2D.5 Track Combined Competition - remove?

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

Comments about this discussion:

Started 09 Jun 13:52

Should this be removed from the rulebook? Or changed to be not allowed at Unicons?

Comment 09 Jun 14:23

I know this was regularly done in the earlier Unicons I went to (i.e. from 2006 onwards). I'm not sure if it has been done recently, probably not or you wouldn't bring it up.

Assuming that awarding these titles has indeed been discontinued, an alternative way of approaching this issue is asking why we stopped doing this.

Regardless, at our Dutch nationals, we do award such overall champion titles, modeled after 2D.5 (Male, Female and also Junior, to encourage the kids). These titles are much appreciated.

Comment 09 Jun 14:36

Basically I like the idea of an overall ranking and in Germany there are a lot of competitions where there is an overall ranking (and I think currently the rule describes more an overall ranking than a combined competition, like for example the heptathlon in athletics.)
I would therefore be in favor of leaving the rule in the rulebook, but to adapt it to describe an overall ranking and - if that is desired - rather to add that on Unicon no such ranking is offered.

But I think there are two main aspects to adapt:
1. Due to the reorganization of the 2019 rulebook, there are no longer only six disciplines mentioned in the chapter before. And in case of an overall ranking I think it should basically be left to the organizers anyway, which disciplines are used for it all.
2. I would also leave it up to the organizers whether the points are awarded based on the final heats/final rankings or the age group rankings. In Germany we often honor an U11, an U15 and a 15+ overall winner. This would usually not work if there were only points given in the finals.

Comment 09 Jun 15:19

If the decision is to not remove the Combined award, I posit that "the 6 racing events listed above" be updated to include a section number. I searched waaay above; 17 pages in my version. And that writing probably dates from when I was authoring the thing; sorry about that. The rulebook was more compact then! If I found the right six events, they are 800, 400, 100, 1-Foot, Wheel Walk and Relay. I don't know the recent history of when that was awarded or not, though I see it was awarded at Unicon XV, 2010.

Back in the early days, when all racing was all on 24" wheels, this award represented "fastest overall unicyclist". The Olympics, for the most part, does not do this, but some disciplines do, such as Gymnastics. Closer to Track, there are the Decathlon/Heptathlon/Pentathlon events, which accumulate points for a variety of activities.

Argument in favor of keeping: It lets the overall "fastest" Track rider stand out from the crowd for their consistency across those six Track events

Argument Against keeping: There are so many awards; if someone wants, they can calculate this result and the winners can still be known. In fact, the IUF could include it in the competition results, with our without a physical award.

If the group decides to keep it, I'd like to consider adding the IUF Slalom, because that's another Standard 24" speed event and it would show diversity.

Comment 09 Jun 15:47

Better still than including section numbers would be to list the actual disciplines. Easier to read and more robust against changes in section numbering.

I was under the impression that IUF Slalom was part of the overall champion title. Regardless, I would favour it above Relay (which Relay, 4x100 or 4x400?) because Relay is a team thing, not an individual achievement.

Comment 15 Aug 03:52

Do we want to prepare a proposal in this regard? The discussion suggested that an adjustment would be useful here.

Comment 21 Aug 02:36

Below you find a suggestion how I could imagine to revise the rule. The idea behind it was to describe rather an overall ranking ("overall winner") than a separate competition with the rule, as I already suggested in my comment at the very beginning. Such an overall winner is awarded here in Germany at numerous competitions and as Klaas wrote, also at the Dutch Championship.
If preferred, a sentence could be added stating that no Overall Ranking will be awarded at Unicon.

2D.5 Overall Track Ranking

1. The Overall Track Ranking is an optional ranking to determine the best riders across multiple disciplines. For this, placement points are assigned in the individual disciplines. Usually the following system is used: 1st place gets 8, 2nd place 5, 3rd place 3, 4th place 2, and 5th place 1 point. Highest total points score is the winner of the Overall Track Ranking. There are two different ways of having an overall ranking, male and female should always be seperated:
1.1 As an age group combined overall ranking, points will be awarded for placements in the finals/final rankings, no points will be awarded in the age group rankings.
1.2 As an age group separated overall ranking, points will be awarded for placements in the corresponding age group, no points will be awarded in the final races/final rankings.

2. It is up to the organizers in which disciplines points will be awarded for the overall ranking.

3. If there is a tie, the rider with the most first places wins. If this still results in a tie, the title goes to the better finisher in the 100m race.

Comment 22 Aug 00:19

I like it. Would those rules apply to the current subset of Track events for the overall title? To be clear, which events do you recommend?

Comment 22 Aug 01:15

I would leave it up to the organizer to decide which disciplines/events to include in the overall ranking - that was the intention of paragraph 3.

At most competitions in Germany, all track races except the relays, and additionally the IUF Slalom, are included in the overall ranking. However, at many events, high jump and long jump (in the track version) are also offered and these disciplines are then sometimes included as well.
As I see it, there is no overall ranking offered at the Unicon anyway, so I don't think we need to regulate which disciplines would be taken into account in this case - or are there other opinions here?

Comment 26 Aug 04:06

Are there any other comments on the proposal? Otherwise, I would create an official proposal.

Comment 28 Aug 00:38

My thought is that if the IUF defines an "overall" award for Track, it should be based on a fixed set of competition events, so it is consistent from year to year. To use a different set of events each time would make that award less meaningful, as it would change the definition of "combined" and therefore, the definition of what that title represents.

If the list of "traditional" events changes, that is a time to consider also changing which events to include in the Track Combined.

And to make specify a set of events, based on our current list of Track events I recommend using the 100m, 400m, 800m, 1-Foot, Wheel Walk and IUF Slalom.

Comment 28 Aug 01:30

> My thought is that if the IUF defines an "overall" award for Track, it should be based on a fixed set of competition events, so it is consistent from year to year.

I would agree if this would be a title awarded at the World Championships. As I see it, such a title is not awarded at the World Championships.
And for all other competitions, e.g. smaller cups or so, I think the organizer should have the freedom to decide themselves which disciplines to consider for this. In the end, the offered disciplines also differ from competition to competition and it might not be possible to always consider the same disciplines.

> as it would change the definition of "combined" and therefore, the definition of what that title represents.

With the new rule, "combined" would no longer be included in the title. And overall winner of an event simply means that someone was the overall best at the specific event where he won the title. I don't see any problem, it is logical that events differ from each other.

Comment 29 Aug 23:08

In the current Rulebook:

"2D.5 Track Combined Competition" contains this passage:

"In smaller events, the finishing age group times in the IUF Slalom can be used if no additional final is run." Woah, almost every Unicon has ignored that rule!

I like the idea of leaving the ability to award a Combined Track title if the organizer wants to do it. Currently it seems to be assumed to be mandatory (as it doesn't say otherwise). If anything, that section should be modified to describe that it's optional, and also that a Finals event for the IUF Slalom (much as I love watching it) is also optional.

Comment 30 Aug 01:16

> I like the idea of leaving the ability to award a Combined Track title if the organizer wants to do it. Currently it seems to be assumed to be mandatory (as it doesn't say otherwise).

My proposal from above says: "1. The Overall Track Ranking is an optional ranking [...]" - for me, this makes quite clear that this ranking ist not mandatory. But I'm not a native speaker, so if there's a better way to phrase it, I'm open for suggestions.
Since Connie had originally suggested deleting the rule completely, or changing it so that such a title is not allowed at Unicon, the question is of course whether we need to explicitly add something to this regard.

> and also that a Finals event for the IUF Slalom (much as I love watching it) is also optional.

The rule about Finals (2B.7.11 Finals in the old numbering and 2B.1.8 Finals paragraph 1 in the new one) states the following:

1. At Unicons, a 'final' must be held for each of the following disciplines: 100m, 400m, 800m, One Foot, Wheel Walk, and IUF Slalom. For any other Track discipline, a 'final' may be held at the discretion of the organizer, after all age group competition for that discipline has been completed.

So the rules are very clear that a IUF Slalom Final must be held only at Unicon and on every other competition it's optional.

Comment 31 Aug 00:03

> My proposal from above says: "1. The Overall Track Ranking is an optional ranking [...]" - for me, this makes quite clear that this ranking ist not mandatory.

Yes, the English in your proposal is fine

> 1. At Unicons, a 'final' must be held for each of the following disciplines: 100m, 400m, 800m, One Foot, Wheel Walk, and IUF Slalom. For any other Track discipline, a 'final' may be held at the discretion of the organizer, after all age group competition for that discipline has been completed.

This is also clear and simple. I question the need for that last part, "after all age group competition for that discipline has been completed." It's not possible to run a Final without the data from age group competition, so that statement may be redundant. Or leave it for clarity.

> So the rules are very clear that a IUF Slalom Final must be held only at Unicon...

Though I like the idea of this, I wonder if it's a problem for organizers to make it fit, since it takes quite a bit of time. I'm in favor of it, though I don't know if it's been successfully held more than once, that being at Unicon 18, Spain. If there was one in Korea I missed it, and at Unicon 20 it was cancelled due to sudden weather, which I don't consider to be a rules violation. Does everyone think a Slalom Final should be mandatory for Unicon? I will vote for this proposal either way...

Comment 31 Aug 01:04

John, your comments about finals are both justified, but I think they take us away from the topic of this discussion, since they both refer to rules other than 2D.5 Overall Track Ranking (2D.5 Track Combined Competition). So we should either start new discussions for this or, in the case of the IUF Slalom, use the discussion on the IUF Slalom rules.

If everyone here agrees with the above suggestion, the only question is whether Connie, who originally suggested deleting the rule completely or changing it so that such a title is not allowed at Unicon, would also be comfortable with the rule proposal, or whether we need to add something explicit about Unicon?

Comment 03 Sep 07:32

> 2. It is up to the organizers in which disciplines points will be awarded for the overall ranking.
Why did we drop the previously required list of 6 disciplines that are counted for the Overall Ranking?

> There are two different ways of having an overall ranking, male and female should always be seperated:
This sentence should be split, I suggest:
Male and female should always be separated. There are two different ways of determining an overall ranking:

These two ways were not in the original rule. What input was used originally? Maybe even a third not-listed option: the best value from age group and finals.

> If this still results in a tie, the title goes to the better finisher in the 100m race or another predefined discipline.
I like to (continue to) prescribe the 100m race for this. I consider 100m the "King's Discipline" of athletics, and by extension of the sport of Unicycling.

Comment 03 Sep 07:34

Oh wait, I just now saw your note in the proposal, on why you dropped the 100m as the tie breaker. I would like to use the 100m unless it is not held. If it is held, it must be the tie breaker, IMHO.

Comment 03 Sep 08:15

> Why did we drop the previously required list of 6 disciplines that are counted for the Overall Ranking?

The old rule was about a combined competition - for this case it makes sense of course to always use the same disciplines. Since such a combined competition seems to be not really offered, the new rule should describe a very common overall ranking instead. From my point of view, it makes no sense to specify disciplines, since the competitions often differ in terms of the disciplines offered. Therefore, from my point of view, it is more logical to let the organizer decide for themselves which disciplines they will use for their event to determine an overall winner.

> This sentence should be split, I suggest:
Male and female should always be separated. There are two different ways of determining an overall ranking:

That's fine for me.

> These two ways were not in the original rule. What input was used originally?

According to the original rule, the placement points were awarded only in the finals. However, there are some competitions where overall winners are determined in different age groups, this does not work if the placement points are awarded only in finals.

> Maybe even a third not-listed option: the best value from age group and finals.

I imagine that would be difficult. Such an evaluation, in which a ranking is formed on the basis of final and age group times, does not normally exist at a competition. Such an evaluation could also lead to the fact that someone who was faster in the age group race than someone in the final is in this evaluation before someone from the final. This might raise the question of why not award championship titles based on such an evaluation. I think a subdivision of either age group based overall winner or final based overall winner is much cleaner.

> I would like to use the 100m unless it is not held. If it is held, it must be the tie breaker, IMHO.

That would also be an option for me.

Comment 03 Sep 10:53

> it is more logical to let the organizer decide for themselves which disciplines they will use
I could agree, but if the same six are used from event to event, Overall Winners are more comparable. If one or more of those six is not held at a specific event, then there is no other way than choosing another set of disciplines to determine Overal Winner.

> According to the original rule, the placement points were awarded only in the finals.
I see it now. Maybe we could then require to base on finals insofar finals have been held, and only use age group results on a per-discipline basis if there was no final for that discipline?

Comment 03 Sep 11:29

> but if the same six are used from event to event, Overall Winners are more comparable.

But in my opinion, this is exactly the difference between a combined competition (like the pentathlon or the decathlon in athletics), which is supposed to be comparable between different events, and an overall winner, who is simply honored as the winner of an event.
If you realy want to compare between events you will need a system like in athletics anyway, where points are awarded for performances and not for placements. Otherwise it will never be compareable betewen differen events.

So why sticking to a set of disciplines, if the comparability is not the goal and is not given anyway?

> Maybe we could then require to base on finals insofar finals have been held, and only use age group results on a per-discipline basis if there was no final for that discipline?

In Germany, the overall winner title is often used, for example, in the U11 age group to create an overall winner and thus to give the riders who have no chance of a final an additional award. I find this a very nice idea and therefore like the variant to determine the overall winner on the basis of age groups very much. I see no reason to prefer the finals variant here. The final riders usually get awards for the final places anyway.

Comment 03 Sep 12:33

> an overall winner, who is simply honored as the winner of an event
I see the point. Going this way would also mean that a statement like "Such-and-such has been Overall Winner for three Unicons in a row" is more or less meaningless. It has however until now been the way I looked at Overall Winner.

> In Germany, the overall winner title is often used, for example, in the U11 age group
I meant my comment in another way. I did not think of Overall Winners within an age group, but of two Overall Winners (one male, one female) across all age groups. I only referred to age groups in terms of results to take into account for these two Overall Winners, if results from a specific final (e.g. Slalom :-) ) would not be available.
Side note: at the Dutch nationals, as you may know, we honour besides a male and female Overall Winner (which we call Dutch Champion) also an Overall Winner for age 0 - 10. I've always thought that this was not according to IUF rules. But we like the idea of stimulating the young riders.

Comment 04 Sep 02:00

There are a lot of moving parts to this. Here we need to decide:
- What to call it
- Which events to include
- Same set of events every time, or let organizers choose which ones?
- For Finals only, or also for age groups?
- Base only on Finals times, or also look at age group ties?
- I'm probably forgetting some

> why did we stop doing this?
Most likely reason is that Track already contains so many events, it's easy for fast riders to win a lot of medals. The idea may have even been mine. At Unicon IV I even won a giant trophy for "Pista" (Track). But it still appears in the Rulebook and some people/events prefer to offer it.

I agree that if we decide to reintroduce it for Unicon, it should be considered a discrete "event", such as a Decathlon. In this case, a Sextathlon? That name alone makes it sound attractive. Everyone will want to know what it is (or be appalled). I don't know if we would want to call it that, but it expresses the concept in being similar to Olympic events of that type. It would not be a separate set of races, rather use the results of the races we already run.

If we want to offer this, the list of events should be consistent, rather than optional. You can do other events, but then it wouldn't be the Sextathlon!

We should decide if this "thing", whatever we want to call it, should be a required or optional event for Unicon. I believe it should be optional, again because there are so many chances to win medals in Track, though at Unicon, any medal represents a significant accomplishment.

For a fixed list, I recommend using the six events I suggested above: 100m, 400m, 800m, 1-Foot, Wheel Walk and IUF Slalom. If we want to compare from year to year, the list should stay the same. And the list of events should be included in that section, not referred to a different section.

For the World Champion title in this event, only data from the Finals evens should be used. For age group-based versions of this award, only age group event data should be used (as seen in a quote above on this website).

Wondering if Connie is reading along: We've done so many discussions and proposals just in the Track section, I can't blame people for not reading every detail. Whether she is or not, we should just continue the process. She can speak up as needed.

Hope I'm not leaving anything out...

Comment 04 Sep 18:30

I was going to comment that the USA has done combined awards for many years, but checking the online results, last time they offered it was 2017, and the listings were by age group, as well as overall. These "events" were labeled as
Overall Track Champion, for each age group, and
Overall Track Racing Champion, for the list of top racers across all age groups

Those are confusing labels.

In any case, I will strongly advocate for the 100m as the tie-breaking event, as it symbolizes the fastest event in Track. For groups/events that don't include a 100m event, they would have to pick the next best thing, which would be the 200m if they have that. And in past competitions it has come down to that 100m result. Remember that story about carrying a large TV up into the timing booth at the top of the bleachers, just to watch the video from the female 100m race at a USA Nationals? It was also the tiebreaker for the Overall Track Champion that year so it was reeeeally important! :-)

After reading all of this, I think I prefer Jan's label of Overall, or Overall Ranking, rather than a Combined event. Yes, Sextathlon is an awesome name, but I don't know that it's even on-topic to this particular discussion.

I hope the end product in this proposal will still have a set of rules that can optionally be used to determine overall champions in Track. We can suggest the six events that were traditionally used for such an event, but organizers an always do their own variations, especially if they aren't featuring all six of the traditional events.

Comment 05 Sep 16:15

I am posting this once (I mean, in one Discussion) in Track (and once in Jumps). I'll be on holiday for the next 1.5 weeks and have very limited time (if any) to devote to the Rulebook committee.

Comment 07 Sep 02:22

> Going this way would also mean that a statement like "Such-and-such has been Overall Winner for three Unicons in a row" is more or less meaningless. It has however until now been the way I looked at Overall Winner.

I would not say that such a statement is meaningless - why should that be the case? Winning the title indicates that someone was the best at an event. And if someone manages to win it three times in a row, then he is certainly particularly good.
The only thing you can't do, in my opinion, is to make an absolute comparison, because winning the overall title always "only" means that the person was better than the rest of the participants. And the strength of the field of participants as a whole can vary considerably from year to year. If you want to have this comparison, then you need a system in which points are awarded for performance and not for rankings.

> I only referred to age groups in terms of results to take into account for these two Overall Winners, if results from a specific final (e.g. Slalom :-) ) would not be available.

But even here, you cannot assign points for age group rankings, because then there are suddenly many more first, second, third places - namely one in each age group. Therefore, in this case, one must also take a final ranking, i.e. evaluate across age groups. And there is usually a final ranking even if there is no separate final.

> There are a lot of moving parts to this. Here we need to decide:

I think my proposal covers all this questions - or have I overlooked something?

2D.5 Overall Track Ranking

1. The Overall Track Ranking is an optional ranking to determine the best riders across multiple disciplines. For this, placement points are assigned in the individual disciplines. Usually the following system is used: 1st place gets 8, 2nd place 5, 3rd place 3, 4th place 2, and 5th place 1 point. Highest total points score is the winner of the Overall Track Ranking. There are two different ways of having an overall ranking, male and female should always be seperated:
1.1 As an age group combined overall ranking, points will be awarded for placements in the finals/final rankings, no points will be awarded in the age group rankings.
1.2 As an age group separated overall ranking, points will be awarded for placements in the corresponding age group, no points will be awarded in the final races/final rankings.

2. It is up to the organizers in which disciplines points will be awarded for the overall ranking.

3. If there is a tie, the rider with the most first places wins. If this still results in a tie, the title goes to the better finisher in the 100m race or, if this discipline is not part of the disciplines, another predefined discipline.

Note that I have adjusted the last sentence again so that the 100m remains the decisive discipline, if it is one of the disciplines.

> I agree that if we decide to reintroduce it for Unicon, it should be considered a discrete "event", such as a Decathlon.

I would say that a dedicated event, which would be comparable to the pentathlon, could certainly be interesting. But I think that would really be something completely different than what the proposal for the overall winner covers. An overall winner title, as it is proposed, is already awarded on numerous competitions in Germany and the disciplines differ slightly on the competitions (sometimes there is no 800m, sometimes no 400m, but in the meantime often 200m and also high jump and long jump are mostly offered) - a "Sextathlon" would therefore not be possible to implement uniformly.
Moreover, it would not be so trivial to set rules for a "Sextathlon", because you would have to assign points based on the performances achieved. In fact, it would rather be the development of a completely new discipline.

> I'll be on holiday for the next 1.5 weeks and have very limited time (if any) to devote to the Rulebook committee.

Then I wish you a great vacation.

Comment 08 Sep 01:05

> Winning the title indicates that someone was the best at an event. And if someone manages to win it three times in a row, then he is certainly particularly good.
I think what Klaas was trying to say there referred to the list of events that made up the "Overall Winner" award. If the list was different from year to year, there would be a winner for each, but what they won would not be the same set of things. But I'm not going to worry about that at this point.

> 2D.5 Overall Track Ranking
This looks good. The thing is optional, explains how it's meant to work, and gives some examples of ways it can be awarded. It does not require that the list of events be the same every time.

Only change I will recommend to this is in the tie-breaking text, if a 100m race was not held, it should go to the next shortest regular race around the track, namely 200m, followed by 400m, followed by 800m. If none of those was held, the organizers can decide which to use.

I recommend leaving it as an optional thing for Unicon.

Comment 08 Sep 01:58

> Only change I will recommend to this is in the tie-breaking text, if a 100m race was not held, it should go to the next shortest regular race around the track, namely 200m, followed by 400m, followed by 800m. If none of those was held, the organizers can decide which to use.

That's fine for me. But I think it should be the next longer race, right? So what about:

3. If there is a tie, the rider with the most first places wins. If this still results in a tie, the title goes to the better finisher in the 100m race or, if this race is not part of the disciplines, it should go to the better finisher of the next longer standrad track race. If none of those races is not part of the disciplines, the organizers can use another predefined discipline as tiebreaker.

Comment 10 Sep 22:54

Yes! Even better. :-)

Comment 11 Sep 03:58

I have revised the proposal accordingly.
As soon as Klaas is back from vacation, he agrees and the review time is over, we can vote.

Comment 18 Sep 08:19

I see a typo in the proposal:
standrad > standard

And a confusing text:
If none of those races is not part... > If there is no race longer than 100m...

I can't help but add that if there is no race of 100m and no race longer than 100m, it is a very unusual Track convention, and the "Overall Track Ranking" doesn't seem to make much sense.

In the old rule there is a title "World Champion" associated with this. The new rule describes the ranking but not the title.
I suggest to fix this, and award the title "Overall Track Champion" (or "Overal Track World Champion" in the case of Unicon).

Comment 19 Sep 01:44

> I see a typo in the proposal

I will correct that

> And a confusing text

It should of course be "If none of those races is part..."
"If there is no race longer than 100m..." would have the disadvantage of including longer non-standard races (e.g. we also have competitions in Germany where 1500m are offered). We could alternatively write of course: "If there is no standrad track race longer than 100m..."

> it is a very unusual Track convention, and the "Overall Track Ranking" doesn't seem to make much sense

I totally agree with you that it will probably never happen that a competition offers exclusively technical disciplines and races that are not standard track races - nevertheless I would not want to exclude this case and such a competition would still be a track competition, even if a very very unusual one.

> In the old rule there is a title "World Champion" associated with this. The new rule describes the ranking but not the title.
I suggest to fix this, and award the title "Overall Track Champion" (or "Overal Track World Champion" in the case of Unicon).

Regarding the Unicon, it is intentional that there is nothing in this direction in the rules, since the discussion originated from not offering a corresponding ranking at the Unicon. Therefore, of course, there is no world champion here - which is understandable, because in my understanding it would have to be something comparable for a championship title, which this ranking just does not represent.
This ranking should only determine the overall winner of a certain event, which is why I think it makes sense not to award a championship title, but to define only one winner of the ranking (Highest total points score is the winner of the Overall Track Ranking.).

Comment 19 Sep 03:29

>It should of course be "If none of those races is part..."
That corrects one issue, i.e. the double negation. The other issue is that "those races" refers to the list of races (200m, 400m, 800m) in the original text, but this list has meanwhile been deleted from the proposal. That means that "those races" has lost its reference. Therefore I think that my suggested "If there is no race longer than 100m" is better.

>there is no world champion here
I see your point.
Also, since the ranking is now optional, there would not necessarily be such an Overall Track Ranking winner at every Unicon. This is in contradiction with the concept of a "champion", which should be proclaimed at every championship in order to be meaningful.
I for one regret losing the Overall Track World Champion title but if that is what the majority wants, so be it.

Comment 20 Sep 01:52

I have revised the proposal and incorporated the issues that have been mentioned. I think with the reference to the corresponding disciplines it is now clear what is meant by "the next longer standard track race".

Does this fit or do you have any further comments?

Comment 20 Sep 02:56

Would we need to modify...
1.1 As an age group combined overall ranking, points will be awarded for placements in the finals/final rankings, no points will be awarded in the age group rankings.
...for disciplines in which there never is a final (such as Stillstand), or when a final is skipped/cancelled for whatever reason?
I could think of an additional sentence
"If in a specific discipline no final was held, results from age group competition will be used instead"

A typo: there is still a "standrad" in section 3. I think it was corrected, then re-introduced.

Comment 20 Sep 23:01

Additional edits:

1st paragraph: change seperated to separated

#2 reads a little funny. How about "It is up to the organizers to determine from which disciplines points will be awarded for the overall ranking."

Everything else looks good!

Comment 21 Sep 01:42

I agree to all of John's comments.

Comment 21 Sep 03:00

> ...for disciplines in which there never is a final (such as Stillstand), or when a final is skipped/cancelled for whatever reason?

I would say, that the rule already covers this case, because it says: "[...] points will be awarded for placements in the finals/final rankings [...]" - no separate final in the form of a final heat or similar. If, for whatever reason, there is also no final ranking, then no points can be awarded in this discipline for case 1.1 (Because you cannot assign points for age group rankings, because then there are suddenly many more first, second, third places - namely one in each age group).

Regarding the other editorial comments: I have incorporated them.

Comment 21 Sep 03:32

Indeed, my additional sentence is incomplete and thus prone to misinterpretation.
What I meant, in case no final is held from which points can be derived, is to make a ranking from the age group results for that discipline across all age groups. Then there is only one first place, one second place etc. This is also how we handle it at the Dutch nationals to assign the titles of Dutch Champions, we don't do finals anyway.

Comment 21 Sep 04:04

> What I meant, in case no final is held from which points can be derived, is to make a ranking from the age group results for that discipline across all age groups.

Exactly, then you make a final ranking and of course points can be awarded from it and that is exactly what paragraph 1.1 says.

Comment 21 Sep 04:26

>that is exactly what paragraph 1.1 says
Then the wording of 1.1 and 1.2 is unclear to me.
I understood from it that there are two possible approaches for Overall Track Ranking winners, i.e. (a) one winner for all age groups combined, or (b) one winner per age group. 1.1 would then apply to (a) and 1.2 to (b). And in 1.1 I read that the ranking is based on the results from the finals. That is where my comment comes in: if there are no finals for a specific discipline, you need an alternative way to generate points for that discipline.

Comment 21 Sep 08:59

> And in 1.1 I read that the ranking is based on the results from the finals.

1.1 says: "[...] points will be awarded for placements in the finals/final rankings [...]" - so maybe we are talking around each other because we understand different things under a final ranking. For me there are two options for a final:
1. The conventional final, where the participants compete against each other in a separate heat/attempt.
2. The final ranking, where there is no separate heat/attempt, but instead the final ranking is formed by evaluating the results of all/multiple age groups.

So from my understanding what you describe when you're talking about "to make a ranking from the age group results for that discipline across all age groups" is exactly what I understand under "final ranking" - if there is a separate heat/attempt it is a "final".

The rule 2B.1.8 Finals distinguishes in principle also these two variants, without however calling the second explicitly "final ranking". Maybe we should adapt the rule again, because I think it is important to distinguish whether a final was held in the form of a conventional final or as a final ranking. In Germany, a very strict distinction is made between the two variants and, for example, when publishing result lists, it is also constantly marked whether it is a final or a final ranking.

Comment 21 Sep 09:03

Good catch! Also I agree with the labels, and the way of stating them both together as "finals/final rankings".

Comment 21 Sep 10:18

>maybe we are talking around each other because we understand different things under a final ranking
Exactly, that is the root of the confusion. I understood "final ranking" as a ranking that is based on a (real) final. I now understand that you use it as a ranking based on age group results. But why is it called a "final" ranking then? What is final about it? Maybe because the ranking is made in the end, when all races have been held? But that is always the case, a preliminary ranking while the races are ongoing would never be used for any awards or titles.

If we adapt the rule again, we may want to avoid the term "final ranking" altogether. I think it is too easily misunderstood.

Comment 22 Sep 02:35

> But why is it called a "final" ranking then? What is final about it?

Simply because it is the equivalent of a final in case there is no conventional final in the form of a separate heat/attempt (a "physical final"). If there is no physical final something else is needed to award e.g. championship titles - and since championship titles are awarded based on something final, for which only the best riders qualify, the "Final-Wertung" has been established in Germany, which I have always translated with "final ranking" - to make it possible to distinguish whether this is "only" a ranking or a physical final.

Instead of avoiding the term completely, I would rather have it (or another one that also allows this distinction) clearly defined in rule 2B.1.8 Finals. I would find it a pity if the distinction between a physical final and a final ranking would no longer be visible and I would also find it a pity if there would be no finalists for disciplines without a physical final, because there having no form of final at all.

Comment 27 Sep 02:13

I would like to bring the discussion to an end and vote on the rule - I think for this we should clarify the question whether we should still adjust something in the text of this rule or whether we clarify in rule 2B.1.8 Finals what is meant by final ranking and then have a clear definition for this rule as well.

My preference would clearly be to define in rule 2B.1.8 Finals what is meant by a final ranking and to leave this rule as proposed.

Comment 27 Sep 15:59

Oops, I failed to respond in this discussion. I still don't like the term "final ranking", to me it is confusing, even though "Finalwertung" seems to be the usual term in Germany.

But re-reading the proposal text, I have more unclarities. Is it correct that 1.1 is more or less equivalent to the old rule, where only two Overall Track Ranking winners are awarded (on male, one female), whereas in 1.2 there is such a winner for each age group and gender? Where then is the concept described in 1.2 coming from in the first place? Besides, how to deal with the situation that age groups are not the same for each discipline that is to be taken into account for this Overall Track Ranking in 1.2?

Comment 02 Oct 07:43

> I still don't like the term "final ranking", to me it is confusing

So what would be your suggestion for an appropriate term to distinguish a physical final from a ranking/"Finalwertung"?

> Is it correct that 1.1 is more or less equivalent to the old rule

More or less yes - if there is a separate Junirofinal, I would see a subdivision into U15/15+ based on a Junirofinal and a Final or the corresponding rankings also be covered under 1.1.

> whereas in 1.2 there is such a winner for each age group and gender? Where then is the concept described in 1.2 coming from in the first place?

The idea comes from the fact that we have recently discussed a lot in Germany about the possibilities to make small competitions still attractive for organizers and participants. The common practice of honoring all places in all age groups makes racing competitions with small numbers of participants unattractive for many organizers. At the same time, combining a large number of age groups makes the event unattractive for the riders. One idea was to keep the age groups even with lower numbers of participants (for which we would need a change of the IUF rules to Agegroup Committees) and to honor only the overall winners in the age groups and not the placers in all disciplines.

Comment 03 Oct 23:57

As an alternative to "final ranking" how about "overall ranking"? This implies that it includes all riders, ranked, but omits "final", which could be confused with the running of a separate race/heat.

Comment 04 Oct 01:12

Why I don't consider "overall ranking" as appropriate is that it would be the same term as for what we want to describe with rule 2D.5. For me, an "overall ranking" is something that covers the whole competition and not just a single discipline.

Comment 04 Oct 04:09

It seems to me that using per-agegroup track rankings is a specific German thing. In my view it goes against, or at least is separate from, the original idea of this rule, which is to award one (per gender) Overall Track Ranking winner title (used to be called (Track) World Champion at Unicons).
I doubt we should change the world-wide IUF Rulebook to formalise this German approach.
Maybe I'm wrong, and such a system is used more widely. Then again, I for one am against awarding lots of (world) champion titles, otherwise there is too much inflation in the title of champion.

I think we need to decide on this issue first, because the wording of the rule depends on it.

Comment 04 Oct 07:13

> In my view it goes against, or at least is separate from, the original idea of this rule, which is to award one (per gender) Overall Track Ranking winner title (used to be called (Track) World Champion at Unicons).

But the whole discussion is exactly about the fact that the original idea of the rule 2D.5 to honor a world champion as overall champion should be eliminated and we have therefore considered how to redesign the rule so that it is not simply removed completely, but something new is created, which is used in everyday life. So it's not about creating something new anyway, where a (world) champion title is awarded - of course there should always be only one (world) champion per discipline, everything else is not comprehensible and leads to confusion.

The new rule is not intended to create a new "discipline" or "category" in which (world) champion titles are to be awarded, but to show organizers which alternative forms of rankings are possible at competitions. The rule therefore also avoids explicitly talking about champions at any point, because it is not suitable for this purpose simply because of the large amount of freedom for the organizers.

Comment 04 Oct 07:39

I disagree that the so-called Track Combined Competition should be removed from the rules. From the beginning of this discussion I have questioned this premise. Connie suggested this indeed but without any context, and then did not take part in the ensuing discussion, so I can only guess what's behind it.

Also, I don't see why we should show organisers which alternative forms of rankings are possible. Organisers have freedom in this regard anyway, and are creative enough to think of alternative forms of ranking on their own (as the German case shows). In my opinion this needs no backup from the rulebook. That means that in my opinion we can get rid of 1.2 in the proposal.

The current 2D.5 does mention the phrase "World Champion". I am actually not afraid to use the word champion even if it is a cross-discipline one, as long as the word and definition are clear. "World Champion" without an additional qualifier is indeed very confusing, but "Overall World Champion Track" (or similar) would be totally fine for me.

Comment 04 Oct 08:40

> I disagree that the so-called Track Combined Competition should be removed from the rules.

But then I think we have to start this whole discussion from scratch, because exactly with this goal I have created the proposal and from my point of view and some arguments that have already been presented here in the discussion, it is also the right way to remove the old "Combined Competition" and instead leave something in the rules that is actually used. And the so-called "Overall Winners" are already being honored today at numerous events - partly as overall winners from the finals, partly on the basis of age groups (and let it just be U11, U15 and 15+).

It is a fact that a "Combined Competition" has not been offered on Unicons (or other competitions) for a long time and what the rules describe is not a real "Combined Competition" as it exists e.g. in athletics. So if we want to (re)introduce a real "Combined Competition", I think it would have to be done as a real discipline (even if the results would come from other disciplines). As already written above in the discussion, one would have to develop appropriate rules for it, which would probably not be trivial. In general, such a discipline would also have to be comparable across competitions and for this, just like in athletics, points would have to be awarded on the basis of the performances achieved and not on the basis of the placings achieved. Otherwise, in the end, you will not get a real "Combined Competition", but only a ranking for the corresponding competition - and such a ranking should not be a basis for championship titles in my opinion.

> Also, I don't see why we should show organisers which alternative forms of rankings are possible.

The Rulebook is the authority for competitions, according to which organizers are guided and of course the Rulebook has a great influence on what is offered at competitions and what is not. And there are always organizers who think that certain things are not covered by the Rulebook and therefore can not be offered. I see it as the task of the Rulebook Committee to consider which things are recommended to the organizers and which are not and to include the recommended things in the rulebook.

Comment 05 Oct 01:27

I'm kind of neutral at this point; I agree we want to describe how it is (or should) be done for Unicon. For other competitions, organizers have the power to make their own rules or variations.

At the same time, I don't have a problem with the IUF making recommendations for how to do things, even if they are not required events or award systems.

Comment 05 Oct 05:57

> I agree we want to describe how it is (or should) be done for Unicon. For other competitions, organizers have the power to make their own rules or variations.

I completely agree that all rules for a Unicon must be included in the Rulbook - but in the end these should also be the rules that are recommended for all other events.
Of course, not all possible deviations from the Unicon rules for other events can always be explicitly included in the rules, but I think it is extremely important that the rules make it clear where deviations are possible and where they are not. And I am also of the opinion that the IUF rules should be written in such a way that all events can be covered by them, without the organizers having to come up with their own rules, because in the end it should be the goal of the IUF that comparable rules are applied to all events.

Comment 05 Oct 07:55

I wasn't even aware that the title of Overall Track World Champion has not been awarded for some time. Rather than deleting it from the rulebook, I'd like to bring it back, even if only optional, and even if we want to avoid the word "champion". The awarding of Dutch Champions is based on this rule, although this is not the reason I want to keep it in the Rulebook because we (Dutch organisers) only follow IUF rules insofar feasible, and use our "own" rules otherwise. I think many organisers do this, including many German organisers who came up with the "novelty" of Age Group-based overall track winners. Nothing wrong with that, in my opinion.

I still think that there is no need to describe Age Group-based overall track winners in the IUF Rulebook (as in 1.2 in the proposal). To me, it is one of many variations that are possible (not one that needs a particular recommendation), and that I would gladly leave to any local organiser.

I guess with one committee member for it, one neutral and one against it while the other members keep silent, we're stuck.

Comment 05 Oct 08:30

> Rather than deleting it from the rulebook, I'd like to bring it back, even if only optional, and even if we want to avoid the word "champion".

But this is exactly what the new rule tries to do - to move away from a "Combined Competition", which has not been offered for a long time and is not a meaningful "Combined Competition" in the form it is in the rulebook - to a rule for overall winners, as it is currently already offered at many competitions.

> The awarding of Dutch Champions is based on this rule

At the Dutch championship, isn't it rather the case that an overall winner is honored according to the new rule in accordance with paragraph 1.2?
You have no Finals and an seperate overall winner U11, right? So baisicly you award one 11+ overall winner and one U11 - that was the idea of paragraph 1.2 to describe exactly this possibility and to show organisers that such an award is in acordance with the IUF rules... If we leave out paragraph 1.2, we take away the possibility for the organizers to organize a competition according to the IUF rules and to honor a U11 overall winner. Honestly, I don't see any meaningful reason for that!

I know that also in Germany many organizers refer to the current rule 2D.5 when honoring an overall winner. In my opinion, however, it is not what it is currently used for - the current rule describes a "Combined Competition" and that never really exists. Even if it is, the rule is actually useless for a real combined competition, since no results are obtained that can be compared, which brings us back to my point from the beginning: points would have to be awarded on the basis of the performances achieved and not on the basis of the placings achieved for a real combined competition.

I therefore see no good reason to leave the Rule 2D.5 in its current form in the Rulebook.

> I think many organisers do this, including many German organisers who came up with the "novelty" of Age Group-based overall track winners.

Until now, this is only an idea that has not really been tried out yet, because many organizers do not see any basis for this in the rulebook.

Comment 05 Oct 12:45

> But this is exactly what the new rule tries to do
Maybe I get it all wrong, but the way I understand the proposal, 1.1. kind of brings back the old Overall Track World Champion but with a new and better name (without "champion " in it). So far so good. But 1.2 brings in an option that was never used at Unicons before, which is overal track winners per agegroup. This is in my opinion just one fantasy way of creating more champions, there are many more ways conceivable. It's just my opinion, but I don't think the Rulebook should pick this option in particular and lend it an aura of authority by recommending it as a possible alternative to 1.1.

> At the Dutch championship, isn't it rather the case that an overall winner is honored according to the new rule in accordance with paragraph 1.2?
I don't see it this way. We honour one male and one female overall winner (called Dutch Champion) per gender across all age groups, except, and this is what you're hinting at, agegroup under 11. For those young riders we honour one additional champion including both males and females, and also call this rider Dutch Champion. This is not in accordance with the current proposal, because we don't separate males and females in this junior ranking, and also we don't do similar overall rankings separately for all the other age groups. So our system with the three champions has no basis in the IUF Rulebook. But we don't need that either, we don't follow the Rulebook on all accounts and we're happy with that.

> points would have to be awarded on the basis of the performances achieved and not on the basis of the placings achieved for a real combined competition
The proposal still uses placings. I understand that you find this acceptable as long as we don't call it a "combined competition". That's fine with me. The way the proposal introduces the concept, and results in "winner of the Overall Track Ranking", prevents that issue. I for one would not be afraid to call this person "Overall Track Champion", in my opinion it sets it sufficiently apart from a discipline champion.

> many organizers do not see any basis for this in the rulebook
But organisers have freedom, don't they? For competitions outside Unicon, they can add such a ranking per agegroup. Just like the Dutch Championships have their own system for assigning champion titles.

BTW, sorry for bringing up this rather fundamental point so late in the discussion. Somehow, I had focused too much on the detailed wording, and too little on the overall concept. It was only when I attempted to reword the proposal in a way that could satisfy all of us, I stumbled on the issue at hand, i.e. 1.2.

Comment 06 Oct 02:17

> Maybe I get it all wrong, but the way I understand the proposal, 1.1. kind of brings back the old Overall Track World Champion but with a new and better name (without "champion " in it). So far so good.

1.1 describes the possibility for organizers to honor an overall winner based on final results. A championship title is intentionally not included in the rule - but if someone wants to award a championship title based on this, it does not contradict the rule. But it is not the intention of the rule!

> But 1.2 brings in an option that was never used at Unicons before, which is overal track winners per agegroup. This is in my opinion just one fantasy way of creating more champions, there are many more ways conceivable.

The rule does not create more champions - there can only be one champion and the rules define a champion as a winner of a final (or the corresponding ranking), see rule 2B.7.11/2B.1.8! If this get's not clear from the rule, we should indeed reword the rule. The ruleit is not intended to determine champions, but only winners - and there are already winners in the individual disciplines in each age group. If this was not desired, then one would have to change a lot more in the rulebook.

> except, and this is what you're hinting at, agegroup under 11. For those young riders we honour one additional champion including both males and females, and also call this rider Dutch Champion. This is not in accordance with the current proposal, because we don't separate males and females in this junior ranking, and also we don't do similar overall rankings separately for all the other age groups.

1. Then you use exactly what paragraph 1.2 describes for the age group U11 - the points are hardly awarded on the basis of a final, right?
2. This is in accordance with the new rule, because the rule says "Male and female should always be separated." and not "Male and female must always be separated." So your U11 overall winner is completely covered by the new rule!
3. Paragraph 1.2 is in no way meant that a corresponding overall winner must be determined for all offered age groups - it is only meant that an overall winner may be determined on basis of age groups! If age groups are combined for the overall winner (e.g. a U9 and a U11 for a U11 overall winner), then this is completely fine and in accordance with the rule.

> But organisers have freedom, don't they? For competitions outside Unicon, they can add such a ranking per agegroup.

Organizers of official championships in Germany have exactly the freedom that the IUF rules give them. So if the IUF rules stipulate that an overall winner is to be determined on the basis of the results of the final, then no organizer of a championship in Germany can go and determine an U11 overall winner on the basis of the age group results, because that would then be in contradiction to the IUF rules.

This is the reason why I think it is so important that the IUF rules give the possibility to determine overall winners also on the basis of (combined) age group rankings and not only on the basis of finals.
So to me there are two sensible ways:
1. We delete the rule completely and thus make no specification at all how possible overall winners are determined. Then it is completely up to the organizers to come up with something.
2. We write the rule in such a way that it contains both the possibility to determine an overall winner on the basis of finals and the possibility to determine overall winners on the basis of (combined) age group rankings.

I would clearly prefer option 2, because otherwise, the organizers would have to include a corresponding rule each time with the call for competition and could no longer simply refer to the rulebook. In addition, the complete removal of the rule would of course lead to the fact that the procedure for the determination of overall winners could be very different from competition to competition (points per placement, decision in case of a tie, etc.).

Comment 12 Oct 01:20

How can we proceed here?

I have tried to make it clear why I think it is so important that the IUF rules give the organizers the option to do overall rankings based on age group placings and not only on final placings.
As I said, it is not at all my intention that paragraph 1.2 should be understood as mandatory for all age groups if an organizer decides to use this option, the option should also include combined age groups (e.g. one U11 overall ranking for all U11 age groups if there is e.g. a U9 and a U11). If we could find a suitable compromise by addjusting the wording to make this more clear, that would be in my favour in any case.

Comment 13 Oct 05:26

> How can we proceed here?
Sorry, I was (and actually still am) quite busy with the organisation of a large unicycling event (Eenwielerfestival). It was held last weekend, but there are always a lot of things to take care of afterwards.

> (I wrote) The rule does not create more champions
I used the wrong word. I meant "winners" not "champions".

> the rule says "Male and female should always be separated." and not "Male and female must always be separated."
Ooww, this is a subtlety I missed. But if I should interpret this as if the rule does not strictly require male and female to be separated, then what does "Male and female should always be separated" mean? Is it a recommendation that one can choose not to follow?

> Organizers of official championships in Germany have exactly the freedom that the IUF rules give them.
This in itself is not a requirement of IUF, as far as I know. Any country (or region/whatever) can organise unicycling events applying their own rules. The only events that must follow IUF rules are those events that are sanctioned (backed up) bij IUF. Of course, if it is advertised that an event follows the IUF rulebook, then all IUF rules must be followed. But this is a decision of the organisation itself (in this case the German organisers and/or their umbrella organisation BDR/EVD).
What I'm having a bit of trouble with, is that we would modify the worldwide IUF Rulebook to suit the wishes of organisers in one particular country (even though I would admit that in unicycling Germany is not just a random country).
I hope that others chime in on this aspect of the discussion.

Comment 15 Oct 03:39

> what does "Male and female should always be separated" mean? Is it a recommendation that one can choose not to follow?

Yes exactly, I would interpret all "should" rules in the rulebook in a way that it is recommended to do it this way, but just without an obligation to do it this way - however with a stronger recommendation character than if e.g. "can" is used.

> Any country (or region/whatever) can organise unicycling events applying their own rules.

But then the competitions cannot be called "according to IUF". And what is the point of a world federation if the individual countries do not organize their competitions according to the rules of the world federation? This is also the reason why in Germany it is clearly demanded to organize all championships according to IUF.

And I think it is extremely important that everything that is included in the rulebook always makes sure that the rules remain applicable to smaller competitions (and not only Unicon) or give the organizers, where it is reasonably possible, sufficient freedom to adapt the rules if necessary.

> What I'm having a bit of trouble with, is that we would modify the worldwide IUF Rulebook to suit the wishes of organisers in one particular country

However, the discussion is not about adapting the rules to the wishes of individual countries - it is about the question:
Should an overall winner be honored at competitions according to IUF?
If Not:
Do we have to prevent this completely by having a rule that prohibits a corresponding overall ranking.
If Yes:
Does another question arise:
May only an overall winner be honored based on finals or may overall winners based on age groups also be honored?

I don't see any reason not to allow organizers to honor overall winners on the basis of age groups - but that is exactly what our rules would prohibit if they stipulated that overall winners must be honored on the basis of finals.
The easiest way to get around this dilemma, in my opinion, is to include the option to honor based on age group in the rules. This leaves it up to each organizer to decide how to award honors. And since the whole rule is only an option, it is also possible to simply not honor overall winners at all (as is the case at Unicon, for example).

Comment 15 Oct 08:10

Is there a reason not to write "Male and female must always be separated"? In other words, why do we allow a degree of freedom in this respect?

Are there any other countries (or regions) besides Germany that would want to honour overall winners based on age groups but don't do that now because the IUF Rulebook doesn't give this option?

Comment 16 Oct 11:45

> Is there a reason not to write "Male and female must always be separated"? In other words, why do we allow a degree of freedom in this respect?

I would rather ask why we should not allow this degree of freedom? In other words, what reason is there to require the organizers to always separate male and female for overall winners?

I think the current age group rules give the organizers generally not enough freedom - e.g. when merging age groups, I think it would often make much more sense e.g. in the U11 to do a mixed male and female classification instead of merging the U11 riders with older age groups. From a sporting point of view it does not make sense to me to insist on the separation of male and female on the one hand and on the other hand to demand a merging of age groups over possibly extremely large age ranges. The age group issue should be tackled for many years in the Age Group Committee and I still hope that this will happen at some point.
Until then, I think we should at least give the organizers a certain degree of freedom where ever possible without touching the age group topic.

> Are there any other countries (or regions) besides Germany that would want to honour overall winners based on age groups but don't do that now because the IUF Rulebook doesn't give this option?

I think that doesn't realy matters, we should answer the two qestions from above to make a decision about the rules:
1. Should it be allowed to honor an overall winner at competitions according to IUF?
2. May only an overall winner be honored based on finals or may overall winners based on age groups also be honored?

My opinion is that there is nothing against honoring an overall winner and therefore it should be allowed in principle.
And since I don't see any reasons why the organizers should not be allowed to honor overall winners on the basis of age groups, I would like to give the organizers this freedom to decide for themselves how they want to honor and what makes sense in their case - e.g. to honor an U11 mixed overall winner.

Comment 31 Oct 00:31

> Are there any other countries (or regions) besides Germany that would want to honour overall winners based on age groups but don't do that now because the IUF Rulebook doesn't give this option?

FWIW, this would not happen for USA competitions. I think there are still enough people that remember when the USA kept its own set of rules, and that the IUF Rulebook started as an outgrowth of existing USA rules (from 1983/4). They would make up something new if they wanted. :-)

Comment 31 Oct 02:29

It may be true that some/many countries make their own rules and don't follow the IUF rulebook that strictly - but shouldn't it be the job of the IUF and the IUF Rulebook Committee to write the official IUF rules in such a way that there is no need for other rules and as many countries as possible follow the official IUF Rules? Of course, this does not mean that you can always make everything suitable for all countries end every competition, but I think it is important to make no restrictions in places where the IUF/the Rulebook Committee does not think they are necessary.

And that is exactly why I would like to repeat the two questions from above once again, formulated a little bit differently, because that is exactly what I am concerned with - are restrictions really necessary with regard to an overall winner:
1. Is it necessary to prohibit the honoring of an overall winner at official IUF competitions?
2. Is it really necessary to restrict honoring an overall winner based on finals or may overall winners also be honored based on age groups?

In principle, I have nothing against restrictions - otherwise we wouldn't need a rulebook at all - but in the case of overall winners, I don't see any need for restrictions. However, I am of course open to arguments and reasons why a restriction is necessary.

Comment 02 Nov 00:47

Those are good questions. My answer would be no on both. If anything, we can express a philosophy of how we believe the IUF should recognize the winning of multiple or combined events. What we think is a more "pure" way to honor such things, in relation to other methods that are less preferred. Of course our Rulebook is not a place for philosophy or opinions on rules that don't exist, but if we can give people some direction about such things, they may choose to follow it when making rules for smaller competitions.

I believe people can award age groups if they want, or various combinations of events if they want. Because the IUF does not do it, this does not mean others should not. What's appropriate for smaller competitions can be very different from what makes sense for very large ones.

That being said, I do not know what should be written in terms of a proposal for the Rulebook...

Comment 02 Nov 08:58

> I would rather ask why we should not allow this degree of freedom? In other words, what reason is there to require the organizers to always separate male and female for overall winners?
How does this combine with 2D.4 which states "All age groups must be offered as male and female age group." ? Or is the correct interpretation that on the age group level, males and females are always separated, but for awards (such as "overall winner") they may as yet be combined? That seems strange to me, but is logically not forbidden.

1. Is it necessary to prohibit the honoring of an overall winner at official IUF competitions?
No, not at all, in my opinion. Maybe I lost sight of what the point is, but honouring an overall winner (one male, one female) corresponds to 2D.5 and is perfectly fine.

2. Is it really necessary to restrict honoring an overall winner based on finals or may overall winners also be honored based on age groups?
I'm fine if the organisers have the choice to count points (for overall winners) based on finals and/or age group results. But in my opinion, an "overall" winner must be across all age groups. What I (still) don't like is to recognise overall winners per age group. In my opinion, this would lead to too many overall winners, the "value" of these titles is questionable.

Comment 03 Nov 10:21

> How does this combine with 2D.4 which states "All age groups must be offered as male and female age group." ?
1. These are different issues, because age groups in which the competition is held can be different from those in which overall winners are honoured.
2. I would also like to give the organisers the freedom to offer mixed male and female age groups in the normal competition if this makes sense from a sporting point of view and there are certainly cases (e.g. in the U11, instead of merging with significantly older riders) - but unfortunately this is something that the Age Group Committee has to deal with and we can therefore do nothing about it here.

> But in my opinion, an "overall" winner must be across all age groups. What I (still) don't like is to recognise overall winners per age group. In my opinion, this would lead to too many overall winners, the "value" of these titles is questionable.
Unfortunately, I still don't understand the underlying argument from a sporting point of view... Why is it okay to honour a U15 winner in the 100m, but not a U15 winner across all/multiple disciplines? Why is the "value" of an age group win in 100m less questionable than the "value" of an overall age group win? I simply don't see any difference here. If it is in principle okay to honour an overall winner as the best across several disciplines - which we obviously agree on - why should it not be okay to honour the best in an age group across several disciplines?

> I believe people can award age groups if they want, or various combinations of events if they want. Because the IUF does not do it, this does not mean others should not. What's appropriate for smaller competitions can be very different from what makes sense for very large ones.
I agree in principle - but with the limitation that if something specific is prescribed in the IUF rules, e.g. that an overall winner must always be honoured on the basis of finals/final rankings, then no host can simply do it differently, because then this would be in contradiction to the IUF rules.
That's why it's so important to me that we don't implicitly prohibit something that shouldn't actually be prohibited.

Comment 05 Nov 22:24

In the last bullet above, Jan suggests that "overall winner" must be honored on the basis of Finals or final rankings. I agree with this in principle, but only as it relates to the definition of title. If I host a local or statewide meet and offer an "Overall Winner" award, called by that name, it should use the IUF's published method of determining that winner. Otherwise I should call it something else.

Note: I didn't go look to see what we're currently calling combined awards at the moment, so the event title may be different.

From the IUF's end, we could recommend a few defined ways to do awards for multiple events across a discipline. But if we don't plan to offer such awards in real life, we should leave that open to other organizers, and see if we like the names they use. If they do it first, give them the credit. :-) In other words, let's not create rules for things we've never done, if we don't have plans to do it at an upcoming Unicon or other competition. Beyond that, we should leave it alone and let event hosts figure things out. If we want to pick up something they have done, in kind, we should use the name/definition they used, if it's appropriate for larger events or situations.

Comment 06 Nov 05:54

>age groups in which the competition is held can be different from those in which overall winners are honoured
I'm getting more and more confused. What is the purpose of awarding overall winners in age groups that are even different from the ones in which the competition was run?

>Why is the "value" of an age group win in 100m less questionable than the "value" of an overall age group win?
Apart from the above point, this is based on gut feeling. I feel that "overall winner" is a more prestigeous title than "age group winner", and therefore we should award them more sparingly. As per the current rulebook, the "overall winner" seems the singlemost valuable Track title.
Maybe it would be a compromise if we would allow only overall winners across all age groups for Unicons and perhaps all IUF_sanctioned conventions, and allow overall winners per age group for other competitions?

Comment 06 Nov 08:46

> In the last bullet above, Jan suggests that "overall winner" must be honored on the basis of Finals or final rankings.

No, I did not suggest that. I said that if the IUF rules prescribe this, organizers can no longer go and deviate from it (if they want to do a competition acording IUF rules).
We should therefore only impose such strict rules if we want nobody to make a ranking across several disciplines and call the winner the overall winner. But agin, I don't see why we should prohibid this.

> From the IUF's end, we could recommend a few defined ways to do awards for multiple events across a discipline. But if we don't plan to offer such awards in real life, we should leave that open to other organizers, and see if we like the names they use. If they do it first, give them the credit. :-)

Here I agree 100% and I think that was the starting point of the discussion: The IUF hasn't awarded a title for a multi-discipline winner at Unicon for a long time and it doesn't look like that's planned in the near future. That's probably why Connie suggested deleting the rule completely. My idea was therefore - instead of deleting the rule altogether - to make it more open and give the organizers more freedom to honor multiple-discipline winners and to show organisers that awarding multi-discipline winners ist fine and only removing this "multi-disciplin champion" aspect (and I think there are reasons for not having a multi-discipline champion).
Of course, I had in mind that practically every competition in Germany already has such "overall winners" - which have nothing to do with champions or similar titles.

> What is the purpose of awarding overall winners in age groups that are even different from the ones in which the competition was run?

In Germany, for example, all U11 age groups are combined and an U11 overall winner is honored, as well as all U15 age groups and all 15+ age groups. No titles are ever awarded, there are always only winners, just as there are in the individual disciplines.

> As per the current rulebook, the "overall winner" seems the singlemost valuable Track title.

But the current rule 2D.5 actually describes a title, including a world championship title - of course (championship) titles cannot be awarded more than once. But the new rule is no longer intended to describe what 2D.5 currently describes - it's not about awarding (championship) titles! I completely agree with you that it would make absolutely no sense to award multiple titles for one and the same thing. That's the reason why you can not win a titel in a age reoup race - you can only be a winner in a age group. And if there could be a winner about 100m why no winner acros multiple disciplies?

Comment 01 Feb 10:40

I'm not sure whether we can still find a solution in this discussion, but I'm still open for ideas.

It seems to me that both
- the complete scrapping of the rule
- as well as my proposal to change the rule away from the current combined competition with champions to a more open version with winners oonly to give the organizers more freedom
are nothing that all members of this committee would agree to.
On the other hand I don't like the idea to restrict the organizers to making a multi-discipline award possible only on the basis of finals (at least if the competition wants to follow the IUF rules). Especially since there have been no such awards at Unicon in the last few years which, in my view, would justify quite strict rules in this regard.

Comment 02 Feb 20:05

I agree with Jan; if we keep such a rule it should be very specific. It could still be more than one method, but if they are substantially different they should each have a different title. For example:

Track Combined Champion - for the selected group of events; not requiring final results
Track Combined Expert Champion - same as above but only uses results of finals
But I guess in any case, the list of events should remain the same for either version, unless changed by this committee

Comment 03 Feb 04:40

I think John's suggestion is another variation that I didn't really have in mind - I think the idea is to keep the current rule, but make it clearer that this is about awarding a championship title - right? But since there hasn't been such a championship title at IUF events in recent years, I don't know if we should really leave it in the rules. The advantage would of course be that the organizers would still have the freedom to honor "overall winners", which are different from the "combined champions", but at the same time we would have no rules at all for the "overall winners". And my initial idea in this discussion was to create some basic rules for how to award "overall winners".

One could of course also ask the question, if we want to keep a "Combined Champion", whether it wouldn't make sense (in the long term) to introduce a real "Combined Competition"? Something like the pentathlon in athletics. Even though I would generally be open to introducing such a "discipline", in my opinion a much more comprehensive set of rules would have to be drawn up.

Comment 03 Feb 11:59

Combined Competition sounds interesting, but at the same time would require a ton of time and effort to run. Realistically, you would need a way to narrow the entries to just competitors that have a chance of winning. This means running the Combined event after all the individual races are finished, using those results to determine who can compete. But what if, for example, one of the top IUF Slalom riders got two DQs in the official comp? Or if a person, through no fault of their own, was unable to attend one of the other Track races? That would be quite complicated, but could be handled by allowing Referee/Race Director discretion.

It might also bring up the question of having only two timed attempts at the IUF Slalom. In my world, this usually meant one of your official attempts had to be a "safe" run. Either go all-out on the first attempt, or do the safe one and then go all-out. It would be nice if riders that can meet a certain standard would be allowed one or more extra attempt. For example if you are under 22 sec. for male, and a slightly higher number for female (based on study of recent winning times), you get one or two extra attempts. Something to think about; not necessarily on this round... :-)

Comment 04 Feb 04:27

I think there would be different ways to organize such a real multi-discipline competition - but it would basically be a whole new competition in itself, which is probably better left for the next round of rulebook updates. Then there would also be time to ask athletes and organizers what they think of this idea. I would therefore abstain for the moment from discussing an real multi-discipline competition.

The question remains for me how we deal with rule 2D.4 in this round of the Ruelbook update... Based on what has been discussed here, I have another suggestion: How about we combine both the current "Compined Competition" (which is currently hardly offered) and an "Overall Winner" under rule 2D.4. For example, under the name "Cross-discipline rankings". This would take into account the fact that there is currently (at least in Germany) very often an "Overall Winner", but no "Combined Competition" and at the same time keep the old idea - be it because we want to develop a real multi-discipline competition in the long term or just to show organizers that they can continue to honor a champion if they use the appropriate procedure.

That would be my suggestion:

2D.4 Cross-Discipline Rankings

1. The Cross-Discipline Rankings are optional rankings to determine the best riders across multiple disciplines. A distinction is made between the Track Combined Competition with fixed disciplines, on the basis of which championship titles can be awarded, and the Overall Track Ranking, which can honor event-related Overall Winners.

2D.4.1 Track Combined Competition

1. The best finishers combined from 100 m, 400 m, 800 m, One Foot, Wheel Walk and IUF Slalom win this title.

2. Placement points are assigned for a placement in each of the above disciplines, based upon finals/final rankings. The following system is used: 1st place gets 8, 2nd place 5, 3rd place 3, 4th place 2, and 5th place 1 point. Highest total points score is the Track Combined Champion; one each for male and female.

3. If there is a tie, the rider with the most first places wins. If this still results in a tie, the title goes to the better finisher in the 100m race.

2D.4.2 Overall Track Ranking

1. It is up to the organizers to determine from which disciplines points will be awarded for the Overall Track Ranking.

2. Placement points are assigned in the individual disciplines. Usually the following system is used: 1st place gets 8, 2nd place 5, 3rd place 3, 4th place 2, and 5th place 1 point. Highest total points score is the winner of the Overall Track Ranking. Male and female should always be separated. There are two different ways of determining an overall ranking:
1.1 As an age group combined overall ranking, points will be awarded for placements in the finals/final rankings, no points will be awarded in the age group rankings.
1.2 As an age group separated overall ranking, points will be awarded for placements in the corresponding age group, no points will be awarded in the final races/final rankings.

3. If there is a tie, the rider with the most first places wins. If this still results in a tie, the title goes to the better finisher in the 100m race or, if this race is not part of the disciplines, it should go to the better finisher of the next longer standard track race (according to 2B.2.2 - 2B.2.4). If there is no standard track race longer than 100m, the organizers can use another predefined discipline as tiebreaker.

Comment 04 Feb 18:03

The only thing I don't like about the existing/proposed Overall Track Ranking is the flexibility in the list of events that will count toward this award. If it changes randomly, it dilutes the significance of this award in relation to previous and future competitions. While I would prefer a fixed list of events to make the title of "Overall" accurate, I would be okay with a system that's flexible in terms of excluding Track events that couldn't be run, for example, for whatever reason. Otherwise I think it should stick to a specific list to have its own name.

This would not exclude the possibility of changing that list in the future, as our sport continues to evolve.

Comment 05 Feb 01:49

On the one hand, I understand that there should be a fixed list of disciplines for comparability between different competitions - the new proposal includes the Track Combined Competition for this reason. The disciplines are fixed and championship titles can be awarded on this basis, so that the same disciplines are always used as the basis for these titles.

On the other hand, it is a competition reality (at least in Germany) that cross-discipline rankings are not used to award championship titles, but only competition-specific overall winners are honored (e.g. "Overall Winner of Unicycle Cup Münsterland) - so no championship titles are awarded here, but event-specific winners. However, the events differ greatly - some offer 200 m, but no 800 m, others offer 800 m, but no 400 m. Then there are often high and long jump events, but sometimes also only one of both. A fixed list of disciplines would therefore not reflect the everyday life at the competitions and the organizers would probably continue to proceed as before and honor an individual overall winner at their event.

In my opinion, it therefore makes sense to include such an honor in the rules, because then everyone can understand what such an honor is - namely not a title that is always comparable, but an event-specific honor. The title option is still included in the Track Combined Competition.

Comment 07 Feb 09:22

In this discussion, there is frequent reference to what is done in Germany. I appreciate that Germany is one of the most important countries for unicycling. In addition the German organisers generally want to (or have to?) fully adhere to the IUF Rulebook, so for them it is important what the rulebook prescribes/allows.

Having said that, let me state the situation in the Netherlands. On our annual national championship, we award champion titles to three riders: female 11+, male 11+ and 0-10 mixed gender. These titles are (loosely) based on 2D.5, including the 8-5-3-2-1 points rule. We don't run finals at all, so all input is from age group competition. We include all (8) disciplines of the event, mostly track. We have no champions per discipline. We are aware that this is not "correct" in the IUF Rulebook sense of the word. I think we will continue to award titles in this way, regardless of whether the Rulebook will change or not. In summary, for us it is not so important what the rulebook prescribes/allows, although the way we work now is inspired on 2D.5.

I see merit in Jan's most recent proposed text, but I also like John's comment about the discipline list for Overall Track Ranking to be fixed. Jan objects that the list of disciplines offered varies from event to event. John suggests an elegant solution for this, in my opinion, by allowing to exclude disciplines that weren't run. I would be happy with that solution.

Comment 08 Feb 07:31

I think the reason why Germany is so often referred to in this discussion is that I want to point out that there are currently (at least in one country) other established cross-discipline rankings that do not correspond to what the Rulebook describes under Track Combined Competition. I therefore think it is important to keep in mind when rewording the rules that - depending on the wording of the rule - we may be disallowing established procedures. If we want this explicitly, it's fine, but if we don't want this explicitly, we should take care of not doing it.

I think it actually makes a lot of sense to differentiate between competition-specific overall winners (like "Overall Winner of XY Cup") and a fixed Track Combined Champion title - this would show on the one hand: There is a possibility to honour a Track Combined Champion, but it has to be comparable. On the other hand, the organiser can also simply decide to honour an overall winner specifically for his competition, without this honour having the requirement to be comparable with other competitions.

Maybe one could also find adifferent names for 2D.4.1 and 2 to make the difference more clear - e.g. Track Combined Competition and Event specific Overall Ranking?

Especially for the Track Combined Competition I see the potential to make it a real cross-event compareable cross-discipline "competition" on the long run.

Comment 08 Feb 15:04

I am happy with the suggested text that Jan gave in his comment from (now) 4 days ago (about 5 posts up), with the following possible changes.

(1) On second thought, I prefer the fixed list of events that contribute towards Track Combined Competition. It is possible to state in the rule that events that weren't run at a certain event, can be excluded, but the disadvantage of this is that the Track Combined Competition is not guaranteed to be comparable from event to event. I think it's better that in such a case there is no Track Combined Competition winner. This is already worded correctly in the suggested text; no need to add anything, I think.

(2) I would agree with the name "Event-specific Overall Ranking". Maybe if we add the example of "Overall Winner of XY Cup", it would be even clearer.

(3) Numbering... is this about 2D.4 or 2D.5? The proposal says 5, but the text I referred to in (1) says 4.

Comment 13 Feb 08:14

I have updated the proposal in this discussion in regards to (2) - I will also update the official proposal as soon as I get round to updating the linked PDF document.

Regarding point (3): It should indeed be 2D.5 - I had referred to my overall draft of the new track chapter for the new numbering, where for some reason the rule 2D.4 is missing and therefore the numbers have all slipped.

2D.5 Cross-Discipline Rankings

2D.5.1 Track Combined Competition

1. The best finishers combined from 100 m, 400 m, 800 m, One Foot, Wheel Walk and IUF Slalom win this title.

3. If there is a tie, the rider with the most first places wins. If this still results in a tie, the title goes to the better finisher in the 100m race.

2D.5.2 Event-specific Overall Ranking

1. It is up to the organizers to determine from which disciplines points will be awarded for the Event-specific Overall Ranking. The winner of this Event-specific Overall Ranking could be called for example the "Overall Winner of XY Cup".

3. If there is a tie, the rider with the most first places wins. If this still results in a tie, the title goes to the better finisher in the 100m race or, if this race is not part of the disciplines, it should go to the better finisher of the next longer standard track race (according to 2B.2.2 - 2B.2.4). If there is no standard track race longer than 100m, the organizers can use another predefined discipline as tiebreaker.

Comment 16 Feb 06:16

I have updated the official proposal. If there are no more objections, I will put the proposal to a vote as soon as the review period is over.

Comment 16 Feb 12:02

OK.
Indeed, the change from "points" to "placement points" in 2D.5.2, 1, brings more consistency.

Comment 29 Feb 00:04

Sorry I've been in and out of town. Just reading through and I noticed something that may need to be clarified in Event-specific Overall Ranking. It says "It is up to the organizers to determine from which disciplines points will be awarded for the Event-specific Overall Ranking." Just to keep people honest, this should include a deadline for determining which disciplines will be used. This should, of course, happen as early as possible. Doing it last-minute could come as a surprise to riders who may not have focused on the right events. If anything, it the list of disciplines should be made available at the same time as any other non-standard rules are published.

I didn't search the current rulebook to try to find that, but in the past it was something like "at the time registration becomes available" though that rule was written in "simpler times". Any rules to be used in a large event should be determined before people can sign up to compete.

This does not apply to modifications that may be made during an event due to unforseen circumstances, such as weather, time limits or other factors requiring changes to be made.

This is a relatively minor point, so I can also live without it with no complaints.

Comment 01 Mar 10:09

I completely agree with you that things where the rules offer flexibility or multiple options - and the Event-Specific Overall-Ranking is certainly one of those - need to be announced in advance as to what exactly applies. I think the vast majority of rules explicitly state that it must be announced which variation will be used (e.g. which start sequence or false start rule will be used), but sometimes there is no explicit indication (e.g. in the 800m version).
However, I think it makes sense to add a corresponding note to the event-specific overall ranking.

How about a fourth paragraph:

4. The choice of disciplines, the system to assign placement points and the tiebreaker discipline should be published at the same time as the registration form or earlier.

Comment 01 Mar 15:03

Great addition. Thanks John and Jan.

Comment 02 Mar 02:25

As soon as the review period is over, I'll put both of the remaining proposals to a vote.