Limits
This discussion has an associated proposal. View Proposal Details here.Comments about this discussion:
Started
As we would like to turn this discussion into a proposal, I am setting up the discussions. However, Gossi has prepared the necessary texts. Please refer to the first post.
Comment
As per Classes and Age groups rules for limits to competitions can be greatly simplified. Along with that the IUF has classified events into Sanctioned, Endorsed and Recognized and it is proposed the IUF rulebook targets the scope of Sanctioned and Endorsed events, which will significantly improve writing this section.
Draft for changes to the rulebook:
### 6E.9 Limiting Competitors
Events may have limited seats per participating parties (Countries/Clubs). The limits must be announced with tender/bidding for each event.
Unicon: 3 seats per supported class in each competition. A country that has more interested starters than allowed must use an IUF Endorsed event as their qualifying event to determine the starters.
Unicon (Convention Tier*): The limits and competition types (see 6E.5.3) must be announced with tender/bidding. A country that has more interested starters than allowed must use an IUF Endorsed event as their qualifying event to determine the starters.
Non-Unicon: Organizers of non-Unicon events can choose to limit the number of competitors and define their own criteria/guidelines for qualifying its starters.
* Main Committee: Convention Tier
Comment
I think it makes sense to simplify the language and appreciate the link to the Sanctioned, Endorsed, and Recognized website as I was not familiar with these terms.
One clarification with your changes though, language from the current rulebook, section 6E.9:
If a country has placed 1st, 2nd, or 3rd in Individual Freestyle at the previous Unicon, they can submit one additional competitor for each placing in that category.
It appears that your proposal gets rid of this entirely. So just 3 total, no extras per country based on previous performance?
Comment
> If a country has placed 1st, 2nd, or 3rd in Individual Freestyle at the previous Unicon, they can submit one additional competitor for each placing in that category.
> It appears that your proposal gets rid of this entirely
Yes. This is the "capitalism" rule: Those who are good have a higher chance at staying better. We want equal conditions and same chances for winning a title.
On the flip side: There are now three classes with three competitors each, so they "compensate" the loss of more competitors (but that's not the reason obv.).
Comment
I am okay with this change as it is consistent with other sports. However, nowhere has it been yet approved to have three classes so your point about compensation isn't valid at this point.
Comment
I don't think it's a good idea to get rid of the additional competitors a country won at a previous Unicon. If someone placed 1st, 2nd or 3rd it means they also helped their country getting more chances at the next Unicon event. So I am not in favor of this proposal.
Comment
I am also not a fan of that idea of banning the extra seats, received at the previous unicon.
Comment
First of all, I have to say that I'm generally a big fan of keeping things as simple as possible, but as detailed as necessary. The current rule 6E.9 does indeed seem to me to be unnecessarily long and complicated and I am sure that many things could be simplified in this rule.
At the same time, I have to say that the current rule does not specify how individual countries should organize the selection of riders, which I think is basically okay. Japan, for example, has the video qualification system and I don't see why the IUF should stipulate that Japan should not use it to award limited places. A strict requirement that limited places must be awarded via IUF endorsed events is, in my opinion, an extremely large intervention in national procedures and could mean that some countries would no longer be able to send athletes at all.
Giving recommendations on how limited places can be allocated is something else, but I am not in favor of a mandatory regulation.
On the elimination of the additional starting places: I can understand both views. I still believe that it would be most advantageous to have a system of preliminaries and finals in freestyle as well, in order to allow a larger number of riders to compete for the titles and to really always have the best riders of the competition in the final instead of only allowing a very limited number of riders per country in the final. But that would be a completely different system to what is currently provided for in the rulebook and therefore irrelevant at this point.
Comment
>> A country that has more interested starters than allowed must use an IUF Endorsed event as their qualifying event to determine the starters.
This means that countries without an IUF Endorsed event will no longer be able to send freestyle participants to the Unicon! Personally, I don't think this is a good idea at all... making recommendations is one thing, but strict requirements?