Restructure section 2D.7 and 2D.9
This discussion has an associated proposal. View Proposal Details here.Comments about this discussion:
Started
As mentioned in the discussion about editorial changes on the rules I noticed that rules 2D.7 and 2D.9 are the only ones (assuming we can find a solution for 2D.4) that do not have the new structure - i.e. a clear division into individual paragraphs. As suggested in the other discussion, to give it proper attention I will make a separate proposal for this here.
If you have any comments please let me know.
My suggestion about restructuring would be the following:
2D.7 Optional Race-End Cut-Off Time
1. It may be necessary to have a maximum time limit for long races, to keep events on schedule. The purpose of this is to allow things to move on if all but a few slow racers are still on the course. These cut-offs need not be announced in advance.
1.1 When this is planned in advance, it must be advertised as early as possible, so attending riders will know of the limit.
1.2 Additionally, at the discretion of the Racing Director, a race cut-off time may be set on the day of or during an event.
2. At the cut-off time, any racers who have not finished will be listed as incomplete (no time recorded, or same cut-off time recorded for all). Optionally, if there is no more than one person on the course per age category and awards are at stake, they can be given the following place in the finishing order. But if each participating age category has had finishers for all available awards (no awards at stake), there is no need to wait.
2D.9 Accuracy of Results
1. For all Gliding and Coasting disciplines where the distance is measured, unless the distance is an exact 0.1 meter, the distance must be converted and recorded to the next shorter 0.1 meter, e.g. 34.56 m must be recorded as 34.5 m. When two riders reach the same distance, it must be determined to be a tie and the tie must remain and gets published as such.
2. For all Slow disciplines and Stillstand, unless the time is an exact 0.1 second, the time must be converted and recorded to the next shorter 0.1 second. When two riders reach the same time, it must be determined to be a tie and the tie must remain and gets published as such.
3. For all other track events mentioned in this chapter, unless the time is an exact 0.01 second, the time must be converted and recorded to the next longer 0.01 second, e.g. 14.533 seconds must be recorded as 14.54 seconds. In the event that there is a tie where an award and/or a place in the final is at stake, if a photo finish system was used, the image of this system must be used to decide on the placings. In this case, the note (Photo Finish: +0.00X) is printed on the results list next to the official time. In other cases it must be determined to be a tie and the tie must remain and gets published as such.
Example: If two riders have reached a time of 0:07.08 and the image of the photo finish system shows a difference of 0.006 seconds, the following will be printed on the result list:
1st Place Rider 1 0:07.08
2nd Place Rider 2 0:07.08 (Photo finish: +0.006)
Comment
2D.7
In 1., I think we can drop the last sentence.
In 1.2, I suggest to change "Additionally" into "Alternatively".
In 2. I see an alternative to no time recorded, or same cut-off time recorded for all. I remember several races (although perhaps not in Track but the same principle could apply) where exceeding the cut-off time meant that you could not start another lap. The number of laps is then recorded together with the relevant time.
2D.9
In 3., the photo finish can only decide between riders in the same heat right? This is not clear from the rule.
Also, it might help if we explicitly state that, without a photo finish, times with a resolution "better" than 0.01 seconds are not decisive below 0.01 seconds difference. (Not intended to be final wording.)
Comment
Thank you very much for your feedback Klaas.
I agree with you on the first two points regarding 2D.7.
Regarding your last point, after thinking about it for a while, I honestly think that the only reasonable option for the track disciplines is to classify all riders who have not finished with the cut-off time as "did not finished (DNF)". After all, this is the only option that really applies. What significance should it have in a (very) short track race (the longest distance is no more than 800m) to indicate a cut-off time as a result in the results list? In my opinion, the results list should not present a result as a performance that was not achieved. And if the race has not been completed, then no performance has been achieved for this race that could be published.
The only real exception would be if the 400m passage times were given consistently for the 800m - in that case I could imagine giving a valid 400m passage time on the results list even for a (DNF).
All in all, this makes me wonder whether we even need rule 2D.7 for track races? I can't remember a cut-off time ever being announced in advance of an event. And for particularly extreme cases, you could always give the referee the authority to end a race if this is necessary to ensure that the competition runs as it should. For this, however, we do not actually need rule 2D.7 but an addition to rule 2C.1.2 Referee.
Regarding your comment on 2D.9 paragraph 3, I completely agree with you. How about the alternative wording:
3. [...] In the event that there is a tie where an award and/or a place in the final is at stake, if the performances in question were achieved in the same heat and a photo finish system was used, the image of this system must be used to decide on the placings. [...]
Regarding your second point I would say, that this is obvious from the rule since it says: "For all other track events mentioned in this chapter, unless the time is an exact 0.01 second, the time must be converted and recorded to the next longer 0.01 second" - so for me this makes quite clear, that in general there should be no usage of higher resolutions to decide anything.
Comment
I would like to bring this topic back to the top as it is one of the two remaining open topics we have discussed and I would really like to finalize all topics.
I have created a first version of an official proposal for this, but I would appreciate further feedback as I believe that not all aspects have really been discussed conclusively.
Comment
I like Klaas' idea of recording laps completed in races that are done in laps. However for this to work, recording of each lap will be necessary. I don't know if this is already common practice. Could get complicated in a race that has a lot of laps, but usually that is limited to Cyclocross, which already has a built-in time limit.
Also I agree that 2D.7 is not needed for Track, as all of those races are short. Even if it starts raining really hard, with lightning (this happened at NAUCC 2004), in which case you might have to order everyone to shelter, but then restart the heat in question after conditions are safe.
Thank you Jan, for reviving these loose ends. I think we can be pretty proud of our 3-man committee on so many good proposals!
Comment
The only discipline in which more than one lap is ridden in the track category is the 800 m - and as far as I know, it is not the standard here to record the 400 m intermediate time. So I don't think it would be possible to say that the corresponding 400 m intermediate time should be shown on the results lists in the event of an cut-off.
But in my experience, it's not really an issue in track races that races have to be stopped so that the event is not held up. My personal impression would therefore be that rule 2D.7 is not needed for track races. If the referee has the right to stop a race if necessary, then in my opinion this is completely sufficient and the current rule 2D.7 could be deleted.
If everyone agrees with that, I would update the proposal.
Comment
I agree we don't need 2D.7 for today's Track events. In the event a Track race in progress must be stopped, that should be within the powers of the Racing Director or the Track Referee.
Could apply in very unusual situations, such as sudden high wind gusts (Wellington) or earthquake (California). :-)
Comment
I would suggest to add the following paragraph to the Rule 2C.1.1 Track Director:
[...]
4. With the Referee, the Track Director may decide to stop a race for serious reasons and classify the remaining riders in the race as not finished. In extreme situations, the Track Director together with the Referee may also decide to stop or cancel entire competitions. As this is a serious decision, it may only be done if there is no other reasonable option.
Comment
I agree that we don't need 2D.7 at all. It is inherited from the time when Track and Road races had a common chapter (applying to both).
I agree to Jan's reworded 2D.9.3.
I agree to the additional paragraph in 2C.1.1. I'm not sure if the Track Director doesn't have this power already, but having it explicitly added doesn't hurt.
Comment
Regarding 2C.1.1.: The current rules could perhaps be interpreted in a certain way to give the track director this right - but I think it would be a good idea to include this aspect explicitly if we agree that it makes sense to give the track director this right.
So I think we all agree with the proposal and as soon as the review time is over we can vote on it.
Comment
I have just realized that the rules in question are not 2D.7 and 2D.9, but 2D.8 and 2D.10 - the reason is the same reason why there was also confusion about the numbering in the discussion about 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.
Having said that, this also means that rule 2D.4 does not yet have the new structure, which is why I would integrate it into the proposal:
2D.4 Age Groups
1. The following age groups are the minimum required by the IUF to be offered at the time of registration for any Track discipline: 0-10 (20 Class), 0-13, 14-18, 19-29, 30-UP.
2. Convention hosts are free to offer more age groups, and often do.
Example: A full range of offered age groups might look like 0-8 (20 Class), 9- 10 (20 Class), 0-12, 13-14, 15-16, 17-18, 19-29, 30-39, 40-49, 50-59, 60-UP.
3. All age groups must be offered as male and female age group.
Comment
Thank you for those fixes. I find no issues with any of that, and very much appreciate the work you've done to clarify and simplify these rules.