Distance increments and finals/tie-breakers revision

Comments about this discussion:

Started 15 Feb 03:16

For the past two Unicons the "new" distance incremental rule has been in place for the jumps competitions. This was an addition by the previous Jumps rulebook committee, and it attempts to make the competition flow smooth for the organizer and for the riders, as we prior to this rule had competitions drawn out due to (some) competitors wanting very small increases in the jump distances, hence a lot of waiting time for other competitors as well as an unnecessarily long competition. It also added another aspect of accuracy to the results, as putting the jump markers at 0.5 centimeters becomes too little to measure accurately over and over.

As the director of the jump competitions since this rule change, I have experienced it to indeed do its intended purpose of making competition flow smoother. However, it has created a bigger need to include finals and tie-breakers in the competitions, as most riders who receive medals then do the same distance as it is increased by a bigger increment. Unicon organizers are not aware of this, and usually do not plan for jumps finals in their schedule - I have had to push for tie-breakers and finals being included in the schedule to make up for the issue that arise with the increments of the rule. Regardless there is a need for tie-breakers for medal receivers, but there might not be a need for finals. Or maybe there is. To me the idea of having finals along with this rule is to create opportunity for world records to be set, whereas prelims should do the job of sorting the elite riders from the rest. I am wondering if there is a way of finetuning this rule to avoid the organizational stress of last-minute finals (if they were not accounted for in original schedule) and generally ambiguous take on inclusion of finals. A solution could also be to require finals at Unicons. As an organizer I would prefer not to have finals, however, they also seem to be great spectator events.

What do you all think?

For refence, here is the rule on distance increments from the 2019 rulebook:

13B.7 Height and Distance Settings In any High Jump competition, the starting height must be set at a whole number of centimeters. In any Long Jump competition, the starting distance must be set at a whole fivefold of centimeters, i.e. ending in 5 or 0. Any increment in set height/distance must be a whole number of centimeters. In any case, heights or distances must be set as accurately as reasonably possible.

Comment 15 Feb 03:22

Also interested in knowing the take on jumps finals from a rider perspective. What do they mean to you?

Comment 15 Feb 06:05

I can only agree that the new rule fulfills its purpose very well and that the competitions have become more fluid as a result. The aspect of measuring accuracy is also very well taken into account by the 1 cm steps and from the point of view of the World Record Committee it is extremely good that the heights and distances are therefore whole cm. However, I can very well understand the aspect that tiebreaks will be needed more often due to the new rule.

Basically, I think we should separate three things:
1. The increase in width/height by whole cm: This is very good in many aspects and should definitely be kept in my opinion.

2. The need for tiebreakers: I personally think that we should take a look at athletics and consider whether similar rules could be used to determine the placings. In athletics, the procedure is as follows:
- The athlete with the lowest number of jumps at the height last cleared shall be awarded the higher place.
- If the athletes are equal following the rule before, the athlete with the lowest total of failures throughout the competition up to and including the height last cleared, shall be awarded the higher place.
- If the athletes are still equal, the athletes concerned shall be awarded the same place unless it concerns the first place.
- If it concerns the first place, a jump-off between these athletes shall be conducted in, unless otherwise decided, either in advance according to the regulations applying to the competition, or during the competition but before the start of the event by the Technical Delegate(s) or the Referee if no Technical Delegate has been appointed. If no jump-off is carried out, including where the relevant athletes at any stage decide not to jump further, the tie for first place shall remain.
In my opinion, athletics has very good and easy-to-implement rules for resolving ties in a meaningful way. So I think it would be worth considering whether these could be transferred to unicycling.

3. The Finals: Personally, I think that finals should be held wherever possible. The direct and immediate comparison between the best athletes in a competition always has a different character than prelims, in which the athletes make their attempts at some point over a long period of time. Of course, I came from the area of track racing, where it is much more normal to have finals than in other areas, which is perhaps why I think finals are so important.

Comment 15 Feb 16:27

The rule in Jan's second point would make so much sense in the jump competitions! To me this would be a fair way of appointing the best rider in any regard under competitions circumstances. Also considering the fact that high and long jump are also part of athletics in the Olympics after all. I think this could mostly resolve the issue I have experienced with the increase by whole centimeters as well. It would indeed be simple to implement and maintain a fair competition. I would be in favor of this rule system being added to Jumps.

I also agree with Jan's take on the finals, there is definitely a different character than prelims. Skimming through the current rulebook I see that there are some required finals for track, but it seems up to the host of the event, whether there is a final in other urban events. Please correct me if I am wrong. It may be best to keep this open whether the host wants to have it or not, though I am very interested in hearing a rider's perspective on this topic still.

Comment 17 Feb 10:48

Hey,

I'm happy to join the discussion, especially since you're also interested in the rider's perspective. First of all, I really appreciate your arguments—they make complete sense to me:

Accurately measuring distances under 1 cm is extremely difficult, so I fully support keeping this rule in place.
I've often wondered why we don’t simply adopt the athletics rule regarding the number of attempts used throughout the competition to clear a certain height or distance. For that reason, I strongly support Jan’s suggestion to implement this rule in unicycling as well.
Regarding finals, I have a strong opinion as an active rider that they should be an essential part of competitions. My reasoning is as follows:
- Jumping is a highly attractive discipline for spectators, who want to see the best athletes compete head-to-head in exciting finals. Events that attract spectators and create close competitions — such as the battle for a World Champion title in Jumps — greatly benefit the sport as a whole.
- More importantly, eliminating finals may lead to a "wait-and-see" attitude among riders, as no one wants to go first and set a benchmark for others to beat. This hesitation can significantly disrupt the competition schedule, as riders may delay their attempts for as long as possible to avoid the disadvantage of jumping first. To illustrate this: If your competitor jumps 250 cm, you KNOW that clearing 251 cm will secure the win. Such a situation is not only perceived as unfair but also incentivizes riders to wait until the last moment to jump.

For these reasons, I strongly argue for mandatory finals in competitions like UNICON. They benefit not only spectators and athletes but, in my opinion, also the event organizers / the time schedule.

Cheers,
Lisa Hanny

Comment 19 Feb 09:43

Hi everyone,

Great discussion! As an active rider, here’s my take:

Whole centimeter rule: Fully agree, this rule makes the competition fairer and smoother.
Tiebreakers: I agree with the athletics rules. However, I wouldn’t count the total number of attempts, as that depends a lot on how the competition unfolds. For example, if there’s a long wait time, someone might take an extra jump to stay focused. Instead, I think it should be based on the total number of failed attempts, as in the athletics rules. Regarding the jump-off: if the involved riders are already in the final, i think the final result could be used instead of an additional jump-off.
Finals should be mandatory at Unicon:
- Ensures equal conditions for all riders.
- Encourages riders to push each other to better jumps.
- Prevents strategic waiting.
- More exciting, making it better for spectators and media.

Looking forward to more input!

Comment 23 Mar 05:25

I think an officiall proposal could be created for this topic.

@Emma: Wold you create an officiall proposal or should I create one?

Comment 03 Apr 06:25

Hi Everyone,

TL;DR:

I agree with the whole centimeter rule, there is no need for sub-centimeter increments.
For Long Jump on Platform, the rule (13B.11) needs wording accuracy to reflect on this.
We could have 2cm increments for High Jump Prelims and 1cm for Finals.
I agree with adapting the rules to break ties from athletics.

Lisanne has a good point about having the total number of jumps as a criteria. What if we flip the priority of the total number of jumps and failed attempts?
Finals should be mandatory at Unicon.

In detail:

Sorry, I am joining this conversation a bit late, but here are my takes on the points:

Whole centimeter rule: Completely agree, there is absolutely no need for sub-centimeter increments. The 5 centimeter increment for Long Jump is also appropriate in my opinion.
Note: If I remember correctly, at Unicon 20 in Grenoble, for the High Jump over Bar Prelims, we had a minimum increment of 2 centimeters. I think for Prelims that also works. Emma, do you have any memories / notes if that helped or expedited the competition flow? Maybe we could have 2 centimeter increment for Prelims and 1cm for Finals? For Long Jump we have the 5 cm increment only for Prelims. Actually, some wording correction would be required here (13B.11), because the current wording would allow to have sub-centimeter increments in the Finals.

"To avoid endless competitions, the length to jump will always increase by 5cm for each round. Once there are only 5 riders left, the nal starts and it's up to the riders to decide in which steps they continue." Here we need to add that the steps need to be at least a whole centimeter.

In general, I agree with adapting the athletic rules to break ties. Lisanne has a good point about the total number of attempts though. Part of me thinks that it is the rider's responsibility to choose a starting group that allows them to go through the competition as they wish - however we also want to avoid having very small starting groups. Maybe a good idea here would be to flip the priority between the missed jumps and the total number of jumps? So the first criteria is the lower amount of missed jumps, and only that is even, then we look at the total number of jumps?
I also agree with Lisa that if the riders who tied in Prelims go to Finals, then the results in the Finals should decide their placement.
I couldn't agree more with the opinions above that Finals should happen. Not only it is a highlight, but as mentioned, without Finals many competitors will be strategic with their starting times, resulting in starting groups starting towards the end of the competition time slot, possibly resulting in the competition running late. Whereas if we allocate time for Finals, it is a lot clearer and safer for planning the schedule too.

Comment 04 Apr 05:54

Thanks for your input.

> We could have 2cm increments for High Jump Prelims and 1cm for Finals.

For Unicons or very large competitions this may work well - but I would still not like to require all organizers to always use two centimeters as increments, because the rule would then also affect small local competitions.

> For Long Jump on Platform, the rule (13B.11) needs wording accuracy to reflect on this.

Definitely, that's a good point.

> Maybe a good idea here would be to flip the priority between the missed jumps and the total number of jumps?

Would definitely be a conceivable alternative for me.
I understand that competitions sometimes drag on a bit and that intermediate jumps are therefore often an opportunity to stay focused. Nevertheless, I think it is justifiable to rate the performance of the athlete who has needed fewer jumps overall slightly higher if the heights/distances are the same in the end. However, I would agree with swapping the priority in the decision between the missed jumps and the total number of jumps.