Two details about the second try (in 100m, 400m etc.)

This discussion has an associated proposal. View Proposal Details here.

---

Comments about this discussion:

Started 23 Dec 03:49

In some cases riders can have a second try - I‘m missing two details about this second tries (or they are hidden so good, that I didn‘t find them).

1. The second try is declared invalid / is not given if the competitor was disqualified before he was hindered.
2. The second try always remains valid, even if the hindered was better.

 

 

Comment 23 Dec 15:59

I don't think either of those were ever in there.

For #1, I would say yes. No point in re-running a rider who was already disqualified.

For #2 I am inclined to also say yes, but there is more room for discussion. What if the rider finished a very fast 100m, without a dismount but after some interference? And then that same rider *does* dismount on their second run? Maybe that should count. The rider should not get to choose between two successful runs. But if they fall on their second run I would let the first time stand.

Comment 23 Dec 17:01

I am not aware either that this is regulated now in the IUF Rulebook.

Number 1 is a good one, I never thought of that but I do agree.

Number 2 is how we do it in our Dutch Nationals. If a rider is hindered he can request to do a second run. If the request is granted (i.e. the hinderance was witnessed and severe enough), the result of the first run is irrevocably cancelled. I would not agree with John's proposal in his example. If in the example case, the rider during the retry feels (or measures, or is signalled by his coach) that his second run is going to be slower, he could fall on purpose and thus save the first result.

Comment 29 Dec 14:00

I also agree to #1

For #2 the rider has the choice to restart, but if he restarts the first run is cancelled and only the second run counts whatever the result is. Therefore the rider can decide not to restart, if he is not sure enough to get a better result when restarting. In this case the first result counts. Any restart means that the first result is cancelled.

Comment 29 Dec 14:19

I also agree to #1

 

#2: I follow the comment by Andreas

Comment 30 Dec 00:02

I also follow the #2 comment by Andreas. The one I posted would be messy to try to follow through the data process without lots of potential problems.

Comment 14 Jan 04:31

I would like to create a proposal, but I don't know under which titel / paragraph the rule should be added, because there is no paragraph right now which deals with this topic. Any suggestions?

Also I'm not sure, if the wording of the two articles is fine right now. Maybe the native speakers have better ideas how to formulate the articles.

Comment 14 Jan 18:34

I think it should be a paragraph at the level 2.x within Chapter 2 Track & Field. And I think it should be between 2.5 False Starts and 2.6 Finishes. The title could be "Second attempt after hindrance".

Besides the two rules we should also describe the principle of second attempts. Maybe something like:

=====

If a rider is hindered by another rider or someone else, either during the start or during the race, he may request to make a second attempt. For this request to be granted, the hindrance must have been witnessed by at least one official, and acknowledged by this official as "significant". A second attempt will not be granted in case the rider was disqualified before he was hindered.

If the request is granted, the rider will restart in one of following heats. It may occur that he has to ride his second attempt with another age group.

If the rider decides to do a second attempt, the first (hindered) run is cancelled and only the second run counts, even if it would be slower than the first (hindered) run.

=====

I have added "during the start" because a disturbance during the start beeps (e.g. if a waiting rider loses balance and takes the neighbouring rider down in his fall) could also be significant.

Comment 15 Jan 13:15

I like your suggestion to describe the principle of second attempts in the new paragraph - I think this is a little bit unorganized in the rules up to now. It appears in section 2.7 and 2.11 and I would propose to discard it there and put it in the new paragraph.

My Idea:

 

 

 

 

Another thought that comes to my mind:

What about the Finals? I think there are no following heats… Did we allow other rides to ride with the restarting rider, so that he didn't has to ride alone?

Comment 15 Jan 18:18

I like your improvements on 2.x, 2.7 and 2.11.

The questions whether we allow other riders to ride with the restarting rider, not only applies to finals but to every case where there is no following heat. It might be that once a "protest" or request for restart is processed, granted and accepted, all heats are done.

For a non-final, I think we can allow other riders to ride as well, obviously their times are not official, they only ride to accompany the restarting rider.

For a final in which hindrance occurs, I think it is bad luck for whoever is hindered. The whole point of a final is riding directly against each other. Maybe if the hindrance occurs early in the race, it can be treated as a false start, and all riders are called back to restart? This would be a split-seconde decision though, not easy to make.

Comment 16 Jan 01:19

The above draft proposal looks pretty good. Because we have taken some content out of those existing sections, I think we should add a reference in there to the relevant new section(s). The wording could probably use a few tweaks, but that can wait until it goes to the pre-proposal stage (whatever that's called).

It's a good idea to be clear that a re-run means to delete the original run. Riders must understand that by running the heat again, they are bound to the results of that second run, no matter what happens.

For the question of having "placeholder" riders in a re-run, that should be up to the rider in question. That rider can join another heat with other racers (at the choice of the Referee), but if all heats are finished, let the rider decide if they want company or not. In such situations, as a Referee I would tend to give the "official" rider a clear lane on either side of them, and have the "placeholder" riders in the remaining lanes. They can pick the riders if they want, but cannot hold up the proceedings to wait for them if other riders are available. The Referee has final say as to which extra riders participate in such heats.

Klass asks about hindrance (fouls) that happen early in a heat/race. If they are during the first 10 meters or so, it can be stopped like a false start. beyond the first few seconds though, it's very hard to get a stop without confusion. In the past I remember winning some heats because of confusion among the riders that maybe there was a false start. I learned early on that you finish the heat unless you're *sure* it's not a race. So I think such an idea would have to be a judgement call by on-site officials, such as whoever has the false-start whistle.

I remember some 100m finals that were little mini-disasters. Like the Men's 100m final at Unicon 12 in Japan. I think less than half of the field actually finished the race. Some of these dismounts were in the beginning and middle, but there was also a multi-person crash right around the finish line. It was a mess, and hard to even tell who rode completely across the line. I think they ended up re-running that heat because it was such a mess. That decision in itself is a tough one. It is best done if all the riders (the ones that finished) agree with the idea. I was the Track Referee at that Unicon, but I also wasn't (never be the Referee when none of the other officials speak your language; it's messy).

Comment 22 Jan 04:55

Jan,

Please start a proposal with the text you have written. The link to do this is at the bottom of the page. You can still make revisions to the proposal once it is submitted.

 

Thanks.

Comment 22 Jan 14:45

In the proposal under review now, the changes to the old rules are OK for me.

A couple of minor comments on the new rule:

1. "A second attempt is not be granted" is ungrammatical. Better options are "...will not be granted", "...is not granted", or "...is not to be granted". Your choice.
2. "In the case where a second was incorrectly granted": a word is missing after "second". It may be "second attempt" or "second run".
3. The last sentence talks about cases in general where a second [attempt] is incorrectly granted. Prior disqualification is given as an example. Then "the rider remains disqualified" is not always applicable. Perhaps the incorrectness of the granting of the second attempt was something else than prior disqualification. I think the phrase after the last comma could be "the result of the second attempt does not count, and the result from the first run stands".

Comment 24 Jan 13:34

Response to Klaas' numbered items above, with suggested text replacements:

1. "Riders that were already disqualified before they were hindered will not be granted a second attempt."
2. I don't think that sentence is needed. It repeats the information from the line above, and only the first sentence in that paragraph is needed.
3. Again not needed. If a rider was mistakenly granted a second run, and is later found to have been disqualified in the original heat, that disqualification still stands. Unless I'm missing a possibility there.

I would like to suggest a more descriptive title for the section. "Second Attempt After Interference". Nobody gets a second attempt without cause. The second attempt can only happen after some sort of interference to the rider.

As part of this proposal, I recommend replacing the crossed-out text in 2.7 with "(see Section 2.x)"

Beyond that, I think this is the best-formed proposal I've seen in a while!

Comment 24 Jan 15:26

My suggestions were already processed in the proposal (see link at the top).

Re #2: I think the sentence serves a purpose. An official might mistakenly grant a second attempt (e.g. if he is not aware of a disqualification). This sentence prevents the possible misconception that granting a second attempt would negate such a prior disqualification. By the way, disqualification may also officially happen a bit later. I mean: someone may swerve outside their lane, e.g. in the bend during a 400 m race. An official who witnessed this, will report it to the referee, who probably will disqualify that person. In the meantime, the same rider might have been hindered by a fall before him, and get a second attempt. This attempt is thus granted before the disqualification, but still unjust in my opinion. This can be addressed by a small change in the text of the proposal, in stead of

"for example when the rider was disqualified before he was hindered"

we could write

"for example when the rider is disqualified based on something that happened before he was hindered"

A similar change should then be made to the sentence that starts with "A second attempt [...]".

Re #3: this is about the same sentence as #2.

I agree with John's descriptive title.

As to replacing the crossed-out text, I think in the context it is better to write "(See also Section 2.x)". I added "also" because Section 2.x gives additional info, not a clarification of the (remaining) text in 2.7 and 2.11.

Comment 27 Jan 17:25

The third paragraph and the second sentence of the last paragraph are near-duplicates, although I understand the difference. Maybe we can weed out a couple of words there?

Also, I think the beginning of the third paragraph should read
"A second attempt must not be granted [...]"
or
"[...] should not be granted [...]".

If it stays
"[...] will not be granted [...]"
then the example in the very last sentence will never occur.

But I'm really picky here, aye?

Comment 30 Jan 06:32

Klaas, perhaps you can paste the new proposal here with all of the text revised as you see fit.

Comment 07 Feb 02:49

Klaas, I changed the beginning of the third paragraph as you proposed. Any more suggestions to improve the rule?

Comment 07 Feb 10:37

At Scott's request I went through the text with a dust comb (Dutch saying). Note that I have made several changes not only to the new rule, but also to the old rules (2.7 and 2.11) that are affected by this proposal. I think this is permitted. If not, let me know and  I'll make a separate proposal.

= = = = =

Proposal

Old rules:

Comment 07 Feb 16:09

I like "dust comb". The American version of that (possibly all of English but I don't presume) is "a fine-toothed comb". You found good dust.

I recommend that the final proposal be expanded to include the two other sections you included.

Comment 07 Feb 18:10

"I recommend that the final proposal be expanded to include the two other sections you included."

That's probably the most convenient indeed, since 2.7 and 2.11 are affected by the inclusion of 2.x anyway. Up to Jan V as the original proposer to include I think. In fact they are already in the current proposal, but they are called "old rules". However, "old rule" means a text section that is replaced by "new rule". Since these two are not to be replaced but to be edited, I think we need both a "new rule" and an "old rule" version for 2.7 and 2.11 (in addition to the new rule 2.x that has no equivalent old rule).

Comment 08 Feb 09:02

I added the old rule version for 2.7 and 2.11

Comment 08 Feb 10:34

Good work Jan.

I still have my dust comb within reach, and noticed the following, all under New Rules:

1. In the first paragraph under 2.x you wrote
   both riders must remount and continue
   This should be
   both riders may remount and continue
   The reason is that there is no requirement to remount and continue. It is legitimate to give up for whatever reason (e.g. injury).
2. In the last paragraph under 2.x you wrote
   when the rider was disqualified  based on
   This should be
   when the rider was disqualified based on
   (one space removed between disqualified and based)
3. In the same paragraph, you wrote
   happened before before he was hindered
   This should be
   happened before he was hindered
   (The duplicate 'before' occurred also in my text. Not sure if I copied this from the previous version of the proposal.)
4. Under 2.7, your wrote
   a rider who goes outside their lane is disqualified immediately
   This should be
   a rider who goes outside their lane is disqualified immediately
   (immediately is crossed-out)
   The word "immediately" was deleted by me. There is no reason to insist on immediate disqualification, and in practice some time will pass between riding outside the lane, and the official decision to disqualify the rider.

Comment 08 Feb 15:38

You're right, I changed the four things you noticed.

Comment 11 Feb 07:35

I think the rule is ready for vote… or is there anything that should be changed?

Comment 11 Feb 07:42

No one seems to have a problem anymore. So I think indeed that the rule is ready to vote. Bring it on!