Revise section 2B.7.2.1 Obstruction
This discussion has an associated proposal. View Proposal Details here.Comments about this discussion:
Started
The current section on obstructions has some short commings that I think should be adjusted:
1. In my opinion, physical contact between riders should be included here, which is found in the current rulebook under Lane Use and Passing. In athletics this is called "jostling", which in my opinion fits well, since it is also clear that physical contact between two team members of a relay team is not meant.
2. Why may only a rider fill a protest who had to dismount due to a hindrance? This is contrary to 2B.7.9 and makes (for me) no sense. I would therefore change paragraph 2 to state that any rider who has been obstructed may fill a protest.
3. Paragraph 3 gives a lot of possibilities how the referee can deal with it, if someone intentionally obstructs another rider. In my opinion, the only reasonable possibility is that the referee disqualifies a rider who has obstructed another rider for the race in question.
At the same time I think it is critical that a punishment according to paragraph 3 can only take place if a rider obstructs intentionally. Intention is hardly recognizable/provable for the referee. I would therefore reverse the whole thing and say that if the referee is convinced that the obstruction was unintentional or due to external circumstances, no one will be charged for it. But if the referee is convinced that another rider is responsible, that rider shall be disqualified.
I consider it very difficult to give the next lowest place, on the one hand because it is not really feasible in the competition software and on the other hand because unsportsmanlike conduct is not punished sufficiently in my opinion. The exclusion from all races on the other hand I think is too harsh. Both variants should therefore be deleted in my opinion.
All in all I would suggest to adapt the rule as follows:
2B.7.2.1 Obstruction
1. If a rider is jostled (this should be understood as physical contact between riders) or blocked during a race (this includes intentionally interfering with a rider in any way, deliberately crossing in front of a rider to prevent them from moving on, deliberately preventing a rider from passing, or distracting a rider with the intention of causing a dismount) and
1.1 the referee considers the jostling or blocking to be unintentional or otherwise caused than by a rider, no penalty may be imposed on any rider for it.
1.2 the referee finds another rider to be responsible for the jostling or blocking, that rider (or in case of a relay competition, their team) shall be disqualified for this race/event.
2. A rider who is obstructed may file a protest immediately at the end of the race. The Referee may, if they considers that the rider (or thier team) was seriously affected by the jostling or obstruction, grant a new attempt in accordance with rule 2B.X Second Attempt After Hindrance or Interference.
Comment
I largely agree. Some notes:
>physical contact between riders
physical contact between riders and/or their unicycles
(of course on the understanding that each rider has physical contact with their own unicycle)
I would swap 1.1 and 1.2
>otherwise caused than by the rider
Doesn't read well to me. What about "not caused by the rider"
In 2. you mention "obstructed" and "obstruction". These words don't appear in the text above it. Does obstruct add anything that is not covered by jostle and block? I think it would be better to replace "obstructed" by "jostled or blocked", and "obstruction" by "blocking". Although I haven't checked whether 2B.X uses "obstruct*".
Comment
This looks good, including Klaas' recommendations. My suggested edits:
- If we're going to add the word Jostling, we should give it a quick definition, which might read better than a breakout in parenthesis. How about:
1. No physical contact (jostling) is permitted. Jostling is a word used in Athletics rules for physical contact between riders and/or their unicycles. If a rider is jostled or blocked during a race, there may be penalties up to, and including disqualification from that race. Obstruction includes intentionally interfering with a rider in any way, deliberately crossing in front of a rider to block them, deliberately preventing a rider from passing, or distracting a rider with the intention of slowing them or causing a dismount.
1.1 If the referee finds another rider to be responsible for the jostling or blocking, that rider (or in case of a relay competition, their team) shall be disqualified for this race/event.
1.2 If the referee considers the jostling or blocking to be unintentional or not caused by any specific rider, or if the source of the problem cannot be determined, no penalty may be imposed on any rider for it.
2. A rider who was obstructed may file a protest immediately at the end of the race. The Referee may, if they consider* (removed "s") that the rider (or their team) was seriously affected by the jostling or obstruction, grant a new attempt in accordance with rule 2B.X Second Attempt After Hindrance or Interference.
I've kept the italics for Jan's original text, some of which may have been moved around. Bold text is what I added or spell-checked. On reading, I don't know if we need the word Jostled or not, but if it comes from Athletics and helps people get the meaning of this activity, that's fine. My belief is that we should stick to Olympic-type rules when possible, and only modify those traditional sports as needed to fit unicycles.
In 1.2 I added a bit of text to indicate some flexibility. Sometimes, obstructions happen and there is disagreement among witnesses of what actually happened. This leaves the Referee to make a decision to disqualify or not, which is hard if the Referee did not witness the event or the viewing angle made it impossible to determine what happened. Relying on witness accounts is common for things that happen away from where the Referee is located, so even if several people insist there was intentional interference, if several other people insist it wasn't, or couldn't be sure, that must be taken into account when deciding if someone should be disqualified.
Video is always welcome, if available. Once upon a time (early 90s?) there was a discrepancy in one of the Final races at a USA convention, which would affect who would be the overall Track champion. Different people had different opinions, but someone also had video. But that camera only had a tiny viewfinder for watching playback; not enough detail to see what happened. So a (heavy!) television had to be carried all the way to the top of the stands, to the booth where the only available electricity could be found. From the enlarged picture, we were able to make a clear decision about what happened, and all riders/officials/parents were happy, or at least satisfied with the end result. :-)
Comment
Thank you for the comments and improvements. You find the revised proposal in the end.
> I would swap 1.1 and 1.2
I chose the order intentionally to make it clear that 1.1 is weighted higher than 1.2. In other words: If the referee thinks that the whole thing happened unintentionally, it doesn't matter if someone is responsible for it.
In my opinion, the responsibility has nothing to do with intention or unintention - in my opinion, someone can also be unintentionally responsible for the fact that another rider was obstructed. And therefore, for me, it is crucial that 1.1 stands above 1.2.
> In 2. you mention "obstructed" and "obstruction". These words don't appear in the text above it.
Correct - but the rule is called "Obstruction" and everything that is described under 1. should be summarized as obstruction - perhaps it would be good to clarify this linguistically as well. Also to make it easier to refer to it in other chapters and not always need several words and to make it clear that there is a separate rule for this.
> If we're going to add the word Jostling, we should give it a quick definition, which might read better than a breakout in parenthesis.
I agree with you that the definitions in the parentheses, may not be the best for the readability of the rule. However, in John's proposal, the first two sentences are actually a double definition. For the revised proposal, I seperated the definitions in paragraph 1.
2B.7.2.1 Obstruction
1. Obstruction includes jostling, blocking, intentionally interfering with a rider in any way and distracting a rider with the intention of slowing them or causing a dismount during a race. Jostling should be understood as physical contact between riders and/or their unicycles. Blocking should be understood as deliberately crossing in front of a rider to prevent them from moving on, or deliberately preventing a rider from passing.
2. If a rider is obstructed during a race and the referee
2.1 considers the obstruction to be unintentional, not caused by any specific rider, or if the source of the problem cannot be determined, no penalty may be imposed on any rider for it.
2.2 finds another rider to be responsible for the obstruction, that rider (or in case of a relay competition, their team) shall be disqualified for this race/event.
2. A rider who was obstructed may file a protest immediately at the end of the race. The Referee may, if they consider that the rider (or their team) was seriously affected by the obstruction, grant a new attempt in accordance with rule 2B.X Second Attempt After Hindrance or Interference.
Comment
The new text looks great to me.
Comment
I am good with the current text as well.
Comment
Okay, perfect. Then I will prepare an official proposal soon.
Comment
The review period for the proposal has now been over for quite a while and since there were no further comments or suggestions for improvement, I assume that all committee members are in agreement with the proposal.
I will now open the voting and hope that all voting members of the committee will also participate in the voting.