Preview of the complete Track Chapter - Check for editorial changes
This discussion has an associated proposal. View Proposal Details here.Comments about this discussion:
Started
I have summarized all the rule changes approved here, including the poposals for wind measurement and the change from "shall" to "must" in a single document. I have highlighted the changes like I did with the individual proposals: red and crossed out means this part is omitted, blue and italic is new, orange is moved.
You can find the draft under the following link: Draft_IUF-Rulebook_Chapter2_v231011 (PDF)
For purely editorial adjustments, e.g. the correction of spelling mistakes, I don't think we need to create a new proposal and we can bring in these corrections directly.
But we still have a little time here in the committee to make a proposal if we notice something in the overview of all rules that we should adjust.
Comment
Some comments, mostly editorial:
2B.2.7, 1, first sentence: I would prefer to change "must be" into "are".
2B.3.1, 4.2 The third sentence is grammatically missing a verb. We could delete the word "should" to solve this. Since there is already "approximately" in that sentence, we don't need the softening that "should" implies.
2B.4.2, 7 I guess this clause is more vague than our new (proposed) rule on wind measurement, and can be deleted or refer to the proper section once the wind measurement proposal has passed.
2B.4.4, 2 A question: is it allowed to participate with no cranks and pedals at all? A rider might want to do this in case the start is from a standstill.
2C.1.3, 2 This must be brought in accordance with 2B.3.1, 4,2 (Specifically the sentence I commented about above).
2C.1.4, 1 Here, "must be" sounds strange to me ("shall be" was better, but we decided to avoid "shall" at all). I suggest to replace with "is" or "is the official".
2C.1.7, section title, add an e to "Disciplin" to make it "Discipline".
2D.1, 2.5 The last sentence can be deleted, since all these requirements are covered by 2D.1 2.3.
2D.5 Relay races can be mixed male/female. Do we need to define this exception here? Or maybe we can include a reference to where this is stated in the Rulebook, but frankly I couldn't quickly find it.
Comment
> 2B.2.7; 2B.3.1, 4.2; 2C.1.3, 2; 2C.1.4, 1; 2C.1.7
Agree - in my oppinion we don't need a proposal to make this editorial changes. What do you think?
> 2B.4.2, 7
The proposal about Wind Measurement contains to delete this paragraph, since it is coverd by the new Wind Measurment rule
> 2B.4.4, 2
Good question, I think it would be allowed according to the rules.
> 2D.1, 2.5
I agree that paragraph 2.3 can also be understood to cover all lanes. I think it actually refers (in the athletics rules) only to the inner lane. But if everyone sees it as covering all lanes with 2.3, we can also delete the last sentence of 2.5.
> 2D.5
True - that relay teams can be mixed is stated in 2B.2.7, 7 - we could refer to this.
Comment
> Agree - in my oppinion we don't need a proposal to make this editorial changes. What do you think?
That's OK as long as we have a way to convey these editorial changes to the people doing the actual editing.
> [Downhill gliding without cranks] Good question, I think it would be allowed according to the rules.
On second thought, I'm not sure. 2B.1.2, 1 says that only regular unicycles may be used in Track. A regular unicycle is defined in 1D.1 as having cranks. I think it would be best to stick with the presence of cranks, and change 2B.4.4, 2 to "Rules on crank arm length do not apply".
> I agree that paragraph 2.3 can also be understood to cover all lanes.
On second thought, I don't think we need to change anything here. I was not reading accurately enough. I saw both the 20 cm and 30 cm distance and too quickly concluded that the 20cm referred to all other lanes than lane 1.
> True - that relay teams can be mixed is stated in 2B.2.7, 7 - we could refer to this.
Yes, that would be good. We could add after the first sentence something like "Note that relay teams may be mixed male/female according to 2B.2.7, 7."
Depending on whether the others in the committee agree, we could combine these edits in one proposal?
Comment
> That's OK as long as we have a way to convey these editorial changes to the people doing the actual editing.
I think I'll be involved in that - so that shouldn't be a problem.
But if we're doing a proposal for some other things here anyway, we can include the purely editorial adjustments as well. However, I would definitely prefer a common proposal for these many small adjustments.
> I think it would be best to stick with the presence of cranks, and change 2B.4.4, 2 to "Rules on crank arm length do not apply".
You're right, that would be the more logical and consistent solution. I think that's good.
> > I agree that paragraph 2.3 can also be understood to cover all lanes.
On second thought, I don't think we need to change anything here. I was not reading accurately enough. I saw both the 20 cm and 30 cm distance and too quickly concluded that the 20cm referred to all other lanes than lane 1.
Then we stay here with the wording that we have right now.
> We could add after the first sentence something like "Note that relay teams may be mixed male/female according to 2B.2.7, 7."
Sounds good to me.
Comment
I found some more wording issues, especially in 2B.1.2 Unicycles:
Paragraph 3: I think we should write "24 Class unicycle" or just "24 Class" instead of "24 Class wheels", since everywhere else we also talk about "XX Class unicycle" or "XX Class".
Paragraph 4: We should change "tire diameter range" to "outer wheel diameter" to be consistent in wording.
Table: Do we still need the "Transmission" column here? There is only "regular" in every row anyway.
Paragraph 5: We should change "wheel class" to "Unicycle Class" and exchange "race" for "event", since the rules also refer to the technical disciplines.
Paragraph 6: See paragraph 5 -> replace "race" with "event".
In 2B.2.6, we should also change paragraph 3 to "Rules on crank arm length do not apply" for consistency and the reasons already mentioned in the discussion.
In 2B.4.2, I noticed the following things:
Paragraph 2: Change to "Rules on crank arm length do not apply".
Paragraph 4: Change qualifying line to `qualifying line' (or consistently omit quotation marks everywhere) and change coasting line to `starting line'.
Comment
Hi guys,
I think I agree with everything in the previous posts (Jan's most recent edits). I will note that as a Referee, I would allow people to compete without pedals, which I'm fine with, because it is not forbidden by the rules. Gliding does not require pedals (though they can help a lot for Track Gliding). For the downhillers, I would recommend they have the pedals in their pockets, along with a wrench), so they don't have to walk back up. :-)
Comment
I just noticed a possible problem in Jan’s compilation of edits to the Track section. Thanks for putting that together, by the way!
If I’m reading it correctly, 2B.2.7 Relay (Track) appears to require a 4x100 and a 4x400 race (must). Obviously this was not our intent, but it may raise eyebrows (and questions) in the future. How to address this? Possibly just change and to and/or. I notice this is referring to the distances, rather than the event itself. And/or allows the use of both or either event.
Comment
> I will note that as a Referee, I would allow people to compete without pedals, which I'm fine with, because it is not forbidden by the rules.
You're right, the rules don't specify it - but except for downhill gliding, it will be difficult (up to not possible) to get momentum without pedals, so it won't be an issue in those disciplines. From my point of view we don't have to prescribe pedals, but I think we should consider that without pedals you might have a little less "unbalance" when gliding, which could be advantageous.
> If I’m reading it correctly, 2B.2.7 Relay (Track) appears to require a 4x100 and a 4x400 race (must).
The rule itself does not require any relay discipline, it only says that the standard distances are 4 x 100m and 4 x 400m. But I would not interpret it that way, that it is mandatory/reqired to organize any realy (standard distance or not) in any way.
Comment
I have created a large proposal in which I have summarized all the smaller editorial changes that we have discussed here.
Have another look to see if the changes are as they should be and if I've forgotten anything. If you notice any other things that we should adjust, please let me know.
I noticed one more thing: Assuming we can find a solution for 2D.4, rules 2D.7 and 2D.9 are the only ones that do not have the new structure - i.e. a clear division into individual paragraphs. I would suggest adapting these rules to the new structure as well. Should we make a separate proposal for this or should we put it in this proposal, as it is also only an editorial change?
Comment
Please give some feedback so that I can either edit the proposal accordingly or create a new one and we can vote on it.
Comment
I read through it, rather quickly, and didn't notice anything that seemed to be a problem. :-)
Comment
I scrolled through the lo-o-o-ong document but have no time to thoroughly go through it. The more so because I trust that everything is implemented just fine, so it would be time not really spent well.
As to
I noticed one more thing: Assuming we can find a solution for 2D.4, rules 2D.7 and 2D.9 are the only ones that do not have the new structure - i.e. a clear division into individual paragraphs. I would suggest adapting these rules to the new structure as well. Should we make a separate proposal for this or should we put it in this proposal, as it is also only an editorial change?
I support your suggestion to adapt 2D.7 and 2D.9 to the new structure. I think a separate proposal is better to give it proper attention.
Comment
As I assume that everything that needs to be said on this topic has been said and there is no further input, I would then put the proposal to the vote.