Revise the rule on spacing in non-lane-bound races
This discussion has an associated proposal. View Proposal Details here.Comments about this discussion:
Started
In discussion 7, the topic of how lane judges should react when a rider violates the mandatory minimum distance of 618 mm in a non-lane-bound race came up. And how violations should be penalized in principle. I think several questions arise in this regard:
1. Is it really always problematic to be below the minimum distance?
If, for example, a rider is riding behind another rider at a smaller distance, this is not necessarily problematic as long as both do not touch each other. However, a smaller distance to the side (e.g. when overtaking) or when coming back in front of the overtaken rider would certainly obstruct the overtaken rider and should therefore be punished in some way.
2. How (and when) should the lane judges indicate to riders that the distance is too small?
The suggestion of John in the other discussion to use a whistle I think is a good idea. Riders might not even notice an arm movement or something like that.
3. Should we include in the rules that a rider can be disqualified if he does not respect the minimum distance?
If so, I would require that another rider is obstructed - so we could maybe also run the disqualification based on the obstruction rule.
Comment
1. I have always interpreted the rule (2B.7.5) as referring to lateral (side-by-side) distance, not to riding behind each other. Now I see that (on the next page), "and at all other times" is added. But even a small lateral distance is not always problematic. Good riders maintain a perfectly predictible course, and the lateral distance can be smaller without problem. When drafting behind another rider, there is in practice often less distance than 618 mm, and again, this is usually no problem.
2. This should not be signalled at all, I think. A whistle, or arm waving or whatever, might distract other riders who do nothing wrong. If a rider violates the 618 mm rule AND another rider is obstructed by that, then the rider who is responsible for the too small distance should be DQ-d afterwards. Similar to breaking other rules such as going outside the lane, or not properly finishing. But if no such problems arise, I think this can be left unpunished. In theory, this leaves the door open for someone to claim they have been obstructed, and then have their competitor DQ'd. The passing rider can prevent this by maintaining at least 618 mm.
3. I think the purpose of the rule should be this: if a passing rider maintains at least 618 mm distance, then the rider being passed has to deal with that. They might still feel obstructed or get scared if someone suddenly turns up beside them, but then the passing rider is not to blame. Also, when going back to the inside, 618 mm is the minimum wheel-to-wheel distance. Some riders might feel uncomfortable with someone so close before them, but the front rider is not to blame.
Comment
I was hoping that there would be some feedback from the other committee members as well - since that is obviously not the case, I'll give my feedback:
1. It seems that we agree that it is not reasonable to penalize someone who rides behind someone else at a distance less than 618 mm. So I would suggest changing the rule to require that the distance be maintained when riding side by side and when getting back in front of someone.
2. I would also agree with this, other riders should indeed not be disturbed by indications of rule violations. The current rule doesn't even include a penalty for breaking the rule - but I think it would be good if a rider who doesn't maintain the distance and thus obstructs another can be disqualified. This should be included in the rule.
3. I totally agree with you on this.
In the end, this whole section is actually about how a rider can be obstructed by someone who is passing and that the obstructing rider can be disqualified for it. Wouldn't it then make sense to integrate this paragraph into the section on obstructions?
Comment
Yes, we agree on all three points.
As to your last remark: I tend to think "no". The section on obstructions is about bad behavior and how it is punished. The section on passing is essentially about good behavior. Besides, a rider who wants to look up what the rules on passing are, is more likely to look for a section on passing, than for a section on obstructions.
I too would like more comments from other committee members, or agreement as the case may be.
Comment
I agree with what Klaas says in his first post above:
- We have no good way of calling out an individual rider that's doing something wrong; could be distracting to all riders, so I don't think it would be helpful to interrupt them during a race. If interference is observed, we take it up after the finish.
- Our "wheel diameter" rule for spacing was created to make a size that's easy to visually estimate, to give riders an easy way to estimate if they're getting too close. When passing, this can still have riders' shoulders close together, but we need some measurement to offer as an example. It's impossible to accurately enforce such a rule with constant movement of riders, so an exact measurement isn't enforceable; only a guide
- The important point to make is for riders to not crowd each other. When riding side by side, both riders are responsible for spacing. But usually one is ahead of the other. In that case, the non-leading rider is responsible, as the leading rider may not be able to see. Also, if one rider is at the inside limit of the track (far left in Lane 1), the other rider(s) are responsible as that rider cannot move over
- Others may argue this, but at 618 x 125mm speeds, drafting is not a thing. I figured out that I did better sitting up very straight, to breathe better, was faster (for me) than crouching over to be aerodynamic. I'd be interested to hear if today's experienced Track racers think there is a benefit to drafting in 24" racing. In other words, following closely, directly behind another rider is a bad idea. Being a little off to the side is a smarter way to follow. But if you aren't working on making a pass, better to leave some more space. I guess this bullet is more a question and some advice, rather than rule information, but it's all relevant to understanding how we should handle this topic...
- So our goal is to explain to riders their limits on spacing, in a way they can understand and also a way we can enforce from the sidelines
- The rider doing the passing is the one that must be careful, but the rider being passed can also be the problem, if they attempt to block or interfere with the passing rider. Both riders should maintain a predictable line and not try to intimidate or otherwise interfere with each others' normal forward motion. They shouldn't make unusual arm movements or sudden changes in direction when close together. Any of those sorts of things could result in disqualification
- So we have to define what gets (or may get) a rider disqualified. I will attempt to list these things:
- Riding too close (inside the 618mm distance from wheel to wheel)
- Sudden arm movements that aren't related to balance correction
- Riding toward another rider like you are about to enter their space (needs better wording)
- Suddenly slowing down when in front of another rider
- (please add more)
- Overtaking riders must remember to maintain that spacing if they are moving in front of a rider they have passed, and hold that space until they are in place. After that, the responsibility of not interfering passes to the rider behind. Actually it should be share by both riders from when the overtaking one starts to overlap the front rider's wheel, and remain shared until the overtaking rider is at least 618mm ahead.
- As Klaas said above, the rider being passed must "deal with it". Nobody owns the lane, and riders have to respect each other when nearby passing occurs. Riders who have a problem sharing the track may be disqualified.
- If a violation occurs, it is either reported by a Track official, by a witness (possibly a non-objective team member or parent), or by a rider after the race. Then it is the official's job to figure out if this is a warning, or a DQ. We should definitely communicate with the riders in these situations, so everyone gets a better understanding of that illegal riding looks like
- Lastly, the decision to warn, or to disqualify. If a judge, or one or more reliable witnesses sees the violation, the judge in charge must make this determination. I have often relied on multiple witnesses (and sometimes video) to determine if something was a violation. We can't see everything ourselves, but must be skeptical of our witnesses as well. In the end it is up to the main official for that event.
- And when crafting rules for this, it's hard to do it in few words, due to the many moving parts. We have to cover all the details, but the important thing on passing is that BOTH riders are responsible for making it a safe process, and must respect each other at all times. I agree that passing should probably have its own section, separate from lane use otherwise.
I hope this is helpful.
Comment
Thank you very much for the detailed feedback.
On 1: We all seem to agree here.
On 2: Sounds reasonable and I would agree.
On 3: I would not agree with everything here: If two riders are riding side by side and one is leading, this will usually result from an overtaking maneuver. I think it cannot be the responsibility of the overtaking rider to slow down, for example, if the overtaking rider wants to re-enter at a too close distance. I think it is the responsibility of the overtaken rider not to block the overtaking rider and let him overtake, but on the other hand I think it is clearly the responsibility of the overtaking rider to make sure that he keeps enough distance to the side and when re-entering the lane, even if it is difficult for him to see. About it you write further down yourself, so that we here perhaps overall still agree.
To 4: Drafting may not bring any advantage, but in an 800m track race it certainly anyway makes sense to ride at a very close distance behind someone. Riding a bit sideways behind a rider in an 800m race doesn't make sense - the distance you have to ride more because you are riding on the outside of the track is quickly so long that you lose a lot of time. Especially in the curve all riders will try to ride as far inside as possible. The larger the gaps become here, the more difficult it becomes to initiate an overtaking maneuver. A 800m race is not very long and you don't have much time, so that half a meter more distance quickly ensures that you can't overtake a rider ahead of you on the straight. Therefore I would really not like to insist on the distance of 618 mm, if two riders just ride behind each other.
To 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12: I agree
I think your list of possible reasons for disqualification provides a good starting point. I will try to put the whole thing into a rule draft.
Comment
On John's item 3: I would say that riding side by side is almost always associated with overtaking. Often one of the two riders will be on lane 1. There is nothing he could do to maintain the 618 mm distance. He cannot go to the left, and the rules should not force him to slow down (or to speed up). So in such a situation (and again, this is the majority of cases IMO), there is no shared responsibility to maintain spacing, it is solely on the passing rider to either stay side by side, or fall back behind the rider that he initially was going to pass, or pass him and only to left if he has created a gap of at least 618 mm (even though difficult to see).
Drafting may bring a bit of aerodynamic advantage, even at track racing speeds. This is in line with the fact that you gain speed from a tail wind. But besides physical advantage, there is also the psychological effect. Deciding whom to pass, when/where, and at what differential speed, is an integral part of tactics in track racing, especially in 800 m. Enough reasons for riders to potentially decide to ride quite close behind a competitor.
On John's last point, about having to cover all the details. I hope we can phrase the rules in such a way that they are easy to comprehend, and thus easy to put into practice. A track racer has to concentrate on racing, not on a cluttered bunch of rules.
Comment
I have tried to put the previous thoughts into a new rule, which you can find below. In the process, I noticed a few more points:
1. The current exception for passing on the inside is very unspecific. First, it is unclear what is enough space and second, what exactly is meant by the second sentence ("Riders passing on the inside are responsible for any fouls that may take place as a result"). I would therefore suggest we leave that part out completely and cover it with the other paragraph of the rule. (Disqualification only in case of obstruction of another rider and thus overtaking on the inside remains unpunished if there is no obstruction, otherwise one can refer to the fact that overtaking has to be done on the outside and that an obstruction has been caused by overtaking on the inside without having to specify the "enough room" in more detail).
2. Currently we only prescribe the distance of the wheels from each other. I realize that this is the easiest thing for the judges to judge the distance. However, for the question whether someone feels obstructed by someone else, the distance of outstretched arms or so may be much more decisive, isn't it? Would it be necessary to add something about this?
3. Is there anything we should regulate regarding overtaking for lane-bound races? Basically I think the riders should not stretch their arms on each other's lanes... but this raises the same question as 2. - is this something that needs to be regulated?
Passing in non-lane-bound races
1. In non-lane-bound races, an overtaking rider must pass on the outside, unless there is enough room to safely pass on the inside. This also applies to any section of a race that is non-lane-bound. Riders passing on the inside are responsible for any fouls that may take place as a result.
2. The overtaking rider is responsible for maintaining a safe distance from the overtaken rider, the overtaken rider must maintain a reasonably straight course and must not block or interfere with the overtaking rider. This applies as long as the riders are side by side and when the overtaking rider is getting back in front of the overtaken rider. A safe distance is one (24 Class) wheel diameter (618 mm as judged by eye) from wheel to wheel. This means that one rider passing another may come quite close, as long as their wheels remain at least 618 mm apart. If a rider violates this rule and obstructs another rider, they or in case of a relay competition, their team shall be disqualified.
Comment
As to your 1, I think enough room to safely pass means the same as for outside passing, namely 1 wheel diameter between the wheels. Nevertheless, I agree with your suggestion to delete this rule, and cover it like you wrote.
As to 2 and 3: indeed one can imagine these forms of obstruction. But has it ever been a practical problem? Did organisers get complaints in this regard?
Comment
On Jan's comment from 3 days ago:
I agree with what he's saying about overtaking rider; cannot force overtaken rider to slow down during the pass. That could be considered a violation. However, after the pass they are back to being equals. In other words, a rider who is being overtaken has the right of way, especially if they are in lane 1 and cannot move to the left. But after being overtaken, that rider will be responsible for maintaining spacing behind the rider in front. Kind of like (car) driving rules; there are times when you must yield to the other, but other times where it is everyone's responsibility to maintain safe spacing.
In Jan's next paragraph he suggests 618mm is too much for a "peloton" situation in an 800m (or longer) race. Road cyclists definitely ride closer, though they also ride straighter. Part of me says keep the 618mm spacing because people can remember a single measurement. The other part says to suggest a smaller dimension for leading/following. For the moment I'm in favor of a simple wheel diameter at all times, like little force fields. Riding very close together with wobbling wheels is a bit messy, but I'm open to suggestions.
Klaas reinforces the idea of passing a rider in lane 1 being different from other forms of passes because the inside rider cannot move away from the overtaking rider. This should probably be covered in the final proposal. The same is true if riders are stacked across the track and someone is trying to pass (on the outside) what may be multiple riders that are side by side or diagonally spaced. Same thing; if the rider being overtaken has another rider to their left, it seems the same rule should apply. This reinforces to me that passing should always be to the outside, unless there is a large opening to the inside, such as nobody being in lane 1 (or the lane in question) for enough room to get 618mm ahead of the overtaken rider's wheel.
Klaas finished his post from 3 days ago mentioning "...not on a cluttered bunch of rules." Absolutely. Sometimes I wonder if we should have a "lite" version of the Rulebook, to cover the most important points, and the "full" version, that goes into all of the detail. But until that exists, we must always strive to make it easy to understand, even if it has to be longer.
Jan asked about "Riders passing on the inside are responsible for any fouls that may take place as a result". Yes. I don't think "fouls" are defined anywhere in the Track rules. Back in the day, we tried to keep it (relatively) simple, and rely on a Referee or other Track judges to use good judgement to "fill in the blanks". Not any more!
For the question of whether a rider "feels" obstructed is impossible to judge, we can only go by what we see. That's where we hope a simple rule (like 618mm) is sufficient to determine whether everyone was riding "legally". If yes, and a rider flinches or otherwise exhibits negative effects, it's not a violation if no violation is witnessed by a judge or Referee. Using the distance of outstretched arms would require a lot of space, unless he meant a single outstretched arm. This would put tall riders (like Mathias) at a disadvantage. But I'm open to suggestions on better ways to describe this and make it easier do judge from a distance.
On Jan's question 3 above, it's not something I've observed, or rarely observed. Sometimes there have been chain-dismounts in 100m races that cause a lot of chaos, but that isn't this. Mostly I don't consider it an issue, but it wouldn't hurt to mention somewhere in rules for lane-bound races that riders still need to maintain safe spacing. If you are in lane 3 and the rider in lane 2 is all the way to the right side of their lane, you may need to move to the right as well. Hmm. to go with that, we should mention that riders should strive to not extend their bodies into the next lane (in lane-bound races).
In Jan's proposed wording #2, I recommend changing the part in italics to This applies from the beginning of the pass, until the overtaking rider is a safe distance in front of the overtaken rider.
At the end of #2, I prefer using "they or in case of a relay competition, their team may be disqualified." Usually such violations are obvious to see, but sometimes there are gray areas, which should always allow for a judgement call. In this case, if a rider was clearly obstructed, yes it's a disqualification. But if the rider didn't appear to lose speed or have to change course, it's a harder choice. If the rider is complaining loudly (or their teammates/coach/parent) but the obstruction was unclear and the rider seemed unaffected, judgement call is required.
Comment
I agree with all of the above, except the requirement to maintain 618 mm distance at all times.
Laterally, when passing or just riding side by side: yes, 618 mm
When passing: maintain 618 mm until also the longitudinal distance is at least 618 mm, before moving inwards again.
But at times when no passing or side-by-side riding is involved, the following rider may ride as close as he likes, in my opinion.
I agree to "we should mention that riders should strive to not extend their bodies into the next lane (in lane-bound races)". Maybe be could replace "bodies" by "any body part". It would usually be an arm or hand, of course.
I like "strive". A situation may occur that you need to flail your arms, e.g. a wind gust. That must still be allowed, IMO.
Comment
1. I completely agree with Klaas.
From my own experience I can confirm that it very often happens that in an 800 m race riders ride very close behind each other and an insist on 618 mm distance in this case would lead to a different race. The rule, as it is currently proposed, would not impose a minimum distance on riding one behind the other.
2. Regarding Johns last comment: I agree, that there are sometimes gray areas - but instead of a "may" I would prefer to explicitly mention the judgement of the referee here. Because in the end he is the only one who should be able to disqualify riders anyway.
3. One more thing I noticed while formulating the rule: the rule is called "Passing" (as before) - but we use the terms overtaking and overtaken for the riders, wouldn't it be more consistent to use passing and passed here as well?
4. Regarding John's first paragraphs, I am unsure if there are any things that arise from this that need a change in the proposed rule.
You will find an adapted version attached:
Passing
1. In all races or any section of a race:
1.1 that are/is lane-bound, overtaking riders as well as overtaken riders should strive to not extend any body part into the next lane to avoid any obstruction of the other rider.
1.2 that are/is non-lane bound, riders must pass on the outside. The overtaking rider is responsible for maintaining a safe distance from the overtaken rider, the overtaken rider must maintain a reasonably straight course and must not block or interfere with the overtaking rider. This applies from the beginning of the pass, until the overtaking rider is a safe distance in front of the overtaken rider. A safe distance is one (24 Class) wheel diameter (618 mm as judged by eye) from wheel to wheel. This means that one rider passing another may come quite close, as long as their wheels remain at least 618 mm apart.
If, in the judgement of the refeere, a rider violates this rule and obstructs another rider, they or in case of a relay competition, their team shall be disqualified.
Comment
Going into the right direction. Some points:
"the overtaken rider" sounds to me like someone who has been overtaken. But here we mean a rider who is in the process of being overtaken. A native speaker may be able to confirm this or explain otherwise, and possibly suggest a better wording. I would tentatively suggest "the rider being overtaken".
Have we lost the option to overtake on the inside completely? I would like to leave this in, with the condition that the rider that overtakes on the inside is responsible for problems. The reason I like this is that sometimes unexperiences riders, e.g. in 800 m, veer to the outside lanes of the track, and a faster rider could safely pass inside (but still: at their own risk).
Minor typo: refeere > referee.
Comment
1. I see your point. regarding the "overtaken". The same would apply if we took "passed" (see my point 3. of my last answer). I think here it would definitely be good to have a native speaker suggest a suitable wording.
2. I had understood it that we leave this part out completely to avoid the current problems of definition.
Since the rule proposal says that the referee shall disqualify a rider who violates the rule and obstructs another rider, there would still be a gray area. If someone overtakes on the inside because a rider is riding very far on the outside and there is a lot of space on the inside, a rider can violate the rule to overtake on the outside and the referee will not punish him, as long as in his judgement there was no obstruction. From my point of view the whole thing is less problematic than the current rule, where we explicitly allow overtaking on the inside, but then remain very unspecific under which conditions and in the end still assign the entire risk to the overtaking driver. Then, in my opinion, a rider can also violate the rule of overtaking on the outside at his own risk, knowing that a disqualification also requires an obstruction.
And I think it is really only very very rare exceptions where overtaking on the inside is really reasonably possible.
Comment
Then I think that we must stress "and" in "If [...] a rider violates this rule and obstructs another rider". Maybe by italics, or underlining it, or in all capitals. All capitals doesn't look really nice, but it is the safest way to survive copy and paste operations.
Comment
I actually think that if there is an "and" in the rules, that "and" must be considered even without special stressing - but I'm also fine with writing the "and" as an "AND" to stress it.
Comment
Stressing "and" potentially changes the meaning.
Without stressing "and", it could be interpreted that violating a rule automatically implies that another rider is obstructed.
With stress however, it is clear that these are two conditions that both must be true in order to DQ a rider.
Comment
Feedback from a native speaker regarding the wordings would be good, then we could create an official proposal here.
1. "overtaking" and "overtaken" for the riders vs. "passing" and "passed"
2. "overtaken/passed" vs. "being overtaken/being passed"
Comment
Hi guys,
I prefer Passing to Overtaking, if only because it's slightly less letters. Overtaking is a word I hear used by European English speakers. I got used to hearing it on the Top Gear (UK) TV show (there was also an American version). I'm not sure which would be easier or more clear for non-native English speakers, and either version is acceptable to me.
If we want to allow less than a 618mm gap between riders following each other, should we specify a smaller limit? Or leave it open and see how it plays out. In either case, it must be clear in the end that if your wheels overlap, there must be 618mm between them measured laterally, for the entire time the wheels are overlapped (as viewed from the side). We should probably mention something about physical contact between riders; there should be none (except for Relay teammates).
At the end of the updated Passing section above, I recommend changing "shall" to "may", to allow some leeway in hard-to-determine situations. Such things, if not clearly observed, come down to a judgement call, and the Referee/officials should have the final say on what counts as obstructing.
Comment
Thanks for your comments John - I updated the proposal text, see below.
To 1.: Then I would use "Passing" in the proposal - also because the rule so far was also called "Passing [...]" and for consistency reasons I would then use the same wording everywhere.
Remains the question about "passed" vs. "beeing passed" - any recommendation?
To 2.: I don't think that we have to introduce a limit for riding behind each other (which in my opinion would also be wrong in the rule about passing, because it doesn't concern passing). That passing takes place as soon as the wheels overlap when viewed from the side can be added somehow in order to define the whole thing more clearly.
To 3.: With the rule formulated above, the referee already has the last word about what counts as an obstruction and can therefore make a judgment call. ("If, in the judgement of the refeere, [...]")
Passing
1. In all races or sections of a race:
1.1 that are lane-bound, passing riders as well as passed riders should strive to not extend any body part into the next lane to avoid any obstruction of the other rider.
1.2 that are non-lane bound, riders must pass on the outside. The passing rider is responsible for maintaining a safe distance from the passed rider, the passed rider must maintain a reasonably straight course and must not block or interfere with the passing rider. This applies from the beginning of the pass (this is the case when, viewed from the side, the wheels overlap), until the passing rider is a safe distance in front of the passed rider. A safe distance is one (24 Class) wheel diameter (618 mm as judged by eye) from wheel to wheel. This means that one rider passing another may come quite close, as long as their wheels remain at least 618 mm apart.
If, in the judgement of the refeere, a rider violates this rule and obstructs another rider, they (or in case of a relay competition, their team) shall be disqualified.
Comment
I think we should not impose a limit on how close you can follow another rider when not passing. To my knowledge, there has never been such a limit and it has played out well.
>(this is the case when, viewed from the side, the wheels overlap)
"the wheels overlap" may be interpreted as 100% overlap. What about this alternative:
(a pass is when the wheels partially or completely overlap, as seen from the side)
(I don't know if "as" is better than "when", but I prefer "as" because "when" seems to require that someone is actually looking from the side.
Also, I don't know if "seen" is better than "viewed". I have a slight preference for seen.
Again, a native speaker may shine their light on it.
refeere => referee
Comment
I thought the limit for following was 618mm. But I agree with you that's excessive. If we choose to not place a limit on it, I think the text of the rule should address this, so people don't ask later "what's the limit?" So you can get real close behind a rider, but before as you start to overlap wheels, you need to open up a much bigger space (618mm) and keep that open until your wheel clears the front of the other rider's wheel. It's all about "space while wheels are overlapped". Before you overlap your neighbor's wheel, you have to move over to create that safe space. Then you have to maintain that safe space until there is no more overlap between your wheels.
That may lead to questions about "what if the other riders won't let me in? I don't know how to answer that. I think the main answer would be to pass on the outside by default, and that you can only pass on the inside if you have that space (we've already got that written). The rider being passed might not be aware of the other rider at the time they start to overlap the leader's wheel, so the passing rider must be careful when doing this.
I hope that is somewhat useful in defining this stuff for actual proposal language...
Comment
It may be that the current rule "2B.7.5 Passing in Non-Lane Races" should also include riding one behind the other. However, I believe that many riders were/are not aware of this and never really considered the 618 mm when riding behind each other. Just because the rule is called "Passing in Non-Lane Races", it is understandable if the riders do not read from it any generally valid rules for the entire race. I would therefore not write any prescribed distances into a rule for passing, which apply when not passing.
I would simply leave it at that, that if no minimum distance is prescribed, no minimum distance exists. Also from the point of view that when riding one behind the other, the rider in the back always has an eye on the distance and can decide whether he wants to ride a small distance behind or whether he wants to start a pass- at the moment when he is being passed, he usually has no influence on the distance, which is why I think that a minimum distance is absolutely necessary, so that a rider who is being passed is not obstructed - and this is exactly what the rule covers.
Regarding your second point: If a rider has passed and there is no space to get back to the inside, then the rider has to stay on the outside. According to the rule, going back to the inside is only permissible if the safety distance can be maintained. But I don't see any problem with that, because the passing rider can simply continue to ride on the outside and, if necessary, pass the next rider. I do not see what we would have to adjust the rule in this regard?
Comment
I understood John's second point differently, as in: someone wants to pass and has to move to the outside in order to create the minimum lateral distance. What if there are other riders that don't allow that movement to the outside?
My answer would be: this happens often in races. Sometimes you are stuck, and indeed you cannot pass when you want. I think part of race tactics is to stay aware of your position in the field of riders, anticipate on their "moves" and position yourself in preparation of your own moves. Having said all that, deliberately blocking someone, for the sake of blocking, is not allowed.
Comment
>I thought the limit for following was 618mm. But I agree with you that's excessive. If we choose to not place a limit on it, I think the text of the rule should address this, so people don't ask later "what's the limit?"
I agree with this. The rulebook specifies the 618 mm "when passing, and at all other times". At the least we could delelte "and at all other times". Or we could be more specific, and state "When there is no overlap between wheels as seen from the side, no minimum distance applies."
Comment
Yes to Klaas' idea about "and all other times". I would recommend just removing that phrase, and that we don't need to add anything. Gray areas are the domain of the Referee, to allow for judgement calls. In my experience, riders seem to understand that they can't crowd or block each other, and this rule does a good job of explaining all the definitions of making a safe pass.
Comment
I think that corresponds to the current rule proposal, or am I missing something? I would later prepare an official proposal here in the system and if there is still need for adjustment, we can still revise this.
Here again the current proposal: (I changed "passed rider" to "rider beeing passed" and adjusted the definition of when a pass starts)
2B.7.2.3 Passing
1. In all races or sections of a race:
1.1 that are lane-bound, passing riders as well as riders beeing passed should strive to not extend any body part into the next lane to avoid any obstruction of the other rider.
1.2 that are non-lane bound, riders must pass on the outside. The passing rider is responsible for maintaining a safe distance from the rider beeing passed, the rider beeing passed must maintain a reasonably straight course and must not block or interfere with the passing rider. This applies from the beginning of the pass (this is the case when, the wheels start to overlap, as seen from the side), until the passing rider is a safe distance in front of the rider beeing passed. A safe distance is one (24 Class) wheel diameter (618 mm as judged by eye) from wheel to wheel. This means that one rider passing another may come quite close, as long as their wheels remain at least 618 mm apart.
If, in the judgement of the refeere, a rider violates this rule and obstructs another rider, they (or in case of a relay competition, their team) shall be disqualified.
Comment
Yes, looks good.
Some minor points:
* beeing > being
* refeere > referee
* this is the case when, the wheels > this is the case when the wheels (I removed a comma)
Another minor point: if it's a 0-10 race with 20 inch wheels, is the required minimum still 618 mm? I think 618 mm was chosen because mostly the riders use wheels of that size anyway, making it easier to judge by eye. I'm fine with keeping it at 618 mm, just drawing attention to this "sort-of inconsistency".
Comment
> if it's a 0-10 race with 20 inch wheels, is the required minimum still 618 mm?
I would say yes, because the distance that we consider safe does not change in my opinion just because the wheel is slightly smaller.
The crooked value of 618 mm was only chosen because it usually corresponds to a wheel diameter and is therefore somewhat easier for the judges to evaluate. Of course it will be more difficult for the judges to evaluate wheels in the 20 mm class, but I think what we consider to be a safe distance will not change.
We could also reduce the distance to 610 mm and argue that it corresponds to half a lane width. Then we would cleverly avoid the problem with wheel sizes (and no one can tell 8 mm more or less by eye anyway)!?
Comment
For 20", easiest is to keep the same rule. Or we could redefine the rule as "the wheel diameter in that race" to make it compatible with the the 20" category (and 700c if that ever happens again). I'm less in favor of 610/half a lane width. It makes sense, but may be harder for riders/officials to relate to, since riders are usually not in the center of their lanes when making passing maneuvers.
Comment
> For 20", easiest is to keep the same rule.
I completely agree. Above all, I am convinced that the necessary safety distance is not really related to the wheel size, because when overtaking, the bodies of the riders come closer than the wheels - it would be strange to change the safety distance with the wheel size. The measurements and the way they are measured (from wheel to wheel) are only chosen because it is the best way for the judges to judge.
> It makes sense, but may be harder for riders/officials to relate to, since riders are usually not in the center of their lanes when making passing maneuvers.
I also agree here. The suggestion was also just an idea to justify consistently for all wheel sizes why the safety distance is chosen this way. Of course, one could also add a note in the rules that this distance also corresponds approximately to the wheel diameter of a wheel in the 24 class (Strictly speaking, the wheels are also always somewhat smaller than the 618 mm, since this is the absolute maximum - my tire also has rather a diameter of 610-612 mm). But then the judges and the riders would still have been given the wheel diameter for orientation, but the choice of the official distance would still have been justified consistently. (As I said, in a race no judge will be able to distinguish whether the distance is 618 mm or 610 mm - in the end both are only values for orientation, the only question is how we want to justify this value in the rules).
Comment
>but may be harder for riders/officials to relate to, since riders are usually not in the center of their lanes when making passing maneuvers.
Note that we are talking about passing maneuvers in non-lane-bound races, so the notion "their lanes" doesn't really make sense. For lane-bound-races, the 618 mm distance rule doesn't apply. As long as each wheel stays within the respective lane (and the rider strived to not extend any body part into the adjacent lane), they're fine.
I can agree with maintaining the same distance rule (618 mm) in 20" races, even though the riders on 20" tend to be smaller themselves and therefore would need less room. But they may generally be less experienced riders and more prone so swerving/wobbling.
Unlike John, I tend to favor a half lane width. The "one wheel diameter" rule was probably chosen because that dimension is "available" in the potential area of conflict. In a 20" race, this is not the case. The lanes are still present though, and still the same. Question: are lanes always 122 cm in width? And does this dimension include one line marker?
Comment
In case you were wondering where we got 618mm, that is the equivalent of 24-1/3 inches. This number was arbitrarily chosen when the 618 rule was created, based on common sizes of 24" tires, with some buffer added to allow for tires that may be a little larger than the ones we are familiar with. A side effect of this measurement made it legal to use some 26" tires, as long as they were 618mm or less. These are usually 26 x 1" tires, using the old-fashioned system of measuring (and labeling) of cycling tires. Miyata-brand 24" tires, which I still use, are quite a bit smaller than 24". Or were; I haven't bought any new ones in a very long time...
Klaas made the good point that this spacing information primarily applies to non lane-bound races. It's still necessary for lane-bound races, but staying inside one's lane covers most of what riders need. When passing (and being passed) and riding in a close group is when these rules apply the most.
Also there is something to be said for the half lane width approach. If one is viewing racers from the side, wheel diameter is the easiest reference for spacing. But when the riders are riding toward or away from the viewer, it's a lot less useful and using lane lines as a measuring tool is the best way to estimate the distance between wheels. We should allow both methods as ways to determine if riders are maintaining no less than the minimum spacing when riding in close quarters.
Comment
>[minimum spacing of 618 mm is] still necessary for lane-bound races
I disagree. For lane-bound races, there is another rule related for lateral distance. 618 mm does not apply.
>We should allow both methods as ways to determine if riders are maintaining no less than the minimum spacing
It's not about allowing methods, it's about defining/setting the minimum distance. Suppose we stay with 618 mm "as judged by eye", then we could add that it is about equal to both a 24" wheel, and to half of the lane width of a regular athletics track. That will be a hint at possible ways of judging the distance without explicitly "allowing" any one of them. If some judge has a "carpenter's eye" (if that Dutch expression makes sense), they may be able to just see that some distance is less than 618 mm. That would be equally "allowable", in my opinion.
Comment
I'm with Klaas on the relative simplicity of having "approximately 618 mm or half of a lane width". This does not take into account lanes of unusual width, but my experience with athletics tracks around the world (and around the US) says that they seem pretty consistent. I can't remember noticing that a track had noticeably wider or narrower lanes than another track. Note that I don't have a "carpenter's eye", if I understand correctly. :-)
Comment
> Question: are lanes always 122 cm in width? And does this dimension include one line marker?
The lane width of current athletics facilities must be 122 cm (there was a time when up to 125 cm was allowed) and this width includes the lane marking on one side.
> It's not about allowing methods, it's about defining/setting the minimum distance.
I completely agree with Klaas on this point. There must be some minimum distance defined in the rulebook and this should be as consistent as possible justified for all races and wheel sizes.
I would therefore also find it somewhat unfortunate to include "approximately" in the definition. I think the definition should be unambiguous. A reference that this corresponds approximately to the wheel diameter of a wheel of the 24er class, however, I find perfectly okay, because thus everyone has a further orientation.
My preferred suggestion would be something like:
A safe distance is half a lane width (610 mm as judged by eye; this distance is also approximately one (24 Class) wheel diameter) from wheel to wheel. This means that one rider passing another may come quite close, as long as their wheels remain at least 610 mm apart.
Comment
Any comments on that? If we found something that everyone would agree to, I would prepare an official proposal.
Comment
I'm fine with that, and I agree with the arguments you give.
One little thing: consider to remove the parentheses around "24 Class". Nested parentheses are ((more) complicated) to read. :-)
Moreover, mentioning "24 Class" is essential, not optional as parentheses would suggest, since a 20" wheel (common in some races) is definitely not approximately 610 mm. Nor is 29 Class, and we've had that in track racing sometimes too.
Comment
I have taken your comments into account in the official proposal - thank you very much.
Comment
The proposal is fine for me. It is good that we have a simple and clear rule.
Having said that, I've realised that it is not so easy to check on compliance.
If you are looking from front or rear, you can judge lateral distance well, but overlap of the wheels, or being 610 mm in front (proper time for going inwards again), is difficult to see.
If you are looking from the side, it's the other way around.
Even if one judge looks from the side and another from the rear, it would be difficult to check compliance. The two judges would have to have realtime contact.
What further complicates matters is that a passing action takes some time, and hence some distance along the track. "The side" (from which to see wheel overlap) moves along with the riders, so a judge is not at that location all the time (or they would have to run along at possibly 25+ km/h.
Comment
What Klaas says is true; a handful of officials (and the witnesses we recruit) can only see so much. That's why making judgements after the fact will be an imperfect process for things that happen away from where the judges are located. To disqualify a rider, one needs to have a solid basis of making that decision. This includes secondary judgement, if going with witness testimony, of whether you think they are being factual or being "helpful".
Comment
Witnesses who are volunteers recruited by the organisation should generally be trusted. Of course it would help if the observation is not from just one person.
If a rider who files a protest drums up witnesses to support his case, trusting them can be shakey (shaky?) because you don't know how biased they are.
If there is evidence from video or photos, this could generally also help to verify witness statements.
I seem to remember that there are some rules about this, especially photographic evidence, but I can't find it back right now.
Do you (John) think that we need additional text about the solidity of the basis for making decisions?
Comment
> Having said that, I've realised that it is not so easy to check on compliance.
I completely agree here: This rule is not (and has not been) easy to check - however, I believe that it is not impossible to check for compliance. Even a judge who looks from the side and can see very well when an passing maneuver starts or ends has the lane markings as orientation and can therefore estimate how big the distance between the wheels is. And also a judge who looks from the front or the rear can determine when an passing maneuver starts by looking at the contact points of the tires with the track within a certain range. I think it is important that enough judges are positioned along the track to supervise the race.
> Witnesses who are volunteers recruited by the organisation should generally be trusted.
Here, again, I completely agree - that's what official judges are for. And if enough judges are assigned, usually more than one judge has observed an incident.
I see it as very critical to allow other witnesses than the official judges for decisions. In individual cases the referee can decide at his own discretion to hear further "evidence and witnesses" and to come to a decision. However, in general I think all evidence should come from official judges or official videos etc., as this is the only way to ensure that all riders are treated equally. In case of doubt, the referee should always decide in favor of the rider if there is no official evidence of a rule violation and thus refrain from a disqualification.
All in all I think we don't need additional text about the solidity of the basis for making decisions - especially not for this single rule. If we think that we need additional text on this, then in my opinion this text concerns all areas in which the referee makes a decision and we should add it somewere else.
Comment
>in general I think all evidence should come from official judges or official videos etc.
I agree with the "official judges" part. Is this somewhere in the rules right now? If not, we might want to add it, possibly with your note about "In individual cases...".
I'm not sure about the "official videos" part. I see video as largely objective evidence. Do you think that non-official videos (e.g. taken by a parent of the rider in question) could be manipulated or taken for a specific angle, thereby leading to incorrect conclusions?
Comment
> Do you think that non-official videos (e.g. taken by a parent of the rider in question) could be manipulated or taken for a specific angle, thereby leading to incorrect conclusions?
No, not that, but I think that this could lead to unequal treatment of riders, since, for example, some parents always film their children and they would therefore always have a video available. Riders who don't have anyone filming wouldn't be able to show a video and therefore potentially have a disadvantage. If there are official videos, they are available for everyone and no rider has an advantage or disadvantage. So it is purely for reasons of equal treatment.
Comment
The equal treatment argument does make sense. On the other hand, suppose that one official judge would state that some rider came too close to another at a specific spot, and suppose that this judge is honest but still incorrect. And suppose there is no official video, but a witness (be it that rider's parent or a non-related bystander) has a clear video showing that the rider did NOT come too close at the location in question. It would feel unfair to me to disqualify this rider.
What do others think about using unofficial videos (or other unofficial evidence) for official decisions?
(I think this has been discussed in a previous rulebook update round as well, I don't remember the outcome but maybe we already have a rule about this. I'm too lazy to look it up :-( )
BTW, this issue has wider applicability than the current subject, i.e. rider-to-rider spacing. It also applies to rules such as touching the lane marker line, finishing in control etc.
Comment
Video doesn't lie, if it's still in the camera and hasn't been "processed". Therefore we can take video as a completely unbiased, objective witness. Doesn't matter who was holding the camera, long as it covered the riding in question. I would always welcome video if available, especially if someone that doesn't agree with a ruling can show on their camera a different viewpoint. So I don't know if we need to mention it in rules, but video is a powerful tool to see what judges may not have been able to see.
Witness hearsay testimony, on the other hand, can be less accurate, more biased, or possibly based on an incomplete understanding of the rules. One must consider the source, see if there are others who agree or disagree what was witnessed, etc.
For rulebook language I wouldn't want to go deep into this, other than to say something like: Video playback is welcome, and reports from non-judge witnesses can be considered when making a call on something that was hard for judges to see. Something simple.
Comment
I think the discussion about what evidence should be allowed for a referee's decision takes us away from the original topic of this discussion and the proposal. I would therefore suggest to open a separate discussion for the issue about evidence - especially because this topic concerns all decisions of the referee and not only the spacing when passing.
If everyone agrees, I would open the proposal on passing for voting and close this discussion.
Comment
>If everyone agrees
Agreed.
Comment
Yes, please do.