Long Jump: electronic detection system for jump and landing marker
This discussion has an associated proposal. View Proposal Details here.Comments about this discussion:
Started
At Unicon16 first time a electronic Monitoring of the jump and landing marker was used. It worked perfect and gave the judges first time the possibility without risk for him to distinguish between slight touch or not. Therefore following modification in rulebook should be done
add of electronic monitoring
Old:
2.19.2.3 Judging
The rider must clear the jump marker and the landing marker without touching them; he also has to clear the finish line to make it a valid jump. Jump distance is measured between the outer edges of the jump and landing marker. There has to be at least one judge (better two) to look at the markers. For national championships and Unicons, two judges are always needed; one to observe each marker.
New:
2.19.2.3 Judging
The rider must clear the jump marker and the landing marker without touching them; he also has to clear the finish line to make it a valid jump. Jump distance is measured between the outer edges of the jump and landing marker.
The touch of the markers can be monitored with electronic sensor mounted at each marker. Alternative there are always two judges needed; one to observe each marker.
Comment
While I like the Idea of electronic sensors to observe longjump markers I think two judges are needed anyway and not alternative because we have no definition / no standard for "electronic Sensor" it means all and nothing. From my opinion we should add the option to use electronic sensors while keeping 2 judges mandatory and try to describe a reliable system while the time it will be tested. The type of Senser has to be defined, its tolerance and how to adjust it.
Comment
I agree. I think an electric sensor would be really nice but we have to define how it works.
Comment
And you also need a judge to determine if he landed the jump. Again another thing which would be enforced probably only at Unicon
Comment
Use of a electronic Monitoring detection System:
1. I will write a description for the sensors we use in Germany, Unicon 16 and Eurocycle 13 until next weekend
first short description:
The sensor princip is used in all Airbag control units we all have in the vehicles. If you touch a Metall part you will generate Sound, the sensors are very sensitive, therefore touching the metal marker you can see a very big Signal, touch the ground (without touch the marker) you only see a very small misuses Signal.
Therefore tolerances are not relevant, if already a small touch happens you see a huge signal
2. We use this sensors on most Events here in Germany.
3. I don't have a Problem if still 2 judges are required
Comment
Reiner,
Can you update this and create a proposal within this week?
Comment
Scott,
Yes no Problem,
I just check the comments,
proposal will be created asap
Comment
While I like the idea,the Propsal sounds still week for me as there is nor clear definition like "IUF certified" system ... It also should be defined if the judge or the system has the last word in critical decisions. This would mean also that we have to list verified sensor systems. As it will be possible to do it,the proposal just needs some more details from my opinion. The System description can be part of a special technical addendum of the rulebook.
Comment
Hello Olaf,
I don't understand your comment, where is in this propals written "IUF certified" system.
According sensors:
I prepare a special document for details description of the sensor prinzip. I send it to you and Scott, I can also published it to all. This document can be used as special technical addendum of the rulebook.
What else is necessary now?
Comment
I just mean that the definition should be more clear. I got the document and if the Proposal pass, it should be published / availiable on the IUF page and also a link in the rule should target to it. A Status like "IUF certified" system can help to define clearly what is allowed and what not but this would be a certification system that has to be established. In case of longjump for example you use your system now severl time and verify that it work propper and failsafe so it could become an official status. If people plan to use a different system, it has to be verified also while several events and it has to be documented also like you did it.
However, the rule should include a clear definition what system can be used. to allow in general electronical system would make it possible to use whatever stuff like measuring with an IPhone ...
I will think about a usefull wording and add it asap.
Beside this it must be clear if Judge or Computer is the one that decide in unclear results.
Comment
As this stands, the change to this proposal is not useful at all. There is no definition of the system like Olaf said. Also, because it is only listed as "recommended", it isn't actually a rule and thus just extra text in the rulebook.
The current rules also do not prohibit an electronic judging system.
As it stands, I would vote against this proposal.
Comment
I checked the descriptions in the old rulebook, example:
for the false start monitoring only following comment is written: electronic false start monitoring System
It makes no sense for me to describe in the rulebook or in referenced documents details of this electronic monitoring System.
Therefore I will cancel my proposal
Comment
I agree that the fals start rule has the same problem which has to be solved in general. If that worls as I want it, your System will be officialized by itslef without the need of a rule change.