Slow races in the future
This discussion has an associated proposal. View Proposal Details here.Comments about this discussion:
Started
As there were many problems and injustices in terms of the disciplines "slow forward" and "slow backward", I think, we should learn from these experiences. So I propose to replace the point 2.20.4 in the rulebook with the following:
The definition of "slow forward" is to ride forward as slow as possible without stopping, going backward, hopping or twisting more than 45° to either side.
Rules:
1. Board sizes:
Two different board sizes are used: Age 0-10: 10 x 30 cm. Age 11-UP: 10 x 15 cm.
2. Penalty rules:
The judges give penalties to riders who make "mikro- mistakes". Each penalty makes 1 second deduction to the time reached.
Riders are still disqualified if their wheel comes off the board or other obvious errors are made, for example dismounting or turning the wheel 90 °.
(The reason is, that it can be pain for the top riders, who have trained seriously, if the judge do not see the micro difference between 45° and 46° or between stillstand and very slow movement.
In Bavaria the penalty rules has been applied at a regional championship after unicon 17 and the riders were asked to give their evaluation. The result was the following: 100% of the riders prefer the penalty rules and more than 60% think that they had been disqualified once without reason in the past.)
3. Finals:
Riders move on to the finals if they complete a time equal or slower than 45 seconds.
Riders, who have submitted a verifiable best time that is better than 45 seconds, have the opportunity to start automatically in the finals and they have not to compete in the age group.
For the finals, there will only be one team of judges in order to have a fair competition.
(The reason is that different judges, judge in different ways because everyone has his own perception and therefore an own definition of a mistake.)
As usual, each rider has two attempts in the finals and two attempts in the age group.
Only results from the finals will be valid for a world record.
4. Special rules for international championships:
At international championships the FINALS will be held in 3 rounds. Riders have two attempts in the first round.
Then all riders who have reached a valid time, will start in the second round to improve their results. Riders who have improved their result in the second round, will start in the third round. If a rider couldn´t improved his time, this participant will not start in the third round and the best time of his first round will be ranked, similar to the disciplines "long jump" and "high jump".
If after the first round, all competitors of the final agree to stop the competition, the competition will be finished.
2.20.5 Slow Backward
This is the same as the slow forward race EXCEPT: 0-10 ride on 60 cm board, 11-UP ride on 30 cm board and riders move on to the finals if they compete a time equal or slower than 40 seconds.
I think implementing these rules slow race competitions become definitely fair for the riders and more attractive for the audience.
Comment
These are the rules that we ended up agreeing on at Unicon after much discussion. It ended up working well there.
Comment
I mostly agree with that and I also think it will be fairer if the penalty rule is invented.
However, I'm not so sure about the three rounds to be honest. Just from my personal experience I can say that if you do the finals in three rounds you're booked up for a day in the gym, waiting, waiting and waiting.. This can be a problem if you compete in other disciplines.
I just think if you can always try to improve your result it will be quite time-consuming. Then I could also propose such a rule for IUF Slalom.. I could say I want three rounds and improve every time, it's just not realistic from my point of view.
My suggestion: board size, penalty rules and judges as Ana proposed, finals: all riders compete in round 1. the ones that are slower than 45sec/40sec compete again in the final (which is set at a specific time the same day) so you just have two rounds. the rider who wins the second round is the new world champion.
Comment
Miriam, I want to comment to your suggestion. The background of the prequalification is that the top riders should be judged by the same team. Therefore they have to start at a fixed time in the finals/second round and not in age groups/first round.
I agree, that in Montreal it took more time than expected, but it was the first time that this system was realized and in my opinion the judges gave their best.
I think, in the third round, there will be less riders than in the rounds before :)
Comment
I hesitate to comment in a thread about Slow races, since the event is impossible to judge objectively. For those that are willing to risk a range of differently-opinioned judges, the Slow Race can be an easy couple of medals. First, watch how the officials are judging. Then, maybe wait until an "easy" judge is running it. Enter then.
The propsal above eliminates the problem of inconsistent opinions, but only for the Finals. Results for everyone else would still be random and relatively meaningless. I would support the idea of doing *only* the event Ana describes above. For everyone else, provide several practice boards, and let people informally time each other for training purposes. This would carry the same weight as the "official" competition we usually do, unless a single person judges entire age groups.
The counter-argument to the Slow Races being dumb is that it's a good skill to learn. Why? Stillstanding is a good skill, because it has real-world applications. Riding slow without stopping is just a way to bag two (relatively easy) medals, without investing much time, if you're good at it.
Comment
I agree with John, that last years there were riders, who took advantage offered by the choice of judges. Fortunately, this problem was definitely stopped for the finals at unicon 17, because the host applied new rules and there were the the same judges for all finalists.
The other problem that John pointed out, that in certain age- and gender groups it´s very easy to get medals, is true too.
Another problem is that in Germany, there are riders who sign in for slow races, but do not appear to the competition and there are also participants who try out these disciplines for the first time at unicons.
Therefore I propose to add, that the host of national and regional championships can decide to offer only the finale/expert competition. This means, that there can only start competitors who have submitted a verifiable best time that is better than 45/40 seconds.
For unicons, I suggest that only expert competition should be offered.
Comment
I think the proposal with a minimum time is not bad Ana, however, I would say there are about 8-10 female and 2-4 men who actually ride that time, so I guess we have to go a bit lower with the time, what about 30/25 seconds? There are still not many who regurarly ride this time.
Comment
The Basic Idea of inventing that system was to find a way to make Slow Races more Atractive and more fair. I think with the finals we meet both targets as we have a very reduced number of participants and a fixed set of judges and additional we have the penalty rule which delete preasure form riders and judges.
Another part of the basic idea was to eleminate Agegroups at all as a result of a much faster and less strong observed quailifaction process. As there are still several hundred riders sign in for Slow races, the Idea was the following:
1. round: the boards are marked with tape on the hall floor so you can have easy 10 - 20 "boards" in one gym. There is a minimum time for forward and backwards and only one judge per "board" witht astop watch. SO up to 20 riders can start at the same time and the judge has just to observe is the run is legal and if the rider is able to manage the qualification time for the next stage. ALl other riders are simply out of the competition, like it is in Flatland also. No placement, no podium.
2. round: here is the question if a second stage is needed or not. Maybe this can be decided by the host. At least this round will just delete even more riders from the finals and a host can maybe set 30 seconds for round 1 and 45 seconds for round 2 if he see a need for that second stage. You will have anyway less riders in the second round so you can maybe reduce to 10 at the same time or in best case now start using physical boards.
3. round (finals): Now the small number of top level slow racers are left for the finals and this follow then the rules Ana discribed already. the team of judges is there always the same for every competitior. it could be attractive to have some finalist "racing" side to side which will make it more atractive for a possible audience and even bring back a bit the spirit of a race as you have your oponent beside you and see how slow he/she is :)
Following this system you should be able to manage hundreds of riders in a short time with less judges while the Pro slow racers get a higher graded and more fair competition then before.
This is just the big picture of our Basic idea, unfortunatly I couldnt make it to Montreal so Scott had to pick up the idea inner some minutes he was able to chat with me and then he had to realize it together with Ana and some more people that help out there.
Comment
If this were to be implemented, and with no age group awards, it would solve the problem of the hundreds of riders as well. :-)
Comment
Is it a problem if a competition at a Unicon attracts hundreds of riders?
Comment
No it is not :) The propblem was more the old format of slow races. It eats a mountain of time and produce so many wrong results based on less skilled judges and week/difficult to judge rules. Also it was one of the disciplines where 70% or more riders compete while never do any training for it or maybe do but without good results :)
The new format would be still open for hundreds of participants and still keep the option for everyone to become a World Champion. It just shrink the needed time a lot and make it all more fair. For sure it can be also divided into age groups again to produce a lot of medails and a lot of finals but then we could use also the old system.
The new system is dedicated to those who train serious that slow riding / stillstand because they like it. This way we would be able to provide a finals that show "the art of balance" done by the very best riders whiel make it possible for a host to handle easy some hundred participants in the qualification. A very simmilar System to Flatland where you also eliminate in the first round all less good riders while giving them their chance to show what they are able to do. then in the Finals the very best provide the big show. I never heard about protest having no Age Groups in Flatland / Street ...
Comment
I agree to the idea of Olaf, that we should eliminate age groups but still offer the possibility for all riders to verify a best time.
But we should consider, that eliminating age groups means that for all riders the same board size have to be used. Therefore, riders of age group 0-10 should ride on the 10 m x 15 cm/ 10 m x 30 cm boards too. I know, that´s no problem for young riders, who really like to practice these disciplines.
I think, we should implement the new rules step by step. I like the idea of Olaf, doing the finals in heats, but I think we still need time to have enough qualified judges. Still I think, that all riders of the finals should be judged by the same team and when we have enough qualified judges, the riders can start in heats. At unicon 17 some finalist got really shocked, that they could not choose their favorite judge :)
Comment
I was one of the slow races judges in Montreal.
In my opinion three rounds are to much as you need a lot of time. It was true that we need "a few" minutes more in Montreal because it was the first time, but I don't think that a lot of time is saved the next time because there will be new / other judges as with the Unicon in Montreal :-)
The other problem is to find judges ! I think this was I large problem in Montreal. And this problem will not be smaller the longer the competition takes. As judge you need a lot of concentration for your work. As judge in Montreal, I was really not angry to the driver that they resigned to the third round. If there is only one final of the top e.g. six driver of each gender you can have I team of judges doing all the work in the final.
I think it is difficult to offer only tine/expert competition at Unicon.
Regardless there can be minimum time limits for Unicon - but I think they should be lower - 25 or 30 seconds are o.k.
Penalty rules used in Montreal: I think one second time deduction for each "mikro- mistakes" (Definition?) is not enough / not fair. It has to be more - may be even five seconds.
---------
My comment to the Basic Idea of Olaf:
I don't think we have enough qualified judges to do 10 or 20 "boards" in a first round (not at a Unicon - and even less at a smaller even) ! If you do the competition with only one judge you need qualified judges. Otherwise I very good driver may have a problem if he/she is qualified in the first round ? With a second judges you have the chance to grade this "Problem".
On the one hand I like the idea not to have a board but to mark the "board" with tape on the hall floor. It's easier to organize. On the other Hand it is more difficult for the judges. It is easier to see if somebody drives of the board than to touch a mark on the floor.
I agree that it could be more attractive to have some finalist "racing" side to side but in this case you can't have ONE team of judges for all finalists.
I think it is no problem for younger riders to use the same board as the elders. If the rules are changed in this point the competition host can decide to offer age grougs or not.
Comment
I have to second what Ingrid says. She was very helpful working with the new rules at Unicon when we made them at the last minute.
Comment
I see the problem for a side to side race, it would be great but it is for sure a problem of judging.
About the qualification and using tape marked lines, I don't see the problem as this qualification is just needed to figure out the slowest riders (a number of 10 or 20 riders). So 1 judge per line sould be able to see big mistakes and keep the time per rider and line. If a rider reach the finals by a mistake he will have no chance under finals conditions. 3 rounds would make sense related to thi. In case of a Unicon you have for example 200 riders signed in for Slow races. Now you prepare 20 merked lines in a gym and collect 20 judges. Now each rider get his run and for example the 30 slowest riders will be qualified for round 2.
Now in the second round you reduce the lines to 10 and use 2 judges per line. In this round you qualify the Top 10 for the finals. Those ten ride then in the finals on boards.
I think this system can shrink the time a lot and it should be possible to find 20 judges (for trials you need 30 or more at every event and you have to explain more then for slow races to them).
The penalty time has to be discussed and those who used this rule in Montreal already are for sure the best to set a good level.
Comment
Ingrid, I would like to comment you, that the way the third round should be implemented in the future will be different than the third round, that finally we didn´t realize in Montreal. ( In Montreal the finalists resigned the third round, because it would have been exactly a repetition of the second round: same riders starting at 0 once again.)
The idea for upcoming finals of international competitions is the following:
- Riders who could verify or reach in qualification round a time equal or slower than 45/40 seconds move on to the finals.
- First round of finals: all finalists get two attempts to reach the goal , same a time equal or slower than 55/50 seconds
- Second round: all finalists who have reached the goal of the first round start now, with the goal to top their personal best time of the first round. Only one attempt is given.
- Third round: finalists who reached their goals of the second round, start in the third round with the goal to top their best times of the second round. Only one attempt is given.
Riders who couldn´t improve their results, will be ranked with their best time of the round before.
With this system, there will start less finalists in every round, so we don´t need so much time.
If the qualification round is only for getting necessary qualification time to start in the finals without option to get on the podium there will sign in only 50 riders I think, but not 200 ! Therefore, tree marked "boards" and three judges will be enough.
The reason to set a minimum of 45/40 seconds is to have an expert competition at unicons and let the host decide the minimum that make sense at his regional championship.
To sum up: we don´t nighter need so much time, nor so much judges, because of the self reducing system, and the same judging team will be able to judge the finalists as in Montreal.
Penalty time: Ingrid, let me comment you that to deduct up to 5 seconds for only one "mikro- mistake" , that could consist by a visible vibration of the wheel, is not the idea of the new developed rules, I think. For example if a rider reaches a time of 50 seconds and the judges note 6 "mikro- mistakes", the result will be 20 sec.
Now we have produced exactly the same situation that should be avoided: For this rider there is no difference between this result and the disqualification of the old system.
Just in Brixen Sonja explained at the judging workshop that´s not fair to disqualify competitors because of "mikro - mistakes", because judges perception is not always perfect.
Ingrid please would you explain us why do you think 1 sec. in "not fair"
Comment
What exactly is the idea of new developed rules?
I think they can only be useful in combination with the decision that there are definitly no age groupes are wanted any more. In this connection we have to concern how we want to inspire new / younger drivers for this discipline (if this is wanted in future). At the moment there are lots of drivers who take part in this discipline (even not everybody registered appears). But will that still be the Situation after inventing the new rules?
I think in the present rules some disciplines only have less age groupes because the amount of drivers is not so high in the moment and maybe the would split the age Groups if possible.
I don't think the present rules are not that bad. I think it's rather a problem of the QUALIFIKATION of the judges. To have a number of judges is a large difference to a number of judges. And it is a difference of having semi-skilled judges with a basic knowlegde of the rules or to have experienced judges with ten, twenty or more houres experience of judging in a competition. An experienced judge has already discussed severeal doubtful situations which is only possible if there are two judges who saw the same situation. And maybe even reviewed his evaluation with a parallel film.
------------------------
Penalty time:
The new rules had been published in Montreal very, very short before competition. The Drivers had little chance to train with the new possibilities. Therefore only less drivers really used the new possibilities. But if the new rules are being published - this is another situation. You can train to have only mikro-mistakes to perform your time. But is this the aim? I think not. So I think there should be less incentive to use this instrument consciously but to use it to balancing maybe wrong decisions of judges in situations of really high level (when the normal human eye has less chance to interpret a maybe doubtful situation).
Comment
I think that especially Slow races don't need a lot of age groups and maybe can good exist without age groups. It is a competition about Skill and mental power and less about physical power. Beside this I think in many other disciplines we could go for less age groups as they make no sense. Today I see the ski Jumping competition in TV and they talk about the Norwegian team that just decide to skip age groups as they figured out that they make no sense in ski jumping and that those riders that dominating age groups over years often quit before they reach their top level. They have 12 years old jumpers that beat 18 years old ones and so they now delete any age groups. Just a sample from other sports. I know what they talking about as I visit a lot of competitions with young riders and I see the big mountain of medails they get over the years and I get the feedback how boaring it is for them over the years to win easy instead of competing seriously.
However, this is not about age groups, it is about slow races and how they could stay alive. The last two ruelbook committees had proposals to delete slow races completely, both failed but just with 1 or 2 votes majority. It is optional and in Montreal the host dont want to do them. They decide finaly to do them based on the ide of a new format that speed up the event and provide something atractive for spectators (the finals).
For sure perfect judges would solve a lot of problems but everybody know how difficult it is to reach that target. There are many disciplines that need better skilled judges and we try to develop always better systems to train them but based on the unicycle sport itself it is a very difficult target and I think we have to exist with motivated volounteers for the next years. Thats why my idea try to work with less skilled judges without providing a disadvantage to the riders.
Penalty time is also related to the judging problem as slow races have week criterias to judge. It is same difficult to se a micro error then before so a to high penalty time would provide the same problem we had before. I can follow Anas arguments in that point. I also don't think that riders start to train how they can cheet in slow races. Some maybe do it but some do this for every discipline, it is not possible to eliminate those few riders. The most slow race competitiors train never or nearly never for it in a special way, they just know that they are able to ride very slow or often they just want to try it. Those who train ot seriously are those that will be in focus with the new format and if the new format result in 50 instead of 200 riders, I see no disadvantage. To motivate riders to compete in a discipline that provide a medail just by some luck cant be our target and nobody go for a 100 meter race if he is a lame duck or start in trials or downhill to pick a easy medail. 8 from 10 riders I asked why they sign in for slow race competition told me that they just had free time then and want to see how slow they are, most of them even have no idea about the rules. The good ones have to exist between several hundred riders that just want have fun.
Comment
Important: Age group riders pay for our competitions.
When they don't start, participation fees will rise immensely.
As an organizer of competitions I keep in mind the calculations!
Do you have an idea how high the participation fee for one person will be, when only the best riders start?
About ten times higher.
What are the advantages of abolishing age groups?
Comment
The new judging system applied in Montreal, doesn´t offer "new possibilities" at all. As world record holder, I can assure you that it´s impossible to cheat by making consciously "mikro- mistakes", because a rider doesn´t have any consciousness about "mikro- mistakes" while he is riding. Therefore, it´s much more easier for riders to train correctly, than training to cheat because of getting a better result.
Imagine a standardskill competitor will be disqualified instead of for example, getting a deduction 0,5 points. A comparable situation is caused by the old rules without penalties, because riders doesn´t notice if they make a "mikro- mistake" or not.
Comment
@ Petra: while I can follow your argument, I don't see any influence on the number of participants if you have skow races or not. Beside this, Anas proposal offer to still add age groups in smaller events in case a host like to do it. If we would delete age groups from track races for example, we would lost a lot of participants for sure but for slow races I'm very sure that it will cost us not 1 participant.
The advantage is that it will safe a mountain of time while the qualification.
@Ana: I agree, the penalty system is just a step forward to kick out the propblem of fair judging. Std Skill is a good sample and also in team sports a foul just give advantage to the other team but dont disqualify the rider who made the foul. I also agree that it would be sensles to train micro mistakes, it sounds pretty strange for me.
Comment
In the qualification round, the riders try to verify a time equal or slower than 45 seconds, if the haven´t already done that at another competition
- Instead of "slower than" perhaps "greater than" is more accurate. Ditto throughout the proposal
- Need to define "another competition". Is that any other IUF sanctioned competition or just you and your brother in the back yard?
Riders move on to the finals if they complete a time equal or slower than 45 seconds. Riders, who submitted a verifiable best time that is better than 45 seconds
- Again, "slower than" and "better than" should be "greater than".
- What is considered a verifiable best time? Documented in an IUF sanctioned competition? What about regional competitions?
Comment
Good points, greater sounds better then slower. I also agree that "another cometition" could be more clear defined. A "verifiable time" should be also defined more clear, it should be an official Record or a time done while a IUF sanctioned competition like Unicon, Continental championships and those nationals that go for official status.
Can you try to implement Kennys points Ana?
Comment
Kenny is right, a time is not "slow". Slow is a measure of speed, but speed is not measured in a "slow race" (notwithstanding the name). The outcome is not in km/h (or m/s), but in seconds.
Indeed we need to define "another competition". But I think that Olaf's definition is perhaps somewhat too restrictive. If you have a result from a slow race competition in your regional or national championship and you can prove it (e.g. it is on the competition website, and/or you have a certificate), that is good enough for me even if the national or regional championship is not officially IUF-sanctioned.
Comment
I agree Klaas, Im happy with any definition as long as it is clear defined what count and what not. So any official result done while a regional, national or bigger competition can count as long as the rsult can be provided by a official result list.
Comment
We need to define "micro-errors" so judging can be consistent. I have a feeling for what is meant by this but I'd bet if you asked 10 people you would get 12 opinions. Otherwise, nice work.
Comment
Really, defining "micro-errors" is what makes judging Slow racing so subjective. You can't measure them, they happen very quickly. How much is too much? I used to watch the crank arms, as they are a more honest measure than watching the wheel vs. the frame. The frame can move a lot without the wheel moving, based on rider movements. So even if we create a standard of "not more than 5-degrees of bobble" or something like that, we still don't have a precise way to measure it. This is why you haven't heard from me much in the Slow Race discussions; it's something that can't be measured consistently.
I am in favor of the basic idea of reducing the age groups of it though; those were some of the easiest medals to get if you were lucky in your age group. And are you discussing doing this in both directions? If you ask me, Forward is enough. Yawn. :-)
Comment
I hate to be a pain but, again, what is a "micro-error"? I understand they are subtle, but what are we looking for? Is this just the "feeling" that the cranks stopped? If so, is there anything else that qualifies as such a sin?
Comment
Indeed, it´s difficult to define "micro- errors". I think, that if you try to define "micro- errors" too exactly, we run the risk, that we will end in the situation, we wanted to avoid:
If we define "micro- errors" as not perceptible, the judge can insist, that his perception is perfect, what is not the idea of the new rules.
I think, we have a feeling for what is meant, but we cannot describe it with words, we should only give some examples.
What do you think about the description of "micro errors" as: turning the tire between 45 and 90 degrees, vibrations of the tire, "micro stillstands"..........
I think, as we are going to eliminate age groups, we still should offer both directions at a higher level.
At unicon 17 we didn´t have any problems or discussions because of injustices in the finals, therefore we should implement this system, and at the next IUF rulebook discussion, we will look at the evaluation and decide, how to go on in the future.
I think, we should give these disciplines a chance by implementing the new rules. If we keep the old system, in my opinion it´s better not to offer these disciplines any more, because of the professional cheaters, discussions and injustices..
Comment
I think giving examples of micro-errors is a good idea. I agree they are difficult to define precisely, and that's ok. But if I am judging I want some guidance on what to look for. As a competitor I'm most concerned with the judging being consistent based on that guidance.
BTW: I understand a micro stillstand (the cranks stopped moving), but am unclear on "turning the tire between 45 and 90 degrees, vibrations of the tire".
Comment
It´s difficult to describe and more difficult to understand, so I propose to provide a judge workshop next Unicon, where we will see and understand, was is meant by possible different kinds of "micro- errors".
Comment
A judge workshop is undoubtedly a fine idea, but that doesn't help a rider or someone else reading the Rulebook to understand what a micro-error is. We need to be as clear as possible in the rules to begin with.
This stays a difficult topic though. We are trying to define firm judgement criteria for a discipline that is maybe objective in principle (since the rules sound simple and clear), but subjective in practice.
Comment
As "micro- errors" are produced unconscious, they should not be considered as a important subject for the training. I think, that most riders and judges know what is meant. What do you think about the idea to add a video clip whit examples of "micro-errors" to the rulebook edition?
I can develop an online video training for judges with different examples.
Comment
I respectfully disagree that "most riders and judges know what is meant", I still don't. Even if most do we should provide the means for all riders and judges know what is meant. Video or some other media to enlighten the rest of us would be greatly appreciated and highly recommended. Thanks for doing this, Ana!
Comment
o.k. a video for illustrating what is meant by "micro-errors" will be provided.
Comment
I greatly appreciate Ana's offer to provide a video to illustrate the meaning of "micro-errors".
Having said that, I' undecided whether we should go this route.
Maybe I am oldfashioned, but I tend to think that a Rulebook is a volume of text that completely covers all the rules.
How would we incorporate video into the rulebook? Upload a vid online (YouTube, Vimeo, IUF server?) and put the link as text in the rulebook?
As we haven't done something like this before (afaik), we should make sure that we (as IUF) agree on the principle of enhancing the rulebook with (links to) non-written media that are an integral part of the rules. By "integral" I mean that we need a video because text-only would be inadequate to describe the rules. I'm not sure yet if text-only is inadequate, although this discussion seems to indicate it...
Comment
To me, micro-errors means fore-aft "bobbles" of the wheel. The lateral movements are easier to detect and measure. We settled on 45% as a limit because it's an easy angle to see, but knowing that it's really far from straight ahead. Some micro-errors can be of a twisting nature, but most are micro-stops or micro-backpedals. Usually just a few mm at a time, but noticeable. Video is probably the best way to illustrate examples, and perhaps determine how to set the limits.
How to incorporate videos? I think it's pretty safe to reference YouTube URLs. Does YouTube remove or change the URLs of individual videos? If YouTube isn't long-term enough to be trusted, we can host some clips on our own website. In any case, links to video examples can be very useful to illustrate what we are trying to describe. This applies to all sorts of things, not just Slow Race micro-errors.
Comment
I agree to Klaas that the rulebook should cover all rules, but in the case, that a video is better to illustrate, we should use this technical possibility.
If it´s too complicated, that the IUF agree that videos will become part of certain rules immediately, the videos could be used as an illustration for judges and riders.
Thank you for your comments, ideas and interest to improve and develop the rules of slow races.
Soon I will call for voting, thank you for participating.
Comment
Before calling for voting, I think you should try to get clarity from "the IUF" (Olaf? Scott?) whether they agree that video can be formally part of the rules, since the text of the proposed rule change depends on it. If they agree, video should be mentioned in the proposal (how exactly, I don't know). If they don't agree, then not mentioning it in the proposed text (as is the case now) is OK, because video being informally used for illustration purposed is not part of any rule. It could then e.g. be part of a judging and/or riders workshop.
Comment
I much prefer to not have the video as a part of the rules. However, I do think it would be very useful for judge training.
Comment
I think it would be good if riders have access to it too.
Comment
Klaas, I like that idea. Perhaps we should add a "rider resource videos" section to the IUF website. Someone in the Flat committee also talked about making a video about what safety gear was required. This could all be added in one place.
Comment
Rider resource video section: good idea.
Comment
o.k. if you prefer that the videos will not become part of the rule, then they will become an illustration for riders and judges that will be added to the IUF website.
Comment
I have moved this back to pre-voting due to Klaas' comment. Klaas, please post that here again since we lost your comment when I removed the votes.
Comment
Whoa, I haven't saved my comment either... But it was something like this.
The old rule includes useful details about the start, i.e.
"Riders start with the bottom of the wheel on the starting line. On command by the Starter, the rider must immediately start forward motion and let go of starting posts."
This, most notably the second sentence, has been lost in the proposed new rule.
I think that in the last few years at Unicons and elsewhere, the rider did not need to start immediately after a command, but was given a time window of a few (three?) seconds in which he can start at will. I think this is a good system, although "illegal" under the old rules. Therefore, I think the proposed new rule should leave this as an option to the host. (Since it ties in with the timing system, I wouldn't prescribe it as the only option.) I leave the wording to the proposer.
By the way, somehow I missed the "pre-voting stage" announcement on this proposal. My bad, perhaps. We need that stage (after the discussion stage), to see what the actual proposal looks like and still be able to comment on it.
Scott, did I cover all elements of my earlier comment?
Comment
Klaas, I think you covered everything.
I agree. The rule needs to have some sort of definition about start. I agree with Klaas' suggestion allowing a time window for the start.
Klaas, could you put this into "rulebook text" for us?
Comment
I added the definition about the start:
The reason because a time window of 10 seconds is allowed is the following:
the last Unicons and Championships in Germany, riders didn´t need to start immediately after command because that would have meant another possibility to produce injustices because of the subjective perception of the judge. Therefore, start was practiced while riders got in position behind the starting line and within a few instants, that were not defined, the rider started his attempt. Therefore, I think the rulebook should "coach" unexperienced hosts by defining the best and most realistic start details.
Klaas, I think it´s unrealistic to give a window of 3 sec., because nobody should proceed to measure this tim too, because it´s irrelevant.
Experiences showed us that everybody has been able to start within a few instants, so I prefer to define 10 sec.
As the proposal defines that "time starts running.......", it´s irrelevant to define the position of the wheel. This start detail was not realized at competitions the last years.
Comment
I can't find "time starts running" in the proposal. So I don't understand your comments above.
Comment
Oh sorry, I thought it was implicitly but you are right, it´s better to explain it exactly. So I will add it at start details.
Comment
I think I now understand that you are assuming that the rider starts behind the starting line, and time starts running later than that, i.e. when the rider crosses the starting line.
I think you should put also this (starting position) explicitly in the rules, since starting ON the starting line is the norm in most races and "running starts" are not permitted. So this would be an exception.
Comment
I think it is better to require the rider to start behind the start line, not just allow him to do so. Because if some riders start on the line and some behind, this can create inconsistencies with the timing. A much smaller, semantical, issue is that if a rider starts at the start line, the bottom of the wheel never crosses the line.
Under penalty rules, change "turning the wheel 90°" to "twisting 90°". The reason for this change is that the wheel will turn more than 90° by just riding forward. Twisting means a rotational motion around the vertical axis.
I think there are also some issues with the English (riding of the board; get champion; recommended to held the finals; and more), but I reckon those will be solved later?
One more thing that is different in Slow Backward (compared to Slow Forward) is that the riders ride backwards. Perhaps this is too obvious but it just struck me. And of course, riding forward is a ground for disqualification (or a micro-error, if very small).
Comment
I hope, everything is clear now, soon I will call for vote, thank you for participating.
Comment
I suggest being consistent with the wording, sometimes you use tire and sometimes you use wheel. I think you mean tire in all cases.
Comment
Ana asked me to edit the proposal as a native speaker. I have made rather large changes.
Ana, in some cases I wasn't sure what you meant, so I tried to rewrite the rules clearly how we did the competition at Unicon. Please correct me if I did anything wrong.
Klaas, you are welcome to get picky about the English now.
Comment
Thanks Scott, especially for your last remark :-)
Riders who seems to make >
Riders who seem to make
No age groups will be ranked. >
At international competitions, no age groups will be ranked (see section 7).
45 secends >
45 seconds
or longer at another regional, national or international competition >
or longer at another competition
The champion is the rider, who completed the best result >
The champion is the rider who completed the best result (no comma)
This can be done by submitted a qualification result >
This can be done by submitting a qualification result
No safety gear is required. Riders must wear shoes. >
Riders must wear shoes. No other safety gear is required.
Non-language remarks (with some small language bits mixed in):
"The position of the unicycle during a slow race is measured from the bottom of the unicycle wheel, more specifically from the foremost point of contact with the ground."
This is new, right? I'm not sure if we should specify to measure from the foremost contact point. That is a rather 'soft' point. I think it is better to leave this unspecified. As long as start and finish are done the same way, it is OK. It might be the middle of the contact point (most convenient IMHO when doing by eye), a lightray low above the riding surface, etc.
If we agree, then another change to the text is needed:
The time stops when the bottom of the tire touches either the finish line, or the ground after the end of the board >
The time stops when the bottom of the tire crosses the finish line, or touches the ground after the end of the board
I would change "Regional championships" to "Regional or national championships" (it occurs a few times). Some nationals, such as the Dutch, are relatively small (under 100 participants), and hence equal or even smaller in size than a big regional event e.g. in Germany.
I would rewrite the content of Slow Backward as follows:
This is the same as the Slow Forward race, with the following differences:
- Riders ride backward.
- It is an error to ride forward.
- In international competitions, riders ride on a 10m x 30cm board.
- If the host of a national or regional championship decides to offer age groups, the board size of 10m x 60cm can be used for age group 0-10.
- Riders move on to the finals if they have completed a time equal or greater than 40 seconds.
- At international championships, riders move on to the second round if they have completed a time equal to or greater than 50 seconds in the first round or by submitting a qualification time ≥ 50 seconds.
Comment
Thanks Klaas. I've made all of these updates.
I agree that the contact point isn't that important. I added the text being overly precise I guess. That text is removed now.
Comment
In section 5, I think we should change
For international championships it is highly recommended to hold the competition in 3 rounds
to
For international championships it is highly recommended to hold the finals in 3 rounds.
This is to avoid confusion with the qualification round, which is not part of the finals, and for which the required time is different.
While the proposal is unambiguous now, its structure is not very clear. Let me summurise what I understand.
There are four rounds (at least, that is highly recommended - which does not sound like a rule, by the way):
- Qualification: 45 seconds or more (previous results valid), two attempts.
- First final round: 55 seconds or more (previous results valid), two attempts.
- Second final round: to find the six top performers. One attempt, single judging team.
- Third final round: only the six top performers. One attempt, single judging team.
Some more remarks/questions:
"First round: all finalists get 2 attempts to reach a time equal or greater than 55 seconds. This can be done by submitting a qualification result, or by performing this result in the first round." The last occurrence of "first round" could better be changed to "qualification round", at least I think that that is meant. Otherwise, you end in a loop.
"For the finals, there will only be one team of judges, in order to have a fair competition."
Is this also true for the first final round?
"Only results from the finals will be valid for a world record."
Is this only for final rounds 2 and 3, or also from final round 1?
"Riders get two attempts."
This text appears under "finals", but it is in contradiction with what is written for rounds 2 and 3 of the finals, so I guess it is should only be valid for final round 1.
I think this proposal would clear up a lot if it were more schematic. (I don't really have the time to do that, so it's a recommendation for Ana and/or Scott.)
Comment
I'm still having trouble with this:
"The timer starts recording time when the bottom of the unicycle wheel crosses the starting line. The time stops when the bottom of the tire crosses the finish line, or touches the ground..."
Although I understand it's meaning, and most people will, the wording is still inconsistent. I suggest using either "bottom of the unicycle wheel" or "bottom of the tire" in both cases. I don't care which one is used.
Comment
My understand is that at Unicon there should be a total of three rounds. At smaller competitions there should be a total of two rounds.
Ana, please confirm this.
Comment
> I suggest using either "bottom of the unicycle wheel" or "bottom of the tire" in both cases. I don't care which one is used.
I agree that this may be confusing (readers may try to find a reason for the difference).
I suggest "wheel" is used throughout, as "tire" only occurs once in this proposal.
Also, "bottom of the unicycle wheel" and "bottom of the wheel" are both used. Perhaps best to use "bottom of the unicycle wheel" in the first occurrence, and "bottom of the wheel" in the remaining cases?
Comment
This has been updated.
I'm still not sure what the exact format of the rounds should be. Hopefully Ana can reply soon.
Comment
The fact that you and I, as two people who have read the proposal more carefully than the average participant, arrive at different interpretations is a strong indication that the text needs to be cleared up, regardless of what Ana points out as the intended meaning. The proposal should be less spaghetti and more schematic, I think.
Comment
I agree.
Comment
I want to explain you, that I have replaced "riders move on to the second round" with "riders move on to the finals" because the qualification round is not part of the competition.
Scott, as Olaf yet told us, that at Unicon 17 there was not enough time to realize this new ideas, this new rules are not exactly the same what was applied in Montreal.
The idea of the finals of international championships is that riders move on to the next round of the finals if they reached their goal in the round before (top their personal time) and not only the riders with the best results, similar to the the jump disciplines.
Comment
The proposal has cleared up significantly.
Some questions/comments:
Under 1.5 it says "see section 7". But there is no section 7.
The heading of 2 reads "Finals(= real competition)". I object to seeing only the finals as competition. Someone who drops out in the qualification round has still participated in a real competition. So I suggest to make the heading just "Finals".
It is not stated when a rider moves from the second final round to the third final round. Do they, as the text ssems to imply, have to reach their so-called goal of topping "their personal best time in the first round of the final"? That would be ridiculous. We must have the best riders in the last final round, not merely the ones who are making better progress.
Under V it says "Finalists will be ranked in their age groups with their best time reached in finals or preliminary age group attempts." I think we should add "Previous results are not valid."
Previous results (from another event) are valid to move to the finals, but should not be used for age group ranking at "this" event.
Comment
Thank your for your comments, I will change some details.
Let me explain, that the original idea of the finals is, that each rider shows his best performance, and not "only" to win the competition.
The background is that in the past we had champions whit ridiculous results. Anyway if it seems to be too complicated, I would agree to keep on with what we have realized in Montreal. In this case, we would have only two rounds in the finals and eliminate the third round because it doesn´t make any sense to repeat the second round whit the same riders as the third round.
The original idea was topping and topping the performance.....
Comment
I much prefer the method in Montreal. I would say no to making the event longer. Slow Races are already not the most popular event, and many event organizers are sure if they want to include it or not. If you make the event a bit shorter, you increase the chances that the event will happen.
Comment
Depending on your answer to my question what the basis is for moving to the third round (which you have not answered yet), I was going to ask what a third round in the finals would add to round 1 and 2 of the finals. Scott was already under the impression that there were only two rounds in the finals. I tend to think that that is better indeed.
But: perhaps it is better to eliminate the first round, not the third round. By that I mean: in the (new) first round of the finals you have everyone from qualification or from previous events (45 seconds for forward). After the first round of the finals, the six (or another number) best riders move on to the (new) second round of the finals.
Since you came up with this whole idea of having three rounds in the finals, you will probably see a problem with this. I'm unclear what it is but I'm happy to hear more.
If the objective is "topping and topping the performance", that seems a bit strange to me. We could do that also in IUF slalom, in 100 m, etc. For slow races I see the need for qualification followed by finals because it is basically a judge discipline, so you need a single judging team for finals. But I still don't see why you would have three rounds of finals.
Comment
In my opinion we are getting close to the optimal proposal. It is clearly structured (no confusion about the number of rounds anymore).
The one thing that I wonder is why results from both the first and second round of the finals are valid for a world record, and also for obtaining the title of world champion. Because if that is the case, the purpose of the second round is unclear to me. In this way, we are giving the six best riders four attempts, and all the other riders two attempts. This seems unfair. It would be more logical if we change something, either:
- Only results from the second round of the finals count towards becoming champion. Then you have a real final round between six riders.
The problem may be with the World Record. The first round of the finals is also carefully judged on a proper board (not marking tape), so why would such a result not be a world record if it is better than anything in the second round? But then again, this opens the possibility that the World Record is different from the World Champion at the same event, which is strange. - There is only one round of finals. What is the issue with this? Too many riders (possibly)? Not as attractive to watch as a second round with the very best riders?
I'd like to hear from Ana, but also from others.
Comment
@point 1.:
The case that happened in Montreal was, that the six best riders didn´t like to run again in a second final round starting at zero because it would have been a repetition of the first round.
Every result performed in a final must be valid for world record.
World record holder is not different of world champion.
It´s true, that the six best riders rides twice more, what is different to get two more attempts . The best riders move on because of their performed time.
@point 2: less attractive to watch
I think we should come to an end I also would agree with only one final round.
Comment
> I think we should come to an end
It is taking a long time indeed. For me, part of the reason is that it took me a long time to understand the proposal. Some 'problems' only became clear after I understood it.
> I also would agree with only one final round.
I would be happy with that. It seems to solve all my remaining issues, at the price of being less attractive to watch.
Comment
I still think micro errors need to be defined. As it is written they could be anything, and I do mean anything. If they are only defined when the judges are trained it leaves the riders with no idea what they are being judged on.
Also, can someone please explain why world records are only valid in the final rounds? If I did better than a world record holder but in a lesser round, I'd be quite upset. Isnt't a world record simply the best time under sanctioned conditions?
Comment
Micro-errors: Ana promised to provide video examples of micro-errors. These videos will be made available on the IUF servers for judges and riders alike.
World records: before the finals you have the qualification round (as it is called). To handle large numbers of participants, those may be done with quite a few "boards" in parallel, possibly marked with tape on the floor, and with possibly inconsistent judging. Those results are therefore less reliable (the conditions are "less sanctioned" if you will) and that is probably the reason why the proposal makes those not valid for world records. While I type this, I see a problem: qualification round results are implicitly still valid for records "below" world record, which could result in a national record being better than the world record. Perhaps we should drop "world" in that place of the proposal.
Comment
Micro-errors: it is kind of useless to define them exactly as you then have again a exact definition which is just moved to another position. For example you are not allowed to move more then 45° to left or right. As it is nearly impossible to observe exactly 45°, 48 or rvrn 52° can be a micro error while a judge will realize 65 or 70° for sure as clear error. If you now define that 45° up to 54° is a micro-error and above from 54° it is an error, the complete system is useless :) Same for stillstand. Micro-errors define the area between a 100% perfect ride and 100% error. The Micro-error rule also result in the need of having one set of judges for the finals to provide a simmilar result for every rider. Slow Races had and will have a weak part (or we need an electronic equiped board and unicycle). This rule is a way to make SLow races more fair and more atractive (finals). Micro-errors rule help a lot in make it more fair and can't be defined exactly. "Micro" is definition enough, "little" errors for example would be a very weak definition, "Micro" not.
World Records: From my opinion only the finals can provide a reliable result and so a record (independent of beeing national or continental or world record). Also usually national records follow / should follow the same rules then World records. If they don't come you always have the risk in every discipline that a national record can be better then a world record. There is no record "below" a World record, a reliable record should always follow the simmilar rules to make it serious.
Comment
First paragraph: clear explanation of the whole point behind using micro-errors.
> a reliable record should always follow the simmilar rules to make it serious
Even when using the concept of micro-errors, the judging team at another event will likely be different. This means that even if similar rules are used, records are not very reliable/comparable.
However, just yesterday someone posted on unicyclist.com about a technical solution, that may make slow racing a lot less judge-dependent. See http://www.unicyclist.com/forums/showthread.php?t=117078. I think this is an interesting development.
Comment
I agree defining micro-errors exactly is too difficult and not very helpful. My point is we need to define the concept of a micro-error, maybe give an example or two like Olaf above. Otherwise we will hear a lot of riders asking "what"s a micro-error".
Comment
micro-errors:
as it was pointed out in the discussion weeks ago, it´s impossible to define micro-errors too exactly because they couldn´t be produced on purpose, they "happen" unconscious.
Therefore, a video with examples will be provided for riders and judges.
records in qualification round:
as it was pointed out in the discussion, records of the qualification round can not be recognized because of the following reasons:
-
due to the more qualified judges
-
the same judging team
-
board instead of a taped board is used
- It seems absurd not to rank results but to recognize records of the qualification round. Therefore, already in Montreal records could be performed only in the final.
Otherwise our intention to make slow races more fair becomes absurd because invite cheaters to the qualification round.........
Comment
a comment to the link of Klaas:
This technical system is no alternative at the moment for the following reasons:
The twisting angle problem is not covered, this degree discussion was a main problem in the past. Therefore we will go on producing discussions.
The system has never been tried out and so we have no evaluation.
conclusion: To make slow races more fair and more attractive, we should establish the proposal we have elaborated the last months as a new basis for further developments.
In any case, every new idea (technical or not) has to be tried out and to be evaluated by experienced riders.
To the comparability of results performed in different championships:
look at standardskill, for example there were big differences between the judges, because for example one judge deducts 0,5 points and the other judge deducts points for the same error.
Comment
> My point is we need to define the concept of a micro-error
I agree, this could be made more explicit. The proposed new rule talks about riders "who seem to make micro-errors" (note the italic). This means in my opinion that it is about doubt. In other words:
- If the judge(s) are sure that no error is made (e.g. twisted 30 degrees) > no problem
- If the judge(s) are sure that an error is made (e.g. stopped, twisted 60 degrees) > disqualification
- If the judge(s) doubt whether an error was made (from which you can conclude: if it was an error it was a small one) > deduction of one second.
> This technical system is no alternative at the moment
I agree this system is not mature enough to be adopted as the standard now. Perhaps it was confusing that I mentioned it in this discussion. But I think that such a technical solution may in the future (after proper testing etc) solve the problems that this proposal addresses.
Comment
Your suggestion will be worked into.