Split Unicon rules from Competition Rules
Comments about this discussion:
Started
In order to make the rules scale from newcomer competitions up to Unicon, the rules themselves must be independent of a certain competition. Especially since there are now Recognized, Endorsed and Sanctioned events. As much as we have these words, the rulebook shall have defined terms, that a "Unicon Rulebook" would specify for Unicon.
--
For example qualification
Rulebook: speaks about starters for a competition.
Unicon rules: Starters to be nominated by IUF country representatives. In case the number of starters exceeds a countries contingent, the nomination has to be based an a national endorsed event.
--
I expect plenty cases that can be extracted. That opens up countries to work out similar documents to explain their national endorsed events. That is especially necessary for countries that need to provide a qualification system, as I explained in length here. Also the started work of defining terms in this chapter contributes to this.
I like the way soccer puts it: you can grab a bunch of friends playing soccer on a field nearby following competition rules. But running soccer world cup needs FIFA rules.
Comment
In general, I am of the opinion that the rulebook should contain as few Unicon-specific rules as possible, as the rulebook must work for all competitions. Especially in the track area, I think we have found a very good way in recent years to formulate the rules in such a way that they contain practically no Unicon-specific rules or only differentiate between large international events such as the Unicon and smaller events where necessary, because not every rule makes sense for every event, but is still not necessarily a Unicon only rule.
All in all, I would not be against splitting the rules in principle, but I wonder whether it would be possible to formulate the rules in such a way that one set of rules is sufficient without (many) Unicon-specific rules appearing in this single set of rules.
Comment
I second Jan's point.
Comment
I searched the IUF rulebook for "Unicon" and it found it on almost 50 pages. I'm NOT speaking about extracting these.
In terms of qualifications, the IUF is responsible for setting limits to certain competitions and also set the criteria/guidelines for national bodies to connect to that. While at the same time utilizing the newly defined event classification for that in order to enforce IUF rules itself, etc.
National bodies are currently left helpless with connectiong their qualification systems are going wild with plenty athletes suffering.
I'm essentially speaking about ~two pages of written rules for this. Explained here:
Comment
This discussion applies to the very first rule of the IUF Rulebook.
1A.1 Scope of Rules
This rulebook is intended to govern all unicycle competition sanctioned by the International
Unicycling Federation, and can be used as a guideline for other competitions.
This is text from 2019, when sanctioning was not clearly defined, and until today the only events that were sanctioned by the IUF were Unicons.
IUF Rulebook was by it's first rule, created to provide rules for Unicons. Other events or organizations, may have their own rules (1A.1.2), and the rulebook should be used as a guideline for them.
It's clear that rulebook got little wild and that there are many recommendations and sometimes also requirements for other than Unicon events.
I think we should understand the hierarchy:
The most IUF strict events are IUF Sanctioned events - Unicons - the IUF Rulebook should govern this event in 100%
On another level are IUF Endorsed events - regional championships - where the interest of everyone is that the rules are as much as possible close to the IUF Rulebook, but due to regional conditions it is not always possible or desired.
Because in one publication or even two, it is not possible to cover all scenarios, the endorsed events are allowed for the deviations. Such deviations must be individually examined and approved by the IUF Board of Directors.
If you organize local competition - use whatever rules you like
If you organize regional championship (e.g. nationals) - use adopted by the regional organization, regional organization should aim to have their rules similar to the IUF Rulebook.
If such regional event should be endorsed by the IUF, the deviations should be approved by the IUF on the individual basis.
If you organize Unicon - follow the IUF Rulebook in 100%
Comment
> IUF Rulebook was by it's first rule, created to provide rules for Unicons. Other events or organizations, may have their own rules (1A.1.2), and the rulebook should be used as a guideline for them.
It may be that the rulebook was primarily written for Unicon at the time - but we should not ignore the development of the sport here and take into account that unicycling (at least in some countries) has developed into a (semi) professional sport. For national federations, the rules of the international federation are often no longer a simple recommendation, but are inevitably the basis for their entire sport. We should therefore also keep an eye on the further development of our sport and bear in mind that the IUF rules are now much more than just rules for the Unicon.
> Because in one publication or even two, it is not possible to cover all scenarios, the endorsed events are allowed for the deviations.
Of course, it is not possible to cover all scenarios - but I think it is very possible to design rules in such a way that they are applicable to a large number of competitions and that should be our aim as an international federation.
As an example, I would like to mention the rules for track races, which have always been developed with a focus on good general applicability and in Germany they are used up to the smallest junior cup.
Comment
I agree with most of what Jan and Maksym have written.
IUF Rulebook was by it's first rule, created to provide rules for Unicons. Other events or organizations, may have their own rules (1A.1.2), and the rulebook should be used as a guideline for them.
@Maksym: I guess that you are then against splitting the rules? although you didn't clearly state that.
I do not see a overriding problem necessitating splitting the rules at this time. Yes, the rules could be a little bit shorter with the Unicon specifics removed separately, but I don't think the rules will suddenly be 30-40% shorter. And there is value is having everything together in one publication. And as stated above, even with a general and Unicon set, it still won't cover everything (and doesn't need to).
And I agree with Jan, that truly generic rules without references to Unicon might be difficult (are qualifications and Finals and the like not inherently relevant?).
I clicked through the 116 usages of Unicon and didn't find many of concern and none that seem problematic or confusing.
Yes, there are some that are Unicon-specific and don't have much to do with general rules, like:
- 1C.1 Convention Aspect
- sections about Finals
- sections about Unicon registration/qualification limits (Freestyle)
But I think these don't greatly limit or create any conflict or misunderstanding for other events (Rather, it also thus clearer concerning qualification and required events at Unicon). Furthermore, many use wording like "Unicon and Continental Championship" that also seems fine.
With the introduction of the new term "IUF Sanctioned Events", perhaps some usages of Union in the rules could be replaced with "IUF Sanctioned Events", i.e. perhaps some rules like required classifications or finals would apply to other all IUF Sanctioned Events. But these would be on an individual basis of the 116 instances. @Gossi: maybe you can highlight some of the usage that you find problematic? You mentioned qualification. Without knowing the particulars, I don't see how splitting the rules would help alleviate any problems.
So I would be against splitting the rules.
Comment
I don't think there's anything specifically that we want to change in the rules at the moment that would require an official proposal to be made, is there?