penalties to be applied must be clearly stated (time penalty vs. disqualification) and should not be changeable by the host
- it must be clearly stated when to apply these penalties (instant vs. after the race)
- false positives must be kept at a minimum (false positives are worse than false negatives in my opinion)
There are some more points which are not directly related to the decision making:
- judges should be selected in a way that maximizes their objectivity (e.g. parents shouldn't judge riders who compete with their children)
- it should be easy to implement the rule/s as a host
Comment
You are right so I pick the ball and set my ideas as a sample. I will use the 10 Meter rule here again as it prevent judges from decide about running or not as it make no sense to run for 10 Meter.
- in case a rider dismount by accident (UPD) or because he is not able to manage a section (PD) he is allowed to do a maximum of 15 steps (10 Meter) until he has to mount again. In case that the section he cant ride is a big drop, he can jump down the drop or walk arround and then he have to mount again. In case that the section provide no option to mount after 15 steps, the rider has to mount on the very next possible point.
- it is not allowed to mount after 15 steps and then dismount imediatly to do the next 15 steps. The rider has to show clear that he start again to ride.
- in case that he walk more then 15 steps a penalty of 20 Seconds will be added to his result. In case he walk more then 15 steps more then 3 times in the race he will be disqualified so a maximum additional time of 1 minute is possible.
- the penalty time will be added after the race when all judges provide their penalty list to the race director.
- the host has to organize a judges training where he show them a video that clearly express how it looks when a rider must dismount to safe himself from a hard crash and when a rider cheat. A sample video has to be provided by the IUF. The Judges has to be informed about sections where the 15 steps wont be enough.
- false positives must be kept at a minimum
- judges should be selected in a way that maximizes their objectivity (e.g. parents shouldn't judge riders who compete with their children)
I still think it could/should be more simple but it is a first shot based on Roccos post to start with real ideas. At least this system prevent us from the running / fast walking problem and it motivate a rider to ride instead of walk as he has to mount again soon anyway. Another, even more strict rule would be to give a penalty of 2 - 5 seconds (have to be discussed) for every planned dismount (like stop in front of a techncal section, walk through it and mount behind).
Comment
Please explain false positive/negative in context.
I am against running. I understand that we want to go faster and faster, but sometimes it is need to slow down. I am more to encourage riders to slow down and pass clearly, then ride in the rush, dismount and run over difficult sections.
Comment
Gerald, I like your camera idea, because that would remove a lot of subjectivity. However, I think it would be very difficult to do logistically. You suggested it, are you willing to organize it? To figure out whose cameras we are borrowing beforehand, where the cameras are being placed on the track, where the footage will go, who will review it, when it should be reviewed, ensuring that the cameras get back to their respective owners, to create waivers so people can't charge us if their cameras are broken, and everything else involved? It's a lot of work for debatable payoff. I don't mean to attack you, I just have a knee-jerk reaction when organizing events that "it's never that easy". (Of course, you are welcome to do it anyway and prove me wrong! ;D )
I really like Rocco's summary. And defining running in the rulebook is an excellent idea.
I'd also like to add a comment about using whistle calls instead of yelling for the judges, as I saw a rider continue to run after a judge yelled at them "NO RUNNING" (possibly didn't year, possibly didn't speak English, possibly didn't care). It should be simple -- 1 whistle-blast is a warning to slow down, 2 whistle-blasts means a violation, or something along those lines.
Also, what do people think about having time penalties instead of immediate disqualifications? I think that it would have a good balance between negative reinforcement of running, but not make the decision so "final".
Comment
I like the whistle and time-penalty idea. I think it should be added instantly. Its that way at the Challenge Roth (long distance triathlon here at my location). There are a lot of judges on motorcycles on the course, if you get a penalty, they write up your number and you have to stop for 8 minutes at the next "penalty-tent" (the course is 90km long, they have around 4 tents for that i think). If you dont stop, you are disqualified.
For us i think 30 seconds would be good. If you cheat, it has to hurt.
Running should be like Scott said before the XC at Unicon: "Two feet off the ground"
And add another rule with 5m or 10m distance walking maximum.
Comment
The whistle idea is good! About time penalty (I already had it in my last post), what about using x% off the typical race time (which can be Figuren out by the host before). There are DH races you can ride below 3 minutes and others need 15 min or more. So a static penalty mean all in one race and nothing in another. I just realize static % also not work but there will be a good system to calculate it for sure. Maybe 10% and max 45 seconds can work fine.
Comment
I'll probably sound redundant and against where the discussion seems to be going toward to but
A) I would strongly advice not to add rules with relative aspect like percentage or any hard-to-estimate value like "number of steps" or "meter of walking". Any of those are complicated, will confuse the referee and make their job very hard. 10 of my steps is more than 10 steps of someone smaller than myself. 10m of walking is absolutely too hard to evaluate.
B) Also, any penalty applied after when the mistake/cheating happen is also a bad idea in my opinion :
- it's a lot more work for the host as you add more post-event data processing. These modifications are ALWAYS a pain and ALWAYS take more time than you thought it would. Anything that will slow down the process of getting the data out and available to the host, riders and public is a bad idea in my opinion. We should try to work toward getting the data out as fast as possible to keep the spectator as close as possible to the finish of the event for the medal ceremony.
Any major sport display the results as they arrive and the ranking and winners are known when the last athletes finishes the race. At Unicon 17, the timing company we worked with was able to do this (display results on a big screen as they come), but sadly IUF rules prevent us from doing it. Adding more post-event data processing take us again even further from this.
- Also, if the penalty is immediate, it is SO MUCH easier for the rider to understand the penalty and will likely result in less after-event-protest.
C) Finaly, I would be very careful about adding any rules that officially allow walking. The more rules the more occasions riders are allowed to walk and will potentially make abuse of it. Walking is contrary to the spirit of this particular event, after all, this is not CycleCross...this is Downhill (see what I did here?).
Solution
I honestly think that the best way to stay faithful to the spirit of DH and prevent cheating coming from confusing interpretation of "walking" is to force riders in a Final/Elite event to walk back up after a dismount and mount back where he felt.
Agreed that there is one situation where this would be problematic: when a section of the course if deemed too dangerous or impossible to ride by the host or a IUF representative PRIOR to the race. For example, if it rains a lot before the race, a section can become so muddy that it is impossible to pedal. Prior to the race, a IUF representative could also walk the course and evaluate if some sections are deemed too dangerous, even tho it is the host responsibility to provide a technical course that is safe to ride at high speed most of the time.
There is very easy way to communicate WHEN and WHERE and FOR HOW LONG a rider can walk:
Prior to the race, any host NEED to walk back his course to re-flag or re-tape the course because wind, animals or people often break the tapes. At Unicon 17, we tried to tape the whole DH final course, not only because it very helpful for the riders to easily see the trails but because it keeps the spectators off the course (it's also very aesthetic and beautiful in my opinion. Not so eco-frendly tho, but you can reuse it if you are a courageous person).
It would be SO EASY to walk the course with a IUF representative and tape some section in a different and contrasted color of tape for section where walking/skipping a section is allowed. If you use yellow or white tape for taping the course, then use red tape on both side of the course for the length of a section that is deemed too dangerous and where, if needed, a rider can walk.
Off that section of tape, rider is force to ride his unicycle and if dismount occur, remount most be done where the rider felt.
Place a referees at strategic points to insure that riders are walking slowly instead of rushing down and accidentally probably running. Also, disqualify rider on the spot if he/she is not respecting the rules is mandatory in my opinion, by respect to the rider if anything. Equipping referee with whistle is also good idea.
Comment
For sure it is the best to simply forbid walking and indeed it can be an option to clearly mark the section where slow walking is alowed for safty reason. This should be also possible for smaler events. I not agree to disqualify a rider imeditaly when he run as there is still the week boarder inbetween managing yourself and cheating so a penalty would be ok. I came just up with % as a fixed penalty would be useless depending on the big differences of track distance.
You still would need to observe the full track with referees to observe this rule. Place them on strategic points wont work. Also you need a full working communication between all judges in the forest and the time company and the race director to have all penaltys / disqualification in real time in the finish line.
"Any major sport display the results as they arrive and the ranking and winners are known when the last athletes finishes the race. At Unicon 17, the timing company we worked with was able to do this (display results on a big screen as they come), but sadly IUF rules prevent us from doing it. Adding more post-event data processing take us again even further from this."
In major Sports you have a mountain of officials and a lot of Hightech to observe a race completely to make this possible. We often here the simmilar argument for World Records and the the IUF block the simple process to verfiy a Record but I don't agree to that. Even we get now some membership fee, we are FAR away from sending out a reliable number of officials to a Unicon for example. We also have usualy no realtime TV cameras to watch the full race in realtime by several judges. So typically the race system is able to present results fast and at least it is no Problem to use this option as long as those results are not announced as official to keep a time window for protest. Also often you need to get back all referees from the mountain to get a final feedback because of no perfect communication while the race is running.
Beside this in "major" sports protests are simply not wanted / acepted like soccer is the worst sample where everybody see wrong decissions and they still count.
However, the idea to mark walkable sections is good and make it more easy to observe it then to control 15 steps or 10 Meter. Also it would force a host at least to mark the track :)
Comment
How about if we just shorten the 10m rule to 3 or 5 meters.
This would be easy to evaluate since the distance is shorter to estimate AND it will allow someone who fell off, to remount within a few steps.
This rule wouldnt interrupt the flow of downhill (walking back up would be the death for a speed race) which for me is one of the most important aspects for riders and spectators.
Comment
Benoit for the win!
Excellent, practical advice from the experienced Unicon host! His approach makes SO much sense, and is so much less complicated than other approaches. Riders must return to a spot at or before the point of dismount (based on wheel location) for each dismount. I don't think we would even have to restrict how fast they get back there; the time penalty of the dismount itself is enough. Let them run back up. It will make things more interesting to watch anyway, and allow whatever advantage to riders who are fitter.
Otherwise tape the sections where walking is allowed so they are well marked. In those areas, we still have to contend with the definition of walking, and how to communicate if penalties are to be given, but it will only be for those controlled areas, so it should be much easier to gather the data. Perhaps the best solution to what to do if a rider "walks" too fast in a taped area is to require them to go back and do it again. The threat of that should do a lot to keep riders pretty conservative in their walking.
No more 10m, 5m or other measures; just a group of on-course officials who are on the same page, and have the authority to send riders back if they go too fast off the unicycle.
Thanks, Benoit!
Comment
John, I assure you that those rules like walking back up WILL kill the sport of Downhill for spectators as well as for riders.
It will make it look ridicoulous and flow-less.
And I´m sad that we have come to a point of where we have to discuss things like this because some riders dont compete for the spirit and fun but for medals only. I sincerely hope this attitude will change asap-for the good of all of us.
Comment
@Olaf, point taken on your reply to my comment toward some IUF rules making it hard to display official and confirm data as soon as possible. Also, FYI, at U17, we equipped each and every team of referee with radios so they could communicated with the Muni Director at the basecamp. This person had a map of where each and every referee were placed. They had everything to report on the spot, any disqualifications or penalty. In theory this should have worked...if only the referee knew how to use the radios and how to speak a comprehensive English -_-
@Gerald, I think the qualitative "ridiculous" is more a personal point of view than a real argument. That said, you have a very good point that having to climb back up each time that you dismount will break the flow of riding and that's not something I wish for neither. In the example video, Rider #1 should not be automatically penalize as his dismount/remount was very much acceptable. Here is an updated proposition for elite/final event:
1) Tape in different and contrasted colours , sections of the course that are deemed too dangerous to enforce a no walking rule.
2) On the rest of the course, enforce a 3-5m MAXIMUM walking/running rule AFTER DISMOUNT. Running after dismount is normal if you are going fast. Running for more than what you need to remount is not. 3-5m is easier to visually confirm for a referee and is enough space in my opinion for any riders to safely dismount and remount. I think that this way, we can preserve the flow of riding and not penalize riders that when falling, try to keep it to a minimum before remounting.
3) If the rider clearly walk/run more than 5m after dismount, a referee should blow a whistle to significate that the rider MUST walk back up to where he dismounted.
4) If a rider ignore the referee call, the rider should be automatically disqualify. There should be no allowing of walking the course more than you need to remount or skip a dangerous section that is marked. There should be no tolerance of running in any circumstance other than to slow down inside 5m before remounting.
In the video example: Rider #1 would be OK, no call from the referee as the rider remounted quickly. Rider #2 would have being warned by a referee and would have needed to go back up to where he dismounted to remount. Rider #3 would have been disqualified if he would have proceed, as he did, to run while ignoring a referee call to warn him about running/walking a non technical/non-marked section of the course.
Obliviously, referee would have to be very well trained as to be fair to all riders, while not allowing a rider to run or walk more than the chosen distance. But I think this is very much doable.
Note: I think this could be applied to non-elite/non-final events too as you can identify more "walking sections" in the qualification course to allow for flexible level of riders to enjoy the event.
B.
Comment
Seems we are close to a good solution. Thanks to Seffie for confirming the NO GO for female DH tracks!
About walking back, if I understand Benoit right, a rider that have a UPD and stop as fast as possible (3 - 5 Meter sounds realistic for me) can just remount and continue. Only a rider that start walking / running more then needed get the whistle and have to walk back up to the spot where he dismount.
That way it would be a perfect system and also funny for the audience. A fast and fair rider can race as it should be while a cheeter get blamed double as he lost time and the audience will have fun that he hast to walk up again. I can't see why this should kill the sport.
Additional it should be named that a chickenway is always preferable to a marked section as it keep the maximum flow in a race. Benoits last post should be the base for the new ruleset from my opinion.
@ Benoit: Was it then only the protest rule that block you from awarding imediatly after the race or also the language barrier with the judges ir is there any other rule I don't now that make it not possible to announce the results imediatly after the race. If yes, lets try to delete it as we dont want rules that prevent you from anouncing the results as fast as possible. So please provide more details about it.
Comment
I like the system that Benoit just laid out -- ride non-technical sections fast with a 3-5 m buffer if you fall, walk technical sections if necessary. Unfortunately, it does add a bit more to do for the organizers, but I think that it's a system that will work, has minimal rules for referees, and shouldn't remove the downhill unicycle "spirit".
Comment
Yes, Gerald is right and Benoit has come up with a better method. 5m should be enough distance to come to a stop except in very steep or rough conditions. We have all had forward dismounts where we take some time to get our feet back under us -- if successful! I think if the rider is clearly struggling to regain footing it's acceptable for the official to allow it pas 5m, but only for very steep, or rider trying not to fall on face. That's a judgement call, and it's what live officials are for.
There is also an alternative to making rider go back, which can be really difficult on steep courses. Officials could use whistle signals. Something like three short tweets to tell the rider they must stop/remount. If they don't, a long blast. The long blast means STOP. Rider must wait for the official to signal for them to go. The amount of time to wait should be specified also, but I don't know how much to recommend.
The potential problem with whistles is if there are more than one dismounted riders in the section. Not sure how to work that, but the official can point to the rider in question, or otherwise indicate where his attention is focused. On a crowded course, or if several riders have bunched up, it could still be confusing. but that would be true in any case where commands must be given to the riders.
The nice thing about Benoit's approach is that it can be applied in a similar way on the "everybody else" race. I would rather keep the same standards, but not sure how complex we want to get on those races. If there's no tape, those rules could just be applied wherever there is an official to enforce those rules.
You can still require riders to go back, but that can be a very big penalty, especially on steep or loose courses. I remember a fall on the 1999 Downhill race at the USA convention (same place used for Unicon 11). Loose rocks and pretty steep; I had to run back at least 15m to retrieve the unicycle but the ground was moving under my feet all the way!
Comment
I still haven't gotten what happens if there's a technical that's longer than five meters. How is somebody who can't ride it supposed to pass them?
Comment
I think those parts are marked as "allowed to walk"
Comment
@Olaf & @Stephanie - In my proposal, I did specify that only "dangerous" sections would be marked as "allowed to walk". To give you an example, out of the 15-ish really technical section of the DH Final course of U17, I would personally not have tape more than 2-3 sections. That is simply because 75% of the course was "technical" and marking 75% of the course as "walkable" just doesn't make sens.
As so, to problematic for a rider who could not complete a section than is longer than five meters (potentially all expert female riders as of the course of U17), is remain whole. That rider would have to potentially remount every 5m to complete a non-marked section that he or she cannot complete.
Conclusion: My proposition only works for a group of athletes with relatively the same level of skills. This was not the case for the DH Final course as it was intense for most top level male, but nearly impossible for most female (I am actually not aware that one girl in that event was able to complete/ride all the lines).
The U17 DH Elite course was intense, 2-3 sections were indeed "dangerous" at high speed, but it was still realistic and was chosen to push the sport of DH, it was not chosen for riders of such difference of level of ability.
I am in no position of deciding if a Women Final should indeed have their own course, I can only point three things to keep in mind:
- It is false to pretend that the top DH female are as good as the top DH male. Of course some DH female are better than some man - at U17 the fastest girl rider would have placed 11th against the guys but the second best women would have only place placed 25th. No women in the top 10 riders probably mean that the course was too hard for them to compete against most guys. Also, we do not know how much of the course/technical sections the girls had to walk or even run. Reference: https://unicon2014.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/Muni_Downhill_Elite_results20140809-2-135bf7a.pdf
- At Unicon 17, the schedule of the DH day would have provide enough time for a separate DH Female event to happen.
- On the other hand, finding or providing such course would have been quite hard for us since the Resort only agreed to open to us 2 trails. Such requirement would need to be specify in a "Guide to potential Unicon host" to provide clear guidelines and requirement a host would need to apply to before submitting their proposal to host a Unicon.
I honestly don't know if it would be possible for a host to find a challenging but fast trail for DH Elite Male riders that most DH Elite Female riders would be able to ride. I think we need more feedback from the female riders here that did the U17 or U16 dowhill competitions. How much a no-walking rule, expect on a limited numbers of sections, would affect you?
Comment
We have to find a solution here. This rules are not just for Unicons, they are for Downhill races in general so often there will be no qualification at all which means all riders has to ride the same track. Always to remount on exact the place where you dismount can result in dangerous mounts, I remeber judges in uphill that take this so serious that they force riders to remount on a root because they dismount on the root ;) Crazy but happened!
ALso age group is not 100% a sign for the riders quality. Up from 14/15 years a DH rider can ride in the top ten if he is well trained. ANother point is that to remount very often in a technical part will take out a lot of enrgy from a rider so this rider will have even more trouble on the next technical part. I see some bad crashes in a race with 10 Meter rule where I was a judge. some riders start mounting in the moment they see me and fall down in a very bad way as the place was nearly impossible for a mount. However, a solution is needed. Chicken ways are the best solution here but unfortunatly especialy at the technical parts is often no option for a chicken way.
So what about marking more sections as walkable and allow only slow walking (no fast walking / no running). Like:
A rider that will/can not ride a techncal section that is marked have to dismount at the beginning of the section, walk slowly until its end and has to let pass all following rider. Once the rider start to ride the section, the normal rules are active. In case of fast walking the judge have to blow the whistle and the rider has to start again at the beginning of the technical section.
Less complicated would be simply to mark some more sections and recomend to mark as less sections as possible. So the host has some room to go for more or less marked sections depending on track and the group of riders at the event. If qualifications exist, the marked sections for the finals can be reduced a lot.
To do this rules just focused on the Top 20 Riders of the World can not be the target and also not to go for female tracks. ALl Muni riders like the challange and to try more and more techncal stuff every race.
Comment
I think you guys have convinced me the walking backwards shouldn't be an option. Although it would solve the no running rule, it would look silly and might be a little more dangerous.
Beniot has some great ideas and suggestions. As he was an organizer at the last Unicon he has the experience and think he is on the right track.
I think it would make sense to make everyone walk back to the spot they fell off and remount to give it a second go. This would reward riders that complete sections on the first go and penalize those that fall. If they make it the second attempt, great. If not, then they are allowed to walk (not run) as far as they need to get past the section. Yes, this would hurt the flow of a DH race but not for the really good riders that clean everything. This would be easy for organizers and judges.
Whatever rules we apply, training for the judges is a must. They have to be strict and disqualify those that don't follow the rules. No warnings. I say this because there are different judges on the trail at different sections. A rider could get warned once by every single judge along the way (say 10 separate times), which wouldn't be fair. Plus if riders no there is no warnings, just DQ's then they will make sure to follow the rules.
Comment
My take on the proposed 3-5m rule: it has good intentions, but is both too strict and still easy to exploit.
With such a rule you would basically be allowed to always run 5 meters after a dismount. A rider could jump forward off his muni, fetch it from behind without stopping, run over an obstacle, rolling mount and continue. No time lost with no risk of crashing in a difficult section. On most downhill courses, most of the difficult sections are less than 5m long (single drops for instance), so this would be a big advantage for unfair riders.
On the other hand, I've had some high speed dismounts where I had to run more than 10 meters in order to slow down.
My conclusion: it's not a good idea to specify a certain distance.
How about this rule:
A rider is only allowed to run if he/she is moving away from the unicycle. In other words: No running with or towards your unicycle. Running is defined by having both feet off the ground at the same time.
Let's see how this works out for different kinds of dismounts:
Unplanned or planned dismount, still holding your uni: not allowed to run, as you are still connected to your uni and thus not moving away from it. The idea is that if you have so much control that you can still grab your uni, you should not be allowed to run.
Unplanned dismount forward (in bike terms "over the bar"): run as long as you want in order to savely slow down, then stop and walk back up to pick up your uni. After such a dismount, you are always further down the track compared to your uni (otherwise it would not be over the bar) and therefore you are always interested in stopping as soon as possible in order to get to your uni without losing much time.
Unplanned dismount, landing behind the uni, uni stops or rolls down the trail: you are not allowed to run, but can only walk to fetch your uni. There is no need for running because you either land on your back, your butt or statically on your feet in such UPD situations.
Other awkward dismounts not covered by the above examples may happen, but right now I can't think of any situation where you could take advantage of this rule.
If this rule is enforced by judges located at most of the difficult sections (time penalty / DQ), we don't need to differentiate between different parts of the course (marking specific sections), don't need rules about forcing riders to ride everything (which is problematic for weaker riders), don't need different rules for finals and qualifications, and don't need a separate course for females. The "DH racing spirit" would be kept, in fact the rule would not change anything for fair riders.
Some points which still would need to be discussed: what kind of (time) penalties, communication with the riders (whistle) and organizers (walkie-talkies needed), selection and training of judges.
Comment
Ben has brought some more logic and realistic functionality to this problem. I like the basic approach, though it still leaves some holes. I like the idea of "free range" running without the unicycle. Indeed, no need to worry how far, since the rider has to go back. Unless the unicycle is tumbling ahead of the rider, in which case I think running might still be okay. The ground would have to be steep for that to work. Or if the uni goes off the side of the trail and falls down an even steeper slope, in which case I think it's okay for the rider to try to retrieve it at maximum speed.
I see a potential problem with "no running while holding the unicycle" but I think we can figure it out. Due to the nature of DH (or XC for that matter), it is in your best interest to not get separated from the uni. When I fall off in non-race situations, even then I try to catch the seat, which often leads to me kicking the tire behind me, etc. I'm not sure if that's a leftover from the Schwinn (and earlier) days, when you had to catch your seat to keep it from being destroyed. But anyway, There are many situations where a rider might dismount on a steep section, still hold the unicycle, and be unable to stop. I guess what we need there is a way for officials to detect the difference between "absolutely necessary" running and "acting" running.
Like Ben said, if we can figure this part out, the part about penalties could even be a separate discussion if we want (lots of reading here already). And communication has to work, which likely would have to be radios, since cell service is often not available where the good trails are. Not only that, all the officials have to really know what they're doing, which is often a last-minute thing at these events. That's not enough.
Comment
I retract my suggestion to let the rider run after the unicycle if it's tumbling ahead of him/her. This "unicycle bowling" could be done intentionally as a way to skip past a steep section that's technical. We did Unicycle Bowling as a fun competition event at the 2003 USA Convention, on a big grassy hill.
For the other two ideas; if the uni is behind the runner, and if the uni goes off the side of the trail down a steep slope, it should be okay to let the rider run all they want, assuming they have to return to the trail. The side-of-trial thing might have to be reconsidered if the trail continues down there. If a rider hopped on there and continued, they should be disqualified in any case.
Comment
Thanks for your ideas, John! I agree with John that it shouldn't be allowed to run to your unicycle if it tumbles ahead of you. This is already accounted for in my proposed rule: once the unicycle has overtaken you, your movement is in the direction of the unicycle and thus you are not allowed to run.
I personally would also not allow running to fetch your unicycle when it is behind you or off the trail. I would rather have a mentality of "running ONLY when necessary after UPDs" instead of "running ALWAYS except ...". It is also difficult to formulate a rule for this "side-of-trail" thing. Unicycles may tumble 10 m down the trail and then 1 m to the side (definitely no running allowed), but also 1 m down and 10 m to the side (running allowed??); how do you define ahead of you / behind you if the trail has lots of turns and includes uphills and downhill? I would stick with my simple rule (running never allowed when fetching your unicycle).
For the situations in which you grab your unicycle while running out of an UPD, a time penalty of, let's say, 5 seconds would be appropriate I think. Giving no penalty would encourage riders to do such possibly dangerous things just to get a slight advantage.
Basically I think it's fair when people
- walk out of UPDs holding their unicycles
- run out of UPDs without their unicycles
- run out of UPDs holding their unicycles and getting a time penalty.
Comment
All of these are great ideas and I am sure we'll gind a good new ruleset. But they don't solve the judging problem.
Comment
I almost agree with Ben and John, but in my opinion if rider made a short run with unicycle in hand, then he has to come back to the spot of UPD, and he can do it either by running or walking. Also, he should be able to run towards unicycle in any case, but then also need to come back to UPD spot.
My proposal to the rule:
If rider had a run with unicycle in hand he need to come back to the spot before dismount.
Also, I am not convinced with penalties. Riders should play fair all the time, and if they do run by the mistake, saving they bones or whatsoever they should come back to the spot before dismount. They should understand that they have to do this not because the referee is watching, but because it is not fair in respect other riders. It is difficult to set referees on the full lenght of track, therefore riders should control by themselves. Running with uni down the track should be understand as very bad thing, and all who show disrespect to other riders and rules should be disqualified.
Comment
I like Maksyms proposal. But I would add that not only if you are caught running but any time you come off the unicycle you have to go back to the spot and give it one more try. If you don't succeed the second time you can walk (not run).
Comment
I'm with Stephanie, I think these are getting more and more complicated to instruct to the referee.
Having a rule for each scenario of UPD is kind of too complicated in my opinion. Rules should be clear; like "no-running allowed" or "no-running allowed for more than x meter after dismount". Instead now we are going toward "no-running allowed expect when X and Y unless A, than only walking to Z if W".
Instead of going for ultra-strict rules to answer each scenario, we should build one good overall rule and than let the referee decide. "No-running or fast-walking allowed unless to recover from a crash" is pretty easy to understand to anybody and answer the need for a strict rule for running/fast-walking. Than enforce slow walking on the rest of the course so the same rule can be applied to all type of Muni events (beginner, advance, elite, female, etc.).
Then, be ULTRA STRICT on applying these rules. Have a IUF official teach all referee the day before what are the rules and show a video, similar to what I posted earlier, that will demonstrate each and every possibilities of UPD and behaviour and ask the referee to practice their judgment. If referees are brief with video examples and good teaching before the event, all should be fine.
Also, I'm reiterating that any time penalty is a mistake in my opinion. Clear intended cheating should be met with disqualification, small mistakes should be allowed to keep the good spirit of the competition.
Comment
Great to see lots of discussion here! I fully agree with Benoit on how to instruct the judges and that we have to be strict in enforcing the rules.
In my opinion, it is not a good idea to only have the option of disqualification. Yes, a rider needs to be disqualified for a clear intend of cheating. However, it is almost never clear. Especially when riders know that they are being watched by judges, they will be careful in not making it appear like clear cheating. They might run a few extra steps though, knowing that this is not enough to warrant DQ. If we allow these small "mistakes", nothing will change. Time penalties are appropriate for such situations.
About rules being too complicated: My intend was completely opposite, i.e. have a very simple rule to cover all situations. I just explained all these situations. "No running with or towards your unicycle" is simple enough I think.
The only other option I see is a rule to force you to go back where you crashed (Maksym/Jamey). I was initially also for such a strict rule but now I would prefer one that does not completely change the way riders have to behave in case of dismounts.
About fast-walking/slow-walking: Of course it would be nice to forbid fast-walking but I'm pretty sure it's not possible to find a good definition for different kinds of walking. Let's just stick with running / walking.
Comment
We have to remeber one thing: Volunteers for the race are rare and they dont have the time and the ability to comprehend a huge set of rules. It should be kept very simple so that judges can understand quickly before a race AND apply those rules during a race when there is a lot happening.
What I meant that would kill the sport is, if a rider has to mount exactly where he came off and ALWAYS walk back up. Fast riders will always need two or three steps to get to a stop. (NOT 10 STEPS THOUGH!) That´s why I think it would be perfect if the rider has time to remount in a 3-meter long “zone” after dismounting. (Thanks Benoit for this proposal)
This does not kill the flow and at the same time the rider can´t cheat running down a difficult section.
Walking section: yes, but not for finals in a world championship. This would just create the same problem as we are trying to get rid of right now.
SHORT: 3 meters (or 3 steps) is a distance where I personally am able to (most of the time) slow down and mount my uni again. 3 meters is a distance that equals the rule "mounting where dismounted" without critical judge decisions whether to mount on a certain root or stone (Olaf :P )
Comment
We discussed now several ideas and the pro and cons they have. I think everybody agree that it should be as simple as possible so lets try to create a rule from all we discussed. The old rule is at least not that bad and leaks mostly on bad / less trained judges. The old rule say:
4.10.1 Dismounted Riders
Dismounted riders must not impede the progress of, or pass mounted riders. They must remain aware of riders coming from behind, and not block them with their unicycles or bodies. Running is not allowed, except momentarily to slow down after a dismount. Riders may walk if necessary. Riders may receive a time penalty or be disqualified if they disregard this rule.
We have several comments here about how to handle walking in final races / Unicon finals while there exist actually no rule about finals. I like the system to have a qualification and then finals with the pro riders on a more technical and fast track but so far this is optional so we can't add different dismount rules here for a system that is actually not existing as a defined system. Beside this I would like to have a system that works the same way for every race.
To add some meters (3 or 10 or 5...) is also always difficult as it is not possible to measure / see exactly as it looks very different depending on the position of a judge. I also remember sevarl sections where it is nearly impossible to walk up to where you dismount as they are steep and slippery. Those sections you can just ride and hope it works or dismount before and slip down on your ass :) if you UPD while trying it you will end at the end of this short passage and can't walk up again. Also I remember several situations where rider damaging their muni and can't ride all stuff related to the defect while still ride the most of it (broken brake, broken saddle, broken spokes...)
All over I think the existing general rule is not that bad. If we go for a rule that define a system of qualification and finals used at Unicon and nationals, we could add there some stricter rules if needed (like walking is not allowed in finals).
Comment
If we want to change the rules here at all, we have to come up with a draft proposal that at least some people agree on.
Comment
I just read through the entire discussion. My eyes are tired. For the most part, I think we got focused down to better ideas as we went along, so this is good. We're not going to walk backwards. We're not going to require people to network together a dozen or more borrowed cameras and then try to pore through the results later. And I'm pretty sure we aren't going to try to measure hoe many meters someone went while maybe walking/running too fast.
Downhill and XC are similar events, depending on the terrain, and it would be nice to keep the dismount-related rules as similar as possible. This is doable. And for it all to work, we must depend on the enforcement of officials along the course. This is more true for these races than maybe any other. So we may need to develop new approaches for it to work properly.
We will have to really train our officials/judges. This will have to be specifically covered in rules. While the same should be true for any form of officials, I'm just going to concentrate on this subject here. Training must consist of at least two sessions, one before the race (and probably at a separate location) and the other at the venue. This will, of course, create the task of pre-assigning the necessary number of volunteers at least a day in advance. This is something that can be very difficult to organize at unicycle conventions without prior planning and committment to doing it.
In the first training, the rules and theory will be explained to all the officials. All relevant rules should also be supplied to each official, either in paper or electronic form (to download to their smartphone or whatever for quick reference). This training would allow for questions and discussion, and should include video (or live) examples of what officials are to look for. To communicate with riders, we should probably have a simple set of whistle and flags (or hand signals). Whistles to get the riders's attention, and then flags or possibly hand signals to tell them what to do regardless of language. Everybody will practice those sounds and signals.
The second training would be at the venue, just before assigning the officials to their stations. Repeat all the important stuff, make sure everyone understands what they are supposed to do, remind them that it's up to them to keep the racing fair.
Racing:
I'd like to figure out the rules for "everybody" racing first. Then if we want to add more detail for elites/finals, we can do that afterward.
The spirit of the event is to go fast over the rough terrain, on a unicycle. I don't think we want riders to slow down too much to avoid dismounting, as that would turn it into more of a Speed Trials event than a regular race. That could be a separate event, and work like our Uphill competitions, but not this one. This one should still focus on speed. We must assume that our riders are NOT of equal skill. Some will be superstars that can ride over anything in their paths, but others will be mortals with limitations. And anyone can make mistakes.
Dismounts will happen. What we want people to do is get back on and continue, right? I think this is sufficient for the "everybody" races, but may need to be more strict for the Finals. In other words, in the "everybody" races, some people are not going to be willing to attempt every piece of terrain along the way, and opt out of some. I think the key words I read above to set the pace for this should be "SLOW WALKING". The definition of slow walking is that you can tell it's not fast walking. That means you can definitely tell it's not running. Riders should be shown examples of slow walking before the races start (Downhill and XC).
Above I proposed an approach for training of officials. Below I'd like to propose some methods for handling the dismounts/walking/running question, and maybe we can discuss from there to make them concrete for an actual proposal:
Running is still defined as having both feet off the ground for any amount of time. Though it can sometimes be hard to see the feet, it's not hard if you are comparing it to walking slowly, rather than walking fast. If you run you are disqualified. That is, if you run beyond any "emergency braking" necessary to keep you from falling down after a dismount. More about that below.
Slow vs. Fast Walking will not be easy to define. I know it when I see it, but what does that mean? The definition of race walking, as I understand it, is that one foot must be on the ground at all times. Other than that, you go as fast as possible. Slow walking must be considerably slower than that. I'm open to suggestions of how to describe it. The idea is to allow walking, but for riders to know it's going to be slower than any form of riding they would do without dismounting. So it should be undesirable. The definition can include not taking long strides. Walk like an old person.
Penalties:
Penalties cannot be saved for later; it's way too slow, and messy, to edit race data after the race. Penalties must be delivered by the officials who witness the violations. That's why these officials must have serious training, and not just at the last minuted.
Obvious running? DQ. For that I propose any amount of running that isn't clearly part of the rider trying to save herself from falling. Immediate DQ, and the rider must stop. They must move off the course, and not finish riding down until all other races have passed. Officials must note the rider numbers of anyone they DQ, to make sure their time doesn't somehow get counted.
Fast walking? They must stop. How long to stop? Open to discussion. I will propose for at least the amount of time they were off the unicycle, then they may resume. We will have to devise signals or whistle sounds for this. They will have to be published in the rulebook, so racers from China or Indonesia will have a chance to already know what they are.
Slow Walking limits? None. Again, this is for the "everybody" races, and should be modified for Finals. Walk slow all you want. Maybe the definition of Slow Walking should be about half the speed of the average racers on the course. Equally hard to estimate though. Basically it has to not be anywhere near riding speed.
As always, riders who are walking, or who have dropped their unicycles, are required to yield to racers that are mounted. This means they must pay attention and be mindful of those riders. Riders who do not make way can also be made to stop and wait, and if they keep doing it they can be disqualified.
Each course official must operate in a bubble. First offenses cannot be passed along to the next official, so the penalties must be delivered immediately. Making a rider stop and wait can be repeated all along the course if necessary.
Things we probably shouldn't try to do:
- specific distances (we are not equipped to measure)
- specific amounts of time (unless every official has a stopwatch)
- Any type of penalty that can't be applied by the official
We might be able to count steps. Yes, different sized people take different sized steps, but we all need about the same number of steps to catch ourselves after a dismount. If we want to count, figure maybe 5 steps for a normal dismount. But the terrain in a downhill race is anything but normal, so even counting steps might be misleading. I think the officials should just have to do it by eye, based on the terrain in their sections.
Awards:
Why can't we do awards right after the race? Is it something besides the protest period? Please note that there is no text concerning protests in the Muni section (loophole!) Mention of the ability to file protests should be in there, but even if we were still under the jurisdiction of the Track & Field section, we could still do awards and deal with protests later. I believe it makes sense to do the awards for these types of events (very separate venue) at the event if possible, so the actual participants can be there to experience it. I'm mentioning this in the wrong proposal, but only because it's been mentioned above.
Comments?
Does the above look like something we can build a proposal from? How do we make it rulebook-ready?
Comment
Well said Foss as I think you made the best out of all the above ideas and suggestions. Slow walking may just work. It's easy to tell the difference from fast walking or running. Maybe blow two whistles if someone gets DQ and one whistle if the have a time penalty. I think time penalties should be the same and I would say 5 seconds. Judge blows whistle puts up his hand in the stop position and counts down "five unicycle" "four unicycle" etc. while putting down fingers. This isn't exact measurements of time but accurate enough and makes it so everyone doesn't need a stop watch.
The only grey area is when someone runs to catch himself after a fall. Maybe don't have a limit of steps or distance but have the rider briefly pause for a second after he catches himself before continuing? This shows to the judge that the rider is aware of running due to a fall and doesn't continue running or walking fast. Would that work?
Comment
Very impressive job John, very much appreciated, I too was confused where we were at and this helped me to get back to it. Now we just need to find a way to write this in less than a 1000 words...
I think your proposition of a ''everybody'' rule could also be used for Finals\Elite races since we do not have any rules ready for theses finals type of races, we might as well just take these and see how it goes during next Unicon if the host decide to organize such finals.
So ? :
- Running in the course not to recover from a fall: Judge blows twice (and yell the riders number if possible), rider gets DQ and need to leave the course.
- Obvious Fast Walking not to recover from a fall: Judge blows once, riders need to come to a full stop and judge counts to five before the rider can remount or slow-walk.
- Slow-walk: allowed in any circumstances.
- Fast-Walking/running after UPD: riders must come to a full stop after a dismount before remounting or slow-walking. Judges use their judgement to determine if the rider is over running/fast-walking after a UPD. If so, they can blow once and ask the rider to stop for five secondes. (from Jamey's proposition).
Most important thing, train the judges well and in advance with videos authorized by the IUF showing different situations of slow walking, fast walking, running, UPDs and dismounting to test the judges's judgement.
B.
Comment
This all sounds good to me. My only suggestion. In the case of one whistle blow for fasting walking, after the five seconds is done, the official should blow the whistle again when the rider is allow to start riding again.
Comment
I like very much what has been suggested by John and in the following comments. I especially like Jamey's idea that riders must come to a full stop after a dismount. No running out of a UPD into a rolling mount. Benoit wrote a nice summary, I think we can base the proposal on his post (including Scott's idea).
With all the judges necessary, I think we can only require these rules for events of a caliber of Unicons, NAUCC or European championships, but we still should recommend them for smaller events.
Comment
Hello everyone, there is not much time left, but maybe we can still get some of the things we discussed into our rulebook.
First of all, it would be easy to implement the ideas for stricter rules regarding dismounts. Based on the previous posts I suggest:
4.10.1 Dismounted Riders
OLD:
Running is not allowed, except momentarily to slow down after a dismount. Riders may walk if necessary. Riders may receive a time penalty or be disqualified if they disregard this rule.
NEW:
Running and fast walking are not allowed, except momentarily to slow down after a dismount. Riders may walk slowly if necessary. After a dismount, riders have to come to a full stop before mounting the unicycle again. Riders may receive a time penalty or be disqualified if they disregard these rules.
Probably the wording can be improved so remarks are very welcome. Scott, as the OP, could you turn this into an official proposal?
The other aspect would be referees with whistles, but probably that would need a separate section in the muni rulebook and also a separate proposal.
Comment
Thanks very much for writing the proposal, it very nicely incorporates the stricter rules for dismounts and more details on judging. I think it's a good idea to keep the new ideas regarding signalling with whistles optional for now, if it works out we can make them mandatory next year. Nevertheless, the new system should definitely be tested at NAUCC and UNIOEC, if somehow possible.
Comment
I like this proposal -- clean and simple, but incorporates a lot of what we discussed.
Comment
Rocco, I like you proposal. However, one of the problems at Unicon is that the judges really didn't want to disqualify riders right away. My rewrite here makes it so that the rider is never immediately disqualified, but rather has a warning (with a penalty). This makes it easier for the judges to judge, and it makes the rider feel like he or she was given a fair chance.
New Rule:
Running and fast walking are not allowed, except momentarily to slow down after an unplanned dismount. Riders may walk slowly if necessary. After a dismount, riders have to come to a complete halt before mounting the unicycle again. The following penalties apply if riders disregard this rule:
- Riders get an immediate time penalty of five seconds when they intentionally run or walk fast, not recovering from a fall. A judge must clearly indicate when the time penalty starts and when the rider may continue - e.g. by blowing a whistle and counting down from five.
- If the rider does not promptly stop and wait five seconds after the judge's indication (e.g. whistle blow), they will be disqualified immediately. The disqualification should be signalled to the rider immediately by a judge - e.g. by blowing a whistle twice.
Judges must be trained and tested to correctly enforce these rules. Riders must be informed about the type of signalling prior to the race.
Comments?
Comment
I like Scott's addition.
Comment
Rocco?
Comment
Good point Scott, I updated the proposal.
When this proposal passes, we should initiate a working group to create training material for future judges.
Comment
If I may suggest two small modifications, I would simply switch the order of the 3 first sentences of the new rule and add a clarification, meaning that:
"Running and fast walking are not allowed, except momentarily to slow down after an unplanned dismount. Riders may walk slowly if necessary. After a dismount, riders have to come to a complete halt before mounting the unicycle again. The following penalties apply if riders disregard this rule:"
would become:
"Running and fast walking are not allowed, except momentarily to slow down after an unplanned dismount. After a dismount, riders have to come to a complete halt before mounting the unicycle again. Riders may walk slowly if necessary [in any circumstances]. The following penalties apply if riders disregard this rule:"
Just to keep the rules about dismounting close together and specify that walking is allowed at anything and not just during dismount.
Other than that, I support this new rule at 100%, good job Scott and Rocco!
B.
Comment
I like Benoit's reordering.
Comment
Thanks Benoit, I updated the proposal.