Rules for rider second attempt after interference - TrackThis discussion has an associated proposal. View Proposal Details here.
Comments about this discussion:
In the Track racing section of the IUF rulebook, the rules for 'second attempt after interference' are specifically different for 'non-lane races' (defined in Section 2.8.1 as '800m and other events without lanes').
IUF rulebook text is below:
2.7 Second Attempt After Interference
If a rider is hindered due to the actions of another rider, or outside interference, either during the start or during the race, he may request to make a second attempt. The Referee decides if the request is granted. In non-lane races, if a rider is forced to dismount due to a fall by the rider immediately in front, it is considered part of the race—not a reason to grant a second attempt—and both riders may remount and continue. The Referee can override this rule if intentional interference is observed.
The rule clearly allows the event Referee to overrule if intentional interference is observed, but I don't believe the rule is fair for a rider who is forced to dismount due to another riders unintentional actions.
I would welcome some background, but assume the IUF rule has crafted to expedite conclusion of the 800m track event at Unicon (ie avoid time consuming re-runs) where there are literally hundreds of racers and heats, but based on the number of 800m track participants/races at NAUCC, does not need to be accepted for the USA rulebook.
I think that this is actually a fair rule and worded very well. I don't think that someone should be able to protest if they are following someone too closely and then that someone falls. Because people aren't in lanes it changes the way that competitors race. If a fall were to happen in the Criterium or 10k I think that the same rules would apply. It's important when racing to be smart about how closely you follow someone. This is actually something that I tell all of the kids that I coach. We talk through racing logistics as they would apply to muni, road racing, and the 800. It's different in laned races when the a rider or their unicycle leaves their lane and interferes with another racer.
Road Racing has it's own rule that cover Criterium and 10K under section 4.11.2 Dismounts as below:
In Road Racing, dismounting and remounting is allowed. If a rider is forced to dismount due to a fall by the rider immediately in front, it is considered part of the race and both riders must remount and continue. The Referee can override this rule if intentional interference is observed.
I would argue that in 800m track the racing is faster than road racing (so closer to the limit of balance) and UPD's happen more frequently. Smart rider placement can help minimise potential to be wiped out by another riders error, but I don't think it eliminates it and under this rule a second attempt would not be allowed unless the action were deemed intentional.
While I agree with Patricia that it's worded well, I think it's worded well for very large groups of competitors. We don't have those large groups of competitors at NAUCCs. As oftentimes Racing Director, I prefer the current USA Rulebook verbiage for fairness.
I completely agree that the 800m is a faster race than the 10k or Criterium and, therefore, more prone to falls. However, I would still argue that it is the responsibility of the competitors to race smartly. Additionally, if a rider falls in front of them and they are following too closely and also end up falling, they can still remount. They are not disqualified. Yes their time with suffer I would argue that this is their fault for following too closely.
it would be interesting to know what a safe following distance should be defined as. personally to me it might be 3 meters. a rider may be able avoid another rider or uni down in front or them. if this happens in the last turn of a highly compettive race, i feel it would be difficult or impossible to expect to close the gap on the next closest rider. since i have not seen track day ended early due to darkness at naucc, a rerun seems in order if the hinder was unintentional.
As the rule currently stands, the Racing Referee can have a rider re-run if necessary. It seems to me that this rule would not allow for that. Or am I overthinking this one?
I agree with Patricia in that falling is part of the race and it is up to the rider to make sure they aren't effected by others
Wendy, I'm a bit confused by your comment. Which rule renditions are you referring to? Could you clarify?
I'm with Patricia - race smartly (e.g. in front) and falling should be a non-issue. To avoid complaints, the race official should make it clear that falls are part of the race and there won't be any restarts.
Yes. Sorry. This current USA rule:
2.11 Dismounting A dismount is any time a rider’s foot or other body part touches the ground and the unicycle must be remounted. Except for the 800m, Relay, and some other non-traditional or off-track events, if a rider dismounts, he or she is disqualified. In races where riders are allowed to remount and continue, riders must immediately remount at the point where the unicycle comes to rest, without running. If a dismount puts the rider past the finish line, the rider must back up and ride across the line again. If a rider is forced to dismount due to the actions of another rider, or outside interference, the Referee decides if he or she can enter that race again in another heat. In non-lane races, if a rider is forced to dismount due to a fall by the rider immediately in front, it is considered part of the race and both riders must remount and continue. The Referee can override this rule if intentional interference is observed.
Even with "allowable" space between riders, sometimes a uni can go flying across lanes and knock someone off, right? Those are regular occurrences and I'd just like to be able to allow re-runs for those.
Does this rule allow for that?
Hmm, I guess I have mixed feelings on this one.
The way that the USA rule is written seems to allow for too much lenience by way of the referee. It almost implies that the rider will be granted a re-run and that the challenge is whether or not they can be fit into another heat to try again. On the other hand, the IUF rule doesn't allow for a unicycle that comes flying sideways across the track. I like that the IUF rule encourages smart racing in terms of passing and following distance but it doesn't account for a fluke fall that could happen and, as you say Wendy, goes flying across lanes.
I am also of the opinion that falling is a part of racing and if you fall because of "the rider immediately in front" of you in a non-lane race (i.e. 800m), that's just how it goes. I don't think it's simply an issue of time on the event day.
However, to deal with some concerns, the current IUF rule would allow of a re-run in the case of an extreme fall where the unicycle shoots wildly to the side. In that scenario, the fall would not be due to "the rider immediately in front" and thus the referee would have the right to declare a re-run.
Perhaps I'm being too literal but I think the text "immediately in front" can be interpreted in two ways - the effected rider could be directly behind as the rider who falls (ie in the same lane) or could be just behind the rider who fell 'on the track', but to the side. Knowing the IUF would allow a re-run is good, but I can see it being contended by other competitors as against the rules. Adding verbiage that clarifies the rule's intent (such as 'in the same lane' or something to that effect) would improve it.