Evidence for a referee's decision
This discussion has an associated proposal but it has not been approved yet.Comments about this discussion:
Started
In the discussion about passing, the question came up what evidence should be acceptable for the referee's decision. Since this topic affects all decisions of the referee, we should regulate this generally and not only for passing.
In general I think all evidence should come from official judges or official videos etc., as this is the only way to ensure that all riders are treated equally. In case of doubt, the referee should always decide in favor of the rider if there is no official evidence of a rule violation and thus refrain from a disqualification. That means not that I would forbid the referee to decide at his own discretion to hear further "evidence and witnesses" and to come to a decision - but in general I would favour to require all evidence to come from "official sources".
If someone files a protest, he may support it with his own witness statements and/or videos. In this case the referee should of course take them into account and compare them with the official evidence. This is also regulated by rule 1C.10 Protests. However, I think the original discussion was not about the question of protests, but about the question of the regular decision making of the referee.
Comment
The text in 1C.10 is what I referred to in the discussion about passing. At the time, I couldn't find it. Thanks for looking it up!
I think that, in terms of evidence, the difference between "regular decision making" of the referee is and decision making in handling a protest, is that the first happens while no one has had time or an incentive to provide non-official evidence such as photos or video. That would be why in regular decision making, such unofficial evidence would hardly play a role anyway. That said, I don't see why the requirements for what evidence is allowed should be different between regular decision making and handling protests.
Comment
I agree with what you are discussing. As a Referee, I always preferred to settle things as immediately as possible, when possible. The drawback of the protest system is that by the time a protest is posted and brought to our attention, the track may already be set up for a different event, which can be a big problem if a heat needs to get run again. Sometimes this happens. So, better to settle it "at the finish line" if all the necessary information is available. Better to take a few minutes to get everyone's story (including the complaint of the rider) and see if we can settle it within that small space of time while all riders are nearby.
I don't propose to put all of that into the rules, but it would be good to have some sort of statement that protests should be addressed immediately if possible, because this will likely save time for everybody. Definitely "official" testimony from race officials should be the primary source of information when problems occur. But if no officials witnessed the event, or witnessed it but not in sufficient detail, the Referee can seek additional information from others, but must do so with great care. Something like that.
Comment
Protests are mostly regulated in 1C.10. I do think that chapter 1 is the best place for it, since the principles are the same for every discipline.
Chapter 1 is outside the "jurisdiction" of this committee, but I think we can make a suggestion/recommendation to the General Committee.
The way I read the current 1C.10, it is only about official, written protests. It is good to have such an official procedure, but John seems to pull verbal protests immediately after the race (I would even add: during the race), into this context. I would agree to that approach. I suggest that the current text of 1C.10 could be preceded by a general description of protests that includes such verbal protests. Then something along the lines of John's second paragraph could be worked into the remainder of the current 1C.10 text.
Comment
I think there is a fundamental difference between a protest (especially according to 1C.10) and the decision of the referee.
Essentially, 1C.10 and the protest covers the objection against the published results, if, for example, errors have occurred in the transmission of results. Objections against this are of course only possible when the results are published and this can usually take place only a certain time after the actual race. It therefore makes sense to allow external evidence in these cases, as the official judges may not be able to remember the details at this point.
Decisions of the referee, e.g. concerning disqualifications, should of course always be made immediately, and always concern the decision whether a rule violation has occurred or not - in my opinion this is only possible immediately and by the report of judges or by own observation of the referee. In principle, of course, mistakes can occur, but this is always the case with referee decisions. In soccer, for example, it can happen that the referee makes a wrong decision, and TV viewers see this - nevertheless, the referee's decision cannot be tapped. Unfortunately, the IUF rules are not so clear in this respect.
Comment
In my experience, which mostly predates electronic timing systems that collect detailed finish line data, the difficult protests were usually related to things that happened out on the course, away from the finish line and many witnesses. The one example I detailed earlier with carrying a large TV up into the official's box was about a finish line discrepancy, but that would be covered today by an electronic camera system. So I may be wrong about the types of protests that are filed in today's Track events, but the ones that are harder to deal with are when they happen away from the cluster of officials near the start and endpoints.
However, if today's protests are mostly related to official results after the fact, the "filed" version of protests should cover most problems. But if we still have discrepancies around the track, which are especially possible in Relay races, being able to settle things before they go to paper would still be my preferred way to make sure things are handled as "correctly" as possible at the time, because sometimes the "fix" in a situation is to re-run a heat.
Comment
I'm not sure about your statement that 1C.10 only covers objections against published results.
1C.10 states that interference from other riders is a valid ground for a protest. Such a protest can be "given" verbally immediately after the race, or later, for example when the rider wants to look at video that some relative has shot so as to decide whether they indeed have a case.
Either way (i.e. immediate protest, or protest after results publication), it is handled by the same person, i.e. the referee. I don't see the fundamental difference.
Comment
> 1C.10 states that interference from other riders is a valid ground for a protest.
That's true - but rule 1C.10 states also that "All Chief Judge or Referee decisions are final, and cannot be protested." and I think this is the real problem with the rule and the reason why I see the protest and the decision of the referee regarding disqualifications as two fundamentally different things.
If the referee decides immediately after a race that a certain situation leads to a disqualification or does not lead to a disqualification at all, both decisions are a referee decision and cannot be protested against according to 1C.10 - which I think is fine in principle. Referee decisions can not be protested against in other sports either (usually).
The fact is that these decisions are immediate and this is usually necessary for the flow of the event. For these immediate decisions the referee needs a degree of security - if the rules were to state that evidence for possible rule violations must come from official sources (possibly with the discretion to consider other sources if no official ones are available - although in this case I would rather simply decide in favor of the rider in case of doubt), then this gives a degree of security. Namely, that you as a referee do not have to justify yourself afterwards for not having collected sufficient evidence. Otherwise, as a referee, you could always feel pressured to look for further, non-official evidence, which complicates the matter considerably.
Is it clear what I mean?
Comment
I think I understand what you mean. Also I agree that the 1C.10 sentence you quoted is a problem. If it were true, we wouldn't need a process for filing protests. I believe the intent of that sentence is to say that after all facts, witness accounts and protests have been received and studied, the subsequent decision of the Chief Judge or Referee are final at that point; case closed. We should update 1C.10 to indicate something like that.
Comment
> If it were true, we wouldn't need a process for filing protests.
Of course, we need it - because there can still be errors in the transfer of values, in the assignment of results to riders or in the assignment of disqualifications, etc.. With all these things, which are based on errors in the "office work", the protest is meaningful and appropriate in each case and for it we need of course a procedure. It is therefore also reasonable that there is a protest time after posting the results, because all these errors, only become visible when the results are published.
The referee decisions that become immediately visible during/after the race and that have to be clarified immediately are, in my opinion, something else. And with these things I find it for the reasons already mentioned above very understandable that against it (also in other sports) no protest can be filed.
Comment
I see the point and I won't object anymore :-)
Comment
We have had quite an extensive discussion here - the question is, is there a need for concrete action in the track part, or do we leave the rules as they are for now?