Revise 3B.5.2 Starting and 3B.5.3 False Starts

This discussion has an associated proposal. View Proposal Details here.

---

Comments about this discussion:

Started 20 Feb 04:03

Since the rules for starts and false starts in track races and road races are very similar, I would suggest that these rules be harmonized.

Already in the Rulebook Committee before the last one, a discussion was started in the Track Committee based on the first sentence of the false start rule:
"A false start occurs if a rider's wheel moves forward before the start signal, or if one or more riders are forced to dismount due to interference from another rider or other source." which is not entirely clear in several aspects:
1. What is meant by "interference from another rider or other source"? And to whom exactly is the false start attributed and who is warned?
2. Should it be better to distinguish between an aborted start and a false start in order to separate the causes and consequences more clearly?

Based on this, the rules for the start and false start have been revised - the result of the update of the track rules can be found here: As PDF Version with changes highlighted
The related discussion can be found here: https://iuf-rulebook-2022.committees.unicycling-software.com/discussions/20

 

Based on this rule and the discussions back then, I would suggest the following rule for the Road Races, comments in italic:

3B.5.2 The Start

1. Riders may start mounted, holding onto a starting post or other support, or onto each other, with the fronts of their tires (forward most part of wheel) behind the edge of the starting line that is farthest from the finish line. Riders may start from behind the starting line if they wish, provided all other starting rules are followed. Riders may place starting posts in the location most comfortable for them, as long as it doesn’t interfere with other riders. Riders may mount after the start signal, if they wish.
2. Rolling starts are not permitted in any race. Riders may lean before the start, but their wheels may not move forward during the start beeps or counting down. Rolling back is allowed.
--- Paragraphs 1 and 2 correspond effectively to the current paragraphs 1 and 4 of the Rule 3B.5.2. ---
3. All commands of the starter are to be given in English at Unicon or international competitions. At other competitions, English is optional.
--- Paragraph 3 was added with regard to the understanding of the start signal ---
4. After the command “Ready”, all riders must move to their starting position. As soon as the Starter is satisfied that all riders are steady in the correct starting position, he gives the command “Attention” and starts the race. This can be done by a start sequence as follows:
--- Paragraph 4 has been added to have a clear rule on how to distinguish between a false start and an aborted start ---
4.1 Usually, a start-beep apparatus is used. This provides a six-count start: “beep - beep -beep - beep - beep - buup!” The timing between (the start of) successive beeps is one second. The first five beeps have all the same sound frequency. The final tone (buup) has a higher frequency, so that the competitors can easily distinguish this tone from the rest. The proper moment to start is the beginning of the final tone.
Note: Commonly used electronic starting devices use frequencies of about 650 Hz for the first five tones and about 795 Hz for the sixth tone.
--- Paragraph 4.1 corresponds to the current paragraph 2 of rule 3B.5.2, the note has been added to give an indication of the tones used ---
4.2 As an alternative, the Starter will give a three-count start before firing a starting gun on the fourth count. Example: “One, two, three, BANG!” The time between (the start of) each of these elements must be the same, and should approximately 1 second.
--- Paragraph 4.2 corresponds to the current paragraph 3 of rule 3B.5.2, the time interval has been changed from 3/4 seconds between the elements to 1 second between the start of the elements, as this was considered by the committee to be much more practicable and thus a more predictable start can be realized ---
Both variants allow the rider to start leaning ahead of the “buup/BANG”, for an exact and predictable start. It is recommended to use one or the other of those two options for all races in a competition if possible. The option to be used must be announced in advance of the competition.
5. If the Starter is not satisfied that all is ready for the start to proceed after he gave the command “Ready” and the riders are on their starting position or they otherwise abort the start, the command should be “Go Back”. If a start-beep apparatus is used and the start sequence is already started the start should be aborted by blowing a whistle or other clear and predefined signal. Where a rider in the judgement of the Starter, after the command “Ready”,
5.1 causes the start to be aborted, for instance by dismounting, without a valid reason (such reason to be evaluated by the Starter); or
5.2 does not place themselves in their final starting position at once and without delay; or
5.3 disturbs other riders in the race through sound, movement or otherwise,
the Starter must abort the start. The Starter may warn the rider for improper conduct (disqualify in case of repeated infringement of the Rule). However, when an
extraneous reason was considered to be the cause for aborting the start, or the Referee does not agree with the Starters decision, no rider gets warned or disqualified. This decision must be clearly indicated to the riders.
--- Paragraph 5 has been added to clarify precisely the issue raised at the beginning and to provide clear rules in this regard ---

3B.5.3 False Starts

1. A false start occurs if a rider's wheel moves forward before the start signal.
--- Paragraph 1 essentially corresponds to the first paragraph of the current Rule 3B.5.3, the other cases currently described there are covered in the new rule via the start abort ---
2. If a heat has to be restarted, the Starter will immediately recall the riders, for example by blowing a whistle or other clear and predefined signal. Any warning or disqualification resulting from this must be clearly indicated to the riders in question.
--- Paragraph 2 corresponds to the current paragraph 3 of rule 3B.5.3 ---
3. There are three options on how to deal with false starts:
3.1 One False Start Allowed Per Heat: The use of this option is strongly discouraged when no electronic false start monitoring system is used. In case of a false start, the heat is restarted. After the first false start of a particular heat, all riders receive a warning and may start again. Thereafter, any rider(s) causing a false start are disqualified for this event. Only the earliest false starting rider gets assigned this false start and the associated disqualification.
--- Paragraph 3.1 corresponds to the current paragraph 2.2 of rule 3B.5.3 ---
3.2 One False Start Allowed Per Rider: In case of a false start, the heat is restarted. After the first false start of a particular rider in a heat, the rider in question receives a warning and may start again. Any rider(s) causing their personal second false start are disqualified for this event. Only the earliest false starting rider gets assigned this false start and the associated warning or disqualification.
--- Paragraph 3.2 corresponds to the current paragraph 2.1 of rule 3B.5.3 ---
3.3 Time Penalty: In case of a false start, the heat is not restarted. If a false start occurs by one or multiple riders, these riders receive a time penalty (such as 10 seconds).
--- Paragraph 3.3 corresponds to the current paragraph 2.3 of rule 3B.5.3 ---
It is recommended to use one or the other of those three options for all races in a competition if possible. The option to be used must be announced in advance of the competition.

Comment 23 Feb 05:19

In general, I think it is good to homogonize the rules for starts. Concerning the part: "or if one or more riders are forced to dismount due to interference from another rider or other source." This might be a bit different between Track, where you have dedicated lanes, and Road (as well as Muni), where riders are often very close to each other at the start line. After mounting, riders often hold on to each other and let go shortly before the start. Interference might be that a rider keeps holding on or even pulling back another rider. This might not even result in a dismount, but could slow down the other rider, which at a mass/heat start can have significant disadvantages. Something about this should thus be mentioned I think. 

Comment 23 Feb 05:29

The sentence you quoted only appears in the current rules; it no longer appears in the new proposal on false starts - precisely because it is not really clear and is quite problematic in terms of interpretation. I think this circumstance is therefore taken into account much better in the new rules than in the current rules.

Comment 23 Feb 05:41

I see, point 5.3 in the new version would cover this situation I guess. I'm good with the proposed changes. 

Comment 24 Feb 04:27

Comment 24 Feb 04:35

I realize that my suggestion of using supports rather than competitors holding on to each other would be better suited to the 3D section.

Comment 24 Feb 05:37

> l though it's not compulsory, the use of poles or barriers to hold on to should be recommended in the first instance, as opposed to holding on to each other. This would make it easier to be ready for the countdown and limit interference at the start.

I completely agree with you. However, I would leave the last sentence of your proposal as it is in the previous version (The front of each rider’s tire (forward most part of wheel) behind the edge of the starting line that is farthest from the finish line.) This avoids confusion as to what is meant by front ot the tire and clarifies which edge of the starting line is meant.
I also think it's okay to include the sentence "They may also hold onto each other, though using a fixed support is recommended." in this rule, because in the end it is also a recommendation to the participants that if fixed supports are also available, they should preferably use them and not hold on to other participants.

> It is already specified that riders must start behind the starting line, it does not seem useful to me to specify the distance between the wheel and the line. In my opinion this sentence does not add anything, and does not need to be replaced. It can just create doubt about the flying starts.

I believe this sentence was included because the first sentence can certainly be understood to mean that the front of the tire must be located directly at the edge of the starting line - and this is not the case, it can also be significantly further behind it. This sentence should clarify this fact.
However, if the majority is of the opinion that the first sentence is already clear and no addition is necessary in this respect, we can delete the sentence.

> In addition, in this section, I think it might be useful to add that the starter must warn competitors of the start 1 minute before the start.

I completely agree with you.

Comment 25 Feb 09:31

Are there any other comments on this topic? Otherwise I would prepare an official proposal.

Comment 26 Feb 14:29

>However, if the majority is of the opinion that the first sentence is already clear and no addition is necessary in this respect, we can delete the sentence.

The first sentence is already clear, I am for deleting  unnecessary as suggested by Simon Jan.

Comment 27 Feb 01:08

What do all the other members of this committee think? Does no comments mean agreement with what has already been written?

Comment 03 Mar 04:31

Since there were no further comments here, I have created an official proposal.

Comment 10 Mar 09:32

As there are no further comments here, I assume that everyone agrees with the proposal!?
I would then put the proposal to the vote soon and hope that all members of the committee will also take part in the vote.

Comment 10 Mar 12:00

I've reread your proposal. In paragraph 1, it seems appropriate to me to mention that competitors should hold on to the supports if they are installed.

“Riders may place starting posts in the location most comfortable for them, as long as it doesn't interfere with other riders.” was not in section 3B.5.2 but in 2B.7.2
I'm not sure the addition is useful. If the organizers have installed barriers, they don't have to be moved by competitors.

Concerning the sentence “Rolling back is allowed” in paragraph 2, for me it's on condition that it doesn't interfere with a competitor placed behind. I'd prefer it to say that rolling back is not recommended. If the competitor is holding on to a support or another competitor, there should be no need to roll back. For me, the only condition is if the competitor is not holding on to anything and is idling (which is not really stationary).

Concerning paragraph 4, I'd suggest including a requirement to warn competitors 1 minute before the start. Competitors' readiness is not a sufficient condition for the start. The marshals must be in place and the officials ready. Once these conditions have been met, it can be tempting for the starter to hasten the start. I think that one way or another, the starter has to announce that all the conditions have been met to give the start and at that point, I suggest that one minute remains before the start.

In theory, you could imagine that wave 1 competitors are directed to the start area when the marshals and officials are ready.
But, in practice, wave 1 is often directed to the start area, even if the marshals and officials aren't ready. This can lead to a longer wait.

Concerning false starts, I know you haven't made any changes to the 3 options for false starts. I think it's great to be able to manage false starts in several different ways. But when I reread the first 2 options, I can't help imagining that some competitors might not understand the starter's signal and will continue their race. For me, the 3rd option is the best by far.

Concerning interference between competitors, I think this is a more frequent situation than a false start in road race. This would have to be included elsewhere, and plan how to deal with it. It's a situation that could benefit from a restart rather than a false start.
I was a victim of an interference at the start of the 10k in UNICON18. The competitor in front of me fell at the start, causing me to fall. The wave wasn't called back and I wasn't allowed to start in wave 2, so I started 30 seconds late. I finished 4th “brutto time” and 2nd “netto time”.

Comment 10 Mar 18:01

1. I agree with Jan, once the posts are installed by organizers they should not be moved, but it should be clarifed that the posts should allow for support from either side (for left or right handed riders).

2. I agree with Jan, Rolling back should be avoided. There might be situations that riders mount the unicycle after the start and some can only start with idle, therefore I would not prohibit that. 
I would write that Rolling back is allowed should be avoided.

Comment 11 Mar 02:55

> I'm not sure the addition is useful. If the organizers have installed barriers, they don't have to be moved by competitors.

I did not consider a barrier installed by the organizer to be a starting post. For me, a starting post is just a pole that one or a maximum of two people can hold on to - in other words, something that is primarily relevant for individual starts, not for mass starts or starts in waves. And especially for an individual start, I think it is very justified if the rider can place the start pole where it is best for him.
The fact that barriers cannot be moved during a mass start or start in waves is completely logical and ensured by the sentence “as long as it doesn't interfere with other riders”, because that would happen.

> If the competitor is holding on to a support or another competitor, there should be no need to roll back.

This sentence is also taken from the track races. It is an extremely important addition, because practically all riders roll a little backwards at the start - if this were not allowed, there would be an extremely high number of false starts.

> I'd suggest including a requirement to warn competitors 1 minute before the start.

You're right, I wanted to think about how I could incorporate this into the rule, but then forgot about it. I will think about it again and make a proposal for the revision of paragraph 4 here in the discussion.

> Concerning false starts, I know you haven't made any changes to the 3 options for false starts. I think it's great to be able to manage false starts in several different ways. But when I reread the first 2 options, I can't help imagining that some competitors might not understand the starter's signal and will continue their race. For me, the 3rd option is the best by far.

In fact, when I copied the rules from the current rulebook, I also asked myself how realistic it is that an option other than the time penalty will ever be used in a road race. If the majority opinion is that not all options in the rules are needed/really useful, then we can delete some of them.

> Concerning interference between competitors, I think this is a more frequent situation than a false start in road race. This would have to be included elsewhere, and plan how to deal with it. It's a situation that could benefit from a restart rather than a false start.

The question is, of course, to what extent this interference between competitors is something specific to the start, or to what extent this can occur in the entire race and at what point you draw the line for something that justifies a restart and at what point an interference is part of the race. I don't really know where to draw the line here and how this can be mapped in terms of the rules. I tend to think that everything that happens after the start signal is actually part of the race, even if it is of course very unfortunate if a collision occurs immediately after the start.

Comment 11 Mar 13:12

On the subject of starting posts, in road races there are often several lines (2 or 3 lines in general) of competitors in a single wave. In a wave start or mass start, the supports (poles or barriers) set up by the organizers must be lined up in such a way as not to interfere with competitors who are not in the 1st line.

For individual starts, I think the best way to avoid false starts would be to use netto time (as is the case for individual time trial events in cycling, cross-country skiing or biathlon). For the individual start to be fair, competitors must be prevented from gaining momentum before crossing the start line. This could give rise to discussions in the WR committee in the event that a time trial is organized over a fixed distance, but if the rules limit momentum and there is a rounding of the official time to the next higher second, I don't think there should be a problem.

> This sentence is also taken from the track races. It is an extremely important addition, because practically all riders roll a little backwards at the start - if this were not allowed, there would be an extremely high number of false starts.

There are important differences between track and road racing:
- the start is a crucial moment (of extreme tension) on the track, you can lose a lot of time at the start. On a road race, it's important not to fall at the start, but you can lose a few seconds without any consequences (the longer the race, the fewer the consequences).
- on the track, there's no one behind you at the start; on a road race, a competitor in the front line can cause a competitor in the 2nd line to fall with a roll back.

>I tend to think that everything that happens after the start signal is actually part of the race, even if it is of course very unfortunate if a collision occurs immediately after the start.

In my example (at UNICON18), it was after the start signal, but the 2 competitors involved hadn't crossed the start line. In this case, it seems obvious to me that it concerns the start. I suggest that if the starter doesn't need to move to call competitors back to the start area, this situation can be dealt with for starts.

If the case had been covered in the rules, the starter could have chosen to integrate us into wave 2 or into a special wave between wave 1 and wave 2, which would have delayed the following waves by 1 minute. This shouldn't be a problem, as long as the starter and timekeeper validate the start time of each wave. 

And if the competitors concerned don't understand what the starter is telling them and get back on their unicycles and set off again, their start time is that of the wave they were in.

Comment 12 Mar 02:25

> On the subject of starting posts, in road races there are often several lines (2 or 3 lines in general) of competitors in a single wave. In a wave start or mass start, the supports (poles or barriers) set up by the organizers must be lined up in such a way as not to interfere with competitors who are not in the 1st line.

And that is covered by the rules, because if something were to be moved in this case, it would interfere with other riders, which is not permitted. We are only talking about races where it is really possible to reposition the starting pole, i.e. usually in the case of individual starts. We could add the words “In the case of individual starts ...[]” in front of the sentence to make this even more clear.

> For individual starts, I think the best way to avoid false starts would be to use netto time

What does that mean for the rule? With individual starts, are there generally no false starts at all? I can understand the idea in principle, but I don't know how this can be implemented in a way that makes sense in terms of the rules. For the sake of simplicity, I would therefore simply apply the normal false start rules here too.

> There are important differences between track and road racing:

I know, but without this addition, every start in which the rider rolls back a little bit before the start signal would be a false start... I don't think that's what we want?

> I suggest that if the starter doesn't need to move to call competitors back to the start area, this situation can be dealt with for starts.

What do you mean with "if the starter doesn't need to move to call competitors back to the start area"?
As already mentioned, for me everything after the start signal is part of the race - in my opinion, anything else cannot be clearly depicted in terms of the rules and will only lead to confusion. Especially if the gross time is decisive, the race starts with the start signal for all riders, regardless of their actual starting position.

Comment 14 Mar 15:16

Simon took up the topic on netto time. Current start regulations don't provide specific rules for races with netto time. An issue is not a falstart but the initial speed. In case of individual time trials I would require that start must occur within 2 meters behind the start line (if that is along with WR guidelines, pls check)

Regarding on moving the starting posts. In my opinion. Once they are set by the organizer, they should not be moved. Otherwise, who will decide if the new position does not interfere with riders behind that post? As Simon mentioned, the most important part is to not crash after the start, and I believe that good order of starting posts is very important in this regard.

I maintain my opinion that the Rolling back is allowed should be avoided. It still means that it is allowed, but also suggest that such behavior is not wanted.

I agree with Jan Vocke that the race starts after the gun, not after the crossing start line. The crash may happen before the start line or after. I don't see a specific reason why it should be distinguished on when has the crash occured. Also, allowing for crashes before the start line may result in careless starts and increase likelihood of such crashes in the future. 

Missing requirement to call for competitors 1 minute before the start.

Comment 14 Mar 16:10

Regarding netto time, I thought afterwards that it might be used for individual starts in DH. It seems to me that this is the timing method most used in professional sports where there are individual starts (skiing, cycling). If we can standardize the starting area, it seems to me that there are almost only advantages.

For road races, all you'd need to do is make a lane with barriers on either side and position the next 5 competitors, for example, close enough together to make it impossible for a competitor to start with momentum.

I have the feeling that netto time brings flexibility for competitors and organizers.

1/ for the competitor: you could combine an automatic start signal with a regular interval, and the competitor would have an interval of a few seconds to start.

2/ for the organizers: if a competitor isn't there (DNS), there's no need to modify the starting order.

Brutto time is a more rigid configuration where each start has to be validated by the starter and the timekeeper, with an evaluation of the false start and the pressure to respect the starting order.

For a race with several hundred starts, this seems to me to be a major burden on the starter and timekeeper, and the risk of error is high.

Netto time seems to be the most suitable method for road races with individual starts.

Comment 14 Mar 16:43

Concerning a fall at the start, what I was proposing is only applicable in a race with wave starts.
It's not only an unfair configuration due to the wave in which a competitor is positioned, if in addition the competitor is positioned in the 2nd or 3rd line of the wave, it's possible to simply not be able to avoid the fall because 1 or more competitors have fallen. It could be within the starter's prerogative to offer a delayed start to one or more competitors he deems to be a victim of the situation. 
I assumed that it was rare and frustrating to have this kind of interference. If it's more frequent than I thought, I can understand why it would be difficult to apply.

Let's just say that my suggestion is perfectly useless if we don't organize any more races with waves, which I would find very good.

Comment 14 Mar 17:02

Simon, the netto time is just an option for organizers to run the race, but currently there is no requirement to use this method. The disadvantage of this method is additional timing equipment required to register time when passing the start line, therefore I would be skeptic to require it by the Rulebook.

Comment 14 Mar 17:12

Concerning the netto time, I assumed that the timing was electronic (for example for a unicon). But for a race with manual timing, netto time wouldn't be possible for the organizers.
But I hadn't thought about the need for additional timing equipment.

Comment 14 Mar 17:38

There can still be an electronic timing without registering the time of passing the start line, like on the track races. The netto time would require additional time gate (mat) to be installed on the start line.

Certainly, there can still be a manual timing used for netto time. The timekeeper would need to note the times of the starts. In such case the additional timing equipment would be a stopper watch on the start line.

Comment 16 Mar 04:18

> Regarding on moving the starting posts. In my opinion. Once they are set by the organizer, they should not be moved. Otherwise, who will decide if the new position does not interfere with riders behind that post? As Simon mentioned, the most important part is to not crash after the start, and I believe that good order of starting posts is very important in this regard.

As already written, in my opinion, moving the start poles is only relevant for individual starts, which is why I suggested adding the following: “In the case of individual starts ...[]” in front of the sentence to make this even more clear.

 

Regarding “the rolling back” - “Rolling back should be avoided.” is okay for me

 

Regarding the start configuration, do I understand correctly that a distinction should be made between races with a mass start/wave start and events with an individual start?

 

Comment 23 Mar 05:23

I have thought about how paragraph 1 can be adjusted to the different start variants and would suggest one of the two options:

Option 1 (I would prefer this option if we don't want to include something about a maximum distance to the startline in the case of individual starts):

 1. Riders may start mounted, holding onto a starting post or other support, or onto each other, with the fronts of their tires (forward most part of wheel) behind the edge of the starting line that is farthest from the finish line. Riders may mount after the start signal, if they wish. In the case of individual starts riders may place starting posts in the location most comfortable for them.

Option 2 (I would prefer this option if we want to include a maximum distance to the start line in the case of individual starts):

1. Riders start with the fronts of their tires (forward most part of wheel) behind the edge of the starting line that is farthest from the finish line. 
1.1 With an individual start, riders may start mounted, holding onto a starting post or other support. Riders may place starting posts or other support in the location most comfortable for them. Riders may mount after the start signal, if they wish. Riders must start within a maximum of one meter behind the start line.
1.2 With an heat or mass start, riders may start mounted, holding onto a starting post or other support, or onto each other. Riders may mount after the start signal, if they wish.

 

Regarding the announcement of the start one minute before the start, I would extend paragraph 4 as follows:

4. For heat or mass starts, the starter must announce the last remaining minute before the start. About 10 seconds before the start, the starter should give the command “Ready”. [...]