3D.9 Starting Order / Racing Clerk - undefinied
Comments about this discussion:
Started
3D.9 Starting Order
The goal in determining the starting order is to sort racers fairly by speed while still
making sure that males and females race amongst themselves. Unless otherwise noted
below, the fastest riders start first, and also within a start group (heat or mass start),
riders should be positioned in the line-up by speed with the fastest in front. Starting
order can be determined by seed time, or from the results of a previous Road Race in
that competition. For example, if the Marathon follows the 10k, the results of the 10k
can be used to determine the starting order for the Marathon. In the case that a racer
does not have a seed time, and is signed up for a particular event (such as the Marathon)
and did not participate in the previous race (such as the 10k), the Racing Clerk has the
right to assign a starting position where they see fit.
The Racing Clerk is not defined. It was a common practice that the Race Director is selecting riders into heats. Because the Race Director has a right to compete, he should not have a decisive voice on composition of the heats.
Composition of the heats should be published in good advance and the riders should have a right to submit a protest, which should be considered before the start of the race.
Related articles:
3D.2 Officials
The host must designate the following officials for each road race:
• Race Director
• Referee
• Starter
3C.1 Racing Officials
3C.1.1 Race Director
The Race Director is the head organizer and administrator of road race events. With the
Convention Host, the Race Director determines the course, obtains permits, interfaces
with the community, and determines the system used to run the event. The Race Director
is responsible for the logistics, equipment for all road racing events. With the Referee,
the Race Director is in charge of keeping events running on schedule, and answers all
questions not pertaining to rules and judging. The Race Director is the highest authority
on everything to do with the road race events, except for decisions on rules and results.
3C.1.2 Referee
The Referee is the head racing official, whose primary job is to make sure the competitors
follow the rules. The Referee makes all final decisions regarding rule infractions. The
Referee is responsible for resolving protests. The Referee must above all be objective
and favor neither local, nor outside riders.
3C.1.3 Starter
The starter starts races, explains race rules, and calls riders back in the event of false
starts. The starter is in charge of checking riders for correct unicycles and safety equipment.
Comment
You are absolutely right that the position of Racing Clerk is currently not defined, this should be changed if it is a official position.
As long as the Race Director is not taking part in the competition, I don't think the position is absolutely necessary, is it? I think that should be clear from the rules.
Comment
I would replace "Racing Clerk" with "Referee"
Comment
But for me this is not a typical task for the referee. In fact, I would say it is the job of the Race Director - if he is taking part in the race himself, of course, someone else must take on the task. I actually think it's a good idea to call this person the clerk, because in this case he is substituting for the race director.
Comment
If we would like to have a defined racing clerk in the rulebook, I suggest something like
3C.1.4 Racing Clerk
An optional position. The Referee may delegate to a non-competitor the responsibility of setting the starting order of an event. The Racing Clerk sets the starting position in heats based on speed using past performance and best judgement. When not assigned, final say for starting position belongs to the Referee.
I think this fits within the current event flow, and makes clear that if a problem with the starting order exists it can be taken up with the Referee. This would imply that when one is not assigned, the Referee has this responsibility, which isn’t exactly how it currently is, but I don’t think there is anything wrong with a ref using the recommendation of a race director as long as the ref has final say under this type of rule.
Comment
I agree with the idea of non-partial participation (no favoritism). However, in most cases, the Race Director is chosen/approved because of the insight they have in the discipline. They have knowledge of the riders and who is currently among the fastest and who is not. I feel that the Race Director should be used in the drafting of the start order. It is up to the non-partial and non-racing participant to validate that no favoritism is being applied.
I would like to see that whoever is taking up the final posting of start position is allowed to use the advice of the Race Director and others in the discipline to make this call.
Comment
It often happens that Race Director has not complete insight of the discipline, neither he is required to do so. There are no rules/recommendations on selection of event directors. Imagine a road race director being expert in Unlimited class and having a knowledge on 10k standard riders - those are two different worlds. The duty of the race director should be to organize event according to the rulebook and to the best practice.
Knowledge on ranking of the riders should be provided to the race referee, such that he can take proper decision.
Comment
Thanks Maksym, I wasn't thinking about the different classes per race. I understand your point.
Comment
I don't understand why it should be the referee's job to organize the races. The division of the races/individual waves or heats should actually take place quite a while before the actual event, so that the participants can be provided with a start list in advance and can prepare for it. Alone to ensure that the competition runs smoothly, the division should be known before the actual competition day.
The referee is a person who monitors compliance with the rules on the day of the competition itself, issues disqualifications in the event of non-compliance, handles protests and serves as the head judge. He does not actually take on any preparatory tasks for the competition, but only “supervisory” tasks during the competition. To make the division of the starting order a task of the referee would make him someone who is involved in the organization of the competition... but the event director should be responsible for the organization. I find it absolutely illogical to mix these responsibilities.
As I said, I can understand that someone else should take over the division of the starting order if the Race Director himself starts in the corresponding discipline/class (even if I would assume so much objectivity in this role that it would also be okay for me if he did it himself anyway). In this case, however, the Race Director should look for a clerk or co-director to take over the organizational tasks.
Comment
With drafting allowed, the competition greatly depends on the composition of the heats, giving the justified advantage to those riders that are selected to the first/fastest heat. This should be clear to everyone here. The race for the medal "starts" before the whistle blow, if you know what I mean.
That is why the referee should have a decisive role in composition of the heats.
Practically the list could be given to the referee for his approval, but he should be supported with proper documentation (knowledge). Competitors should have a right to protest and such a protest should be solved by Referee who by definition is non biased.
Comment
> That is why the referee should have a decisive role in composition of the heats.
But the Referee is not the main person responsible for the organization, that is the Race Director and the Race Director has to make sure that the races are organized in such a way that they are fair races.
I understand that the composition of the waves/runs in road races can have a big influence on the results - but primarily this should be based on seed times (or the results of previous races). So you could also simply say that someone who doesn't enter a seed time is to blame. The rules do not stipulate - which in my opinion would also be impractical - that the heats are divided up completely freely with the aim of putting the fastest drivers in the first heat. According to the rules, priority is given to times already achieved.
If the majority is of the opinion that there should be a separate responsibility for the assignment of waves/heats in the organization process of the competitions, then we should include a new official for this in the rules. In my opinion, however, we should not extend the responsibility of the referee to the organization of competitions.
Comment
This is the example of the starting list from recent Unicon:
https://unicon2024.reg.unicycling-software.com/en/printing/competitions/53/start_list
There is no option for the competitor to see the seed times of other riders. We rely only on the trust of the person who created the heats, and in this case it was probably Race Director. There are no words in the rulebook stating that Race Director mus be objective, and the concern when he himself participate in the race.
The main role of the referee is to control the fairness of the competition, and in this case it starts with preparation of waves. I would not classify it as part of organization of the event, but checking that it is done fair. As I mentioned earlier, the data can be processed by other person, but the referee should be able to verify it and have a decisive role in case of protests.
Comment
I know what the UDA start lists look like. But the event director still has access to the seed times and the system should also offer the option to divide the waves according to them - that's how it's done in the track races, where nobody manually places starters on individual lanes, that wouldn't be feasible at all.
> We rely only on the trust of the person who created the heats, and in this case it was probably Race Director.
This was done for sure by the Race Director, because he is the one who organizes everything up front and has access to the data.
> There are no words in the rulebook stating that Race Director mus be objective, and the concern when he himself participate in the race.
For me, it is obvious that all officials must act objectively, fairly and unbiasedly. That's why I've never questioned this, even without an explicit rule. But if the opinion prevails that this must be included in the rules, we should do so.
Comment
I can think of scenarios where even the most fair director cannot do a totally 'fair' decision regarding themselves. I think ideally a ruleset allows the Referee (or racing clerk) to receive a full list of racers that was made by a race director, and then gives a thumbs up. Upon announcing the heat placements, I feel the appropriate person to handle a discrepancy (perceived or otherwise) is the Ref. Riders knowing who has that responsibility is important because any start order issue can't be satisfactorily settled after the race. I also think the Racing Clerk should understand their power to be delegated from the Ref rather than the race director as long as the race director may be competing.
Comment
I believe that if someone decides manually who starts where, it will never be absolutely fair. That's why I would honestly prefer that the starting order is based solely on the seed times. Then every rider is responsible for setting a realistic time - and it should also be in the interest of every rider to set a time that is as realistic as possible, because if he sets a time that is too fast, he will not be able to keep up with his allocated group and will ride alone, and if he sets a time that is too slow, the others will ride away from him. It should therefore be in the best interest of every athlete to set a realistic time and start in a group that corresponds to their performance level. With this approach, only the athletes themselves would be responsible for the fairness of the starting order, which in my opinion always leads to a fairer result in the end than if some person were to divide up the heats/waves manually.
The advantages would be:
- The procedure is 100% known and transparent to the athletes in advance (especially if the entry times are simply included on the start list)
- Athletes are encouraged to give realistic times and have no reason to complain about the starting order (and if they do, then to the other athletes if they give unrealistic times)
- No one is responsible for the starting order, so no one can favor or disadvantage anyone
- No special rules need to be made if the Race Director takes part himself, as the starting order is technically determined by a computer
Yes, this procedure only works for fixed distance races - for free length races, athletes generally do not have a seed time available. But in this case, you could simply ask for the time of the nearest fixed length when registering and then schedule it accordingly.
In criterium races, where there are qualifying heats and a finals, you could simply draw up the start groups, so that no one would be favored or disadvantaged here either.
Comment
I agree with Jan. Using the seed times to determine the order clearly defines the process and removes any questionable decisions that might be made by the racing director or clerk. Furthermore, this greatly simplifies the creation of the starting order. No need to unnecessarily overcomplicate things.
Those without preestablished times will have to be moved towards the back. For stronger riders who are unable to set a seed time during the current week of competition, perhaps they can request a seed time be used from the previous year?
Comment
> For stronger riders who are unable to set a seed time during the current week of competition, perhaps they can request a seed time be used from the previous year?
I think at the moment, best times are always asked for in entries via the UDA, so basically every rider should be able to enter a time. I'm not quite sure what the wording for the entry is, but I think it's called “best time”. Perhaps it would be better to call the entry “entry time” or "seed time" and point out the relevance of this seed time in the rules. Not everyone will be riding their best time at the moment, so it would be more relevant to estimate the current performance as well as possible, i.e. really a “ seed time” or "entry time" than a “best time”.
Comment
I think it’s unavoidable that there will be edge cases where racers absolutely do not have previous results to set them in heats. I don’t think the best solution is to set them to the back under the rules. The most recent loop the lake standard 0-20 years old winner had no prior results and rode from wave 3 to pass the second place in his age group (wave 1) on the course. That’s less than ideal for both riders, denied the opportunity to observe each others pace.
Additionally, i don’t think any of this is Unicon specific rules so it would also be much harder to have prior results for lower level competitions
Comment
As for seed times:
We should ask for Expected Time, and for the Best Time (documented). With the seed time being allocated to the lower of those two values.
We could also play a little with mathematics to make a pattern on how to deal with times from different distances to be able in comparing times from 10k and 42k or any other. Today, I spent few hours comparing the results between last 3 Unicons and I came to conclusion that we can assume that the average speed of the riders does not depend on the distance. It can be shocking, but that's what the data shows (if you are interested, I can share the Google Sheet file). Often the courses of 10k were slower than 42 allowing riders to achieve similar and sometimes even higher average speeds. This simplifies calculations a lot, by just calculating average speed of competitor. Basically, competitor can provide only a result from the race where he made his best average speed.
For simplicity, system may calculate average speeds.
Competitor category:
Category 1 - People with results from IUF Endorsed/Sanctioned events (guarantee that the results are accurate)
Category 2 - People with results from other events / or times measured outside event (undocumented)
Category 3 - People without seed time
The waves should be created accordingly:
1st Wave: Fastest From Category 1
2nd Wave: By the fastest average speed Category 1 (remaining riders) and Category 2
3,4,... continuation until all from Category 1 and 2 are assigned
Following seeds - Category 3
(Maybe good option would be to start with Category 2 from the Wave No 3, but that would require more work for Race Clerk or Referee)
(The Race Clerk or Referee would have to check past results from Category 1 Riders who are selected for Wave 1 (or Wave 1 &2 if the Cat 2 starts from Wave no 3)
With calculation of average speed the problem with different distances is solved.
There can be situation when rider with records only from Standard category register for Unlimited. If this is his first appearance in Unlimited category, he cannot provide results from past races. Same for Unlimited riders switching into Standard category.
In such situation, they would land into Cat 2 if they provide seed time, or Cat 3 if they do not provide seed time.
I would make exception that Unicon medalist from opposite category, would be granted Category 1 when switching categories for the first time.
Comment
@Tim Slason >I think it’s unavoidable that there will be edge cases where racers absolutely do not have previous results to set them in heats. I don’t think the best solution is to set them to the back under the rules. The most recent loop the lake standard 0-20 years old winner had no prior results and rode from wave 3 to pass the second place in his age group (wave 1) on the course. That’s less than ideal for both riders, denied the opportunity to observe each others pace.
To create the waves, we need to have seed times, either official or undocumented. Riders should be motivated to attend lower level competitions before attending major event.
@Tim Slason >Additionally, i don’t think any of this is Unicon specific rules so it would also be much harder to have prior results for lower level competitions
I suggest this rule to be Unicon specific, because of it's importance and because of its size, the races are always started with heats.
Comment
> Competitor category:
Category 1 - People with results from IUF Endorsed/Sanctioned events (guarantee that the results are accurate)
Category 2 - People with results from other events / or times measured outside event (undocumented)
Category 3 - People without seed time
I don't understand why the system should be made so complicated and in the end someone has to check times again and assign people manually. If everyone is asked to submit a time when they register, which is used for division of the waves, then it doesn't matter whether the time comes from an IUF competition, another competition or from training. Training times from shortly before the actual competition are probably the most meaningful anyway, as they best reflect the current performance level of an athlete. In the end, however, I would leave it up to the athlete to decide which time he actually enters as his entry time. As I said, there is no advantage in having a time that is either too good or too bad - in the long run, athletes will try to enter times that are as realistic as possible on their own. The system would also be completely transparent.
> There can be situation when rider with records only from Standard category register for Unlimited. If this is his first appearance in Unlimited category, he cannot provide results from past races. Same for Unlimited riders switching into Standard category.
But these riders will certainly have ridden at least an approximately similar route at some point for training purposes on the unicycle they are riding in the competition in order to be able to estimate how fast they will be. I see no need for exceptions here. If it is clear to every rider that the heats are divided up solely on the basis of the times entered when registering, then everyone who doesn't want to start at the back will give a reasonably realistic time.
I don't think we should make the process too complicated and I doubt that it will really be fairer if someone assigns waves manually. Why should someone external be able to assess the current performance of a rider better than the rider himself?
>>@Tim Slason >Additionally, i don’t think any of this is Unicon specific rules so it would also be much harder to have prior results for lower level competitions
>I suggest this rule to be Unicon specific, because of it's importance and because of its size, the races are always started with heats.
But if the riders at smaller events can't give any (training) times, then it's unlikely that an official can divide up the heats fairly. So why not simply apply the same procedure there too and simply draw all people without a time to a wave?
Transparent, simple, uncomplicated and without the potential for anyone to feel unfairly treated by an official.
Comment
Certainly, riders can give their training times. It would assign them to Category 2 and they would have right to be allocated from Wave no 2. (Or even in Wave 1 if there is still place and all Cat 1 are already allocated)
This is to avoid situations that riders put over optimistic times and end up starting in the first wave. It is of course to their disadvantage and maybe they don't do it intentionally. However, which is more important, it results in a great disadvantage riders who are ousted from Wave 1 by those individuals.
I will repeat it again. Only riders from heat number one have a realistic chance to win the competition. (Not talking about age groups)
Comment
Sorry I'm late. We discussed to registration times 2 years ago:
https://iuf-rulebook-2022.committees.unicycling-software.com/discussions/49
Today, a minority of competitors enter a best time when they register (even if they have one).
I think we need to find a way of encouraging competitors to enter a time when they register.
In my opinion the “best time” is not interesting, a “target time” is more interesting to constitute the starting order.
I think we need to find something simple and trust the competitors (if we realize that they're entering nonsense, we can readjust in a future rulebook...). Don't forget that we're starting from a long way off with very few times entered (and some are not entered in the right unit).
It's also important to bear in mind that there's a delay of several months between registration and competition.
The precision of the time entered is not important; we could design a drop-down menu with target time intervals (or a target time in minutes). These intervals should be particularly precise for the fastest competitors, since the starting order of the fastest competitors is a sensitive issue. The drop-down menu is fine for fixed-distance races, but for free-distance races it's more complicated (extrapolation from target times on fixed distances?).
The question may arise of making it compulsory to enter a target time. But I find it annoying that it should be a blocking step at registration. I'd be more in favor of warning that failure to fill in a target time would be disqualifying, even if this rule wasn't really applied (it would seem to me to have a strong incentive effect).
In any case, even if everyone has entered a time, and even if it's a AI machine that makes the starting order, there may be some dissatisfied competitors, because depending on the size of the waves, the cutoffs will be more or less easy to determine: there will inevitably be cases where several competitors have entered the same target time, but they can't all be in the same wave.
Waves can't be set up perfectly, and there are always compromises to be made. This is one of the reasons why I think that a mass start has a higher added value.
Comment
> Today, a minority of competitors enter a best time when they register (even if they have one).
And I think part of the problem is that currently good riders may end up in an early wave despite not having entered a time. So the riders have no need to make a realistic time estimate. If, in the end, the race director (or someone else) makes the division manually anyway, then I can understand that many riders don't care about this time.
However, if it is clear to the riders that this requested time is used to divide the waves, then I am very sure that in the long run, very realistic times will be given here. Maybe not at the very first competition, but if it is taken absolutely normal for all riders that the division of the waves is based on these times, then I think that these times will also be given and will fit.
> The question may arise of making it compulsory to enter a target time. But I find it annoying that it should be a blocking step at registration. I'd be more in favor of warning that failure to fill in a target time would be disqualifying, even if this rule wasn't really applied (it would seem to me to have a strong incentive effect).
I think it would be quite sufficient to make it clear that all participants without time are placed after those with time and therefore all those without time end up in the back waves.
> In any case, even if everyone has entered a time, and even if it's a AI machine that makes the starting order, there may be some dissatisfied competitors, because depending on the size of the waves, the cutoffs will be more or less easy to determine: there will inevitably be cases where several competitors have entered the same target time, but they can't all be in the same wave.
I think care must be taken to ensure that the waves are not too small - otherwise, in my opinion, it would be better to switch to an individual start. But yes, if a mass start is possible, this should be the preferred format.
And I think if you don't just ask for the times to the minute, then it won't necessarily happen that 10 riders enter exactly the same time. And if there are two or three riders, then the algorithm can take care to assign these riders to the same wave.
Comment
First of all, the UDA is a tool for us, and if we need to change its functions we are welcome to do it. The concept that I presented may seems complicated but it is nothing complicated for computer.
>Today, a minority of competitors enter a best time when they register (even if they have one).
I think we need to find a way of encouraging competitors to enter a time when they register.
Why so? Most of the competitors still participate for fun rather than for obtaining highest scores.
>It's also important to bear in mind that there's a delay of several months between registration and competition
Organizer should be able to set the deadline for updating the seed times, it could be for example 1 month or 2 weeks or even less, but before the starting lists are being prepared. The consideration of other events in the unicycling calendar would be recommended. Participants should be able to update their records before the deadline.
>In my opinion the “best time” is not interesting, a “target time” is more interesting to constitute the starting order.
In my concept the best time is filtered out if it is better than target time (do not expect problems with aged athletes)
Best time if documented on selected events has value of proof that individual can perform as such. Nobody can measure their target time, because nobody can ride in race tempo on the race course before the event. This is usually their estimated time based on average speed they assume to keep.
>I think we need to find something simple and trust the competitors (if we realize that they're entering nonsense, we can readjust in a future rulebook...). Don't forget that we're starting from a long way off with very few times entered (and some are not entered in the right unit).
I think that this is the source of the problem. If you trust to everyone, there will be situations that individuals oust others from Wave 1, and the protests from ousted competitors arise. Individuals who register their times are rewarded by being assigned to Waves in first order. This should motivate such competitive riders to register their times.
>The precision of the time entered is not important; we could design a drop-down menu with target time intervals (or a target time in minutes). These intervals should be particularly precise for the fastest competitors, since the starting order of the fastest competitors is a sensitive issue. The drop-down menu is fine for fixed-distance races, but for free-distance races it's more complicated (extrapolation from target times on fixed distances?).
Simple form for the time in format: hh:mm:ss and distance in popular metrics would work. The system would calculate the average speed. The average speed would be considered for wave assignments.
>The question may arise of making it compulsory to enter a target time. But I find it annoying that it should be a blocking step at registration. I'd be more in favor of warning that failure to fill in a target time would be disqualifying, even if this rule wasn't really applied (it would seem to me to have a strong incentive effect).
You gave example of Timo who started in 6th wave because of not registering his time. This could be a tactic. However I do not think that he gains more that is able to loose. He basically has to ride an individual time trial style effort because no one from passed riders can maintain his speed. Since there are waves anyway, if not Timo, than other riders would make surprise in the final results. This is why, in such races the tactic is to reach the finish line in the shortest possible time. If you work in the first pelleton, you should work with the group, not allowing other groups or individuals to be faster. It is part of the race. Allowing participants to not register their times adds another tactic.
>In any case, even if everyone has entered a time, and even if it's a AI machine that makes the starting order, there may be some dissatisfied competitors, because depending on the size of the waves, the cutoffs will be more or less easy to determine: there will inevitably be cases where several competitors have entered the same target time, but they can't all be in the same wave.
If the wave is of 15 people and 16th person has the same average speed as 15th, I don't see a problem to make such wave of 16 people. That is why there should be a person, not a computer who decides the final waves, and a person who solves potential protests.
>Waves can't be set up perfectly, and there are always compromises to be made. This is one of the reasons why I think that a mass start has a higher added value.
If I remember correctly, the Marathon in Donostia was run with mass start. There can be various type of time counting: starting on the gun shot or starting when competitor pass the start line. The gunshot time count brings disadvantage to the riders in the back, while the solution to start counting when passing the line brings uncertainty of knowing who will get the best time when the group of riders finish together.
Comment
> I think it would be quite sufficient to make it clear that all participants without time are placed after those with time and therefore all those without time end up in the back waves.
I agree, that's enough, no need to threaten disqualification.
> And I think if you don't just ask for the times to the minute, then it won't necessarily happen that 10 riders enter exactly the same time. And if there are two or three riders, then the algorithm can take care to assign these riders to the same wave.
I agree, and 2 years ago with Klaas and Ken we agreed to ask for a target time in minutes.
> Nobody can measure their target time, because nobody can ride in race tempo on the race course before the event.
I have the impression that most competitors have a target time. This is linked to historical fixed-distance races (10k and marathon).
I'm not opposed to building an algorithm that can be improved again and again, but we'll never have all the parameters we need to estimate speeds accurately. And in the end, I think a target time is more valuable than a best time in an official race. Because the target time entered by the competitor takes into account a change of equipment (wheel size, crank length...), a change in training or a change in performance (upwards or downwards).
I'm more in favor of testing something simple (with a target time in minutes) and if it doesn't work, we'll still be able to discuss and propose improvements in the future.
> You gave example of Timo who started in 6th wave because of not registering his time.
It was a lose-lose situation for everyone that Timo was in wave 6: him (because he was going to lose time overtaking everyone), me (because my main rival wasn't in the same race, and I wasn't even happy about crossing the finish line alone several minutes ahead) and those who thought they were 3rd (Markus) and 2nd (Martin, who wanted to take a photo with Markus and me and whom I cooled off because I was waiting for Timo's arrival to find out if I'd won and I suspected Martin wouldn't be 2nd). It was a really lousy situation, plus I knew that the marathon wasn't measured accurately and that there was far too much distance missing on my GPS counter for it to make the official marathon distance.
When Timo signed up for UNICON20, he didn't have a marathon best time. It was between his registration and UNICON that he raced his first marathon in Germany. It's not his fault. The waves must have been published the day before the race, and it seems that Timo arrived in Grenoble at the last minute after missing the 10k. Personally, I was revolted when I saw Timo in wave 6, but I had no responsibility in the starting order and was hoping Timo would contact the race director.
All in all, I'm naive enough to believe that it's not in anyone's interest to lie about their target time. I think there are more civilized people who ride unicycles than in the general population.
Comment
After reading all the comments a made following proposals: (remove,insert)
3D.9 Starting Order
The goal in determining the starting order is to sort racers fairly by speed while still making sure that males and females race amongst themselves. Unless otherwise noted below, the fastest riders start first, and also within a start group (heat or mass start), riders should be positioned in the line-up by speed with the fastest in front. Starting order can be determined by seed time, or from the results of a previous Road Race in that competition. For example, if the Marathon follows the 10k, the results of the 10k can be used to determine the starting order for the Marathon. In the case that a racer does not have a seed time, and is signed up for a particular event (such as the Marathon) and did not participate in the previous race (such as the 10k), the Racing Clerk has the
right to assign a starting position where they see fit.
At Unicons, the starting order should be determined by the Expected Time. In the first group, individuals with the shortest Expected Time that is supported by UDA records should start. In the second group, those with the shortest Expected Time not supported by UDA records should start. Finally, in the last group, individuals without a registered Expected Time should start. An Expected Time is considered supported by UDA records when the highest average speed from races of at least 10 km in the past 5 years is equal to or greater than the speed required for that Expected Time.
Starting order is prepared by the Racing Clerk. The Referee has a control over the Racing Clerk and settles the related protests.
3D.2 Officials
The host must designate the following officials for each road race:
• Race Director
• Referee
• Starter
• Racing Clerk
Any of those roles can be held by the same person.
3C.1.4 Racing Clerk
The Racing Clerk determines the starting order based on Expected Times and records from other events. However, the Referee has authority over the Racing Clerk, and the final decision rests with the Referee.
3C.2 Officials Can Compete
The Referee and Racing Clerk may not compete in any competition where they may be required to make a
decision. The Race Director may compete, as long as the race course has been announced
early enough that the Race Director does not have an advantage from knowledge of the
course.
Please let me know if you would agree with such.
Comment
> I'm more in favor of testing something simple (with a target time in minutes) and if it doesn't work, we'll still be able to discuss and propose improvements in the future.
I completely agree with Simon here.
I also don't understand what the distinction between “Expected Time that is supported by UDA records” and “Expected Time not supported by UDA records” is supposed to achieve. Why not simply ask for a time and use this as the basis? Simple, transparent and comprehensible...
> Starting order is prepared by the Racing Clerk. The Referee has a control over the Racing Clerk and settles the related protests.
Why doesn't the race director just make the start lists? If the start lists are set according to given times anyway, it wouldn't matter if he took part in the race himself. He can't favor or disadvantage anyone if the times given by the participants themselves are simply used as the basis for the starting list.
What kind of objections should the referee deal with here? Objections from a participant that he himself has given an incorrect time and would like to change it after the time limit? Tough luck... I don't see where a referee's decision would be necessary here.
> The Racing Clerk determines the starting order based on Expected Times and records from other events.
Once again - a procedure where times from different competitions are used will never really be fair. Not all competitions can be taken into account, the general conditions are always different - this can never really be fairer than if a time is simply requested at registration and the start list is created based on this.
Comment
Imagine that there is a race with non standard length, say 38km. It is obvious that most competitors are not able to ride the race course in racing speed before actual competition. All will give Expected Time base on calculation of average speed they expect to achieve. Than ask yourself how many people at Unicon can calculate average speed? I believe that most can do it, however some people not. Expect errors. Expected Time that is supported by UDA records guarantees that assumed average speed is not greater than achieved by the competitor in the past 5 years.
I can agree with you that we can keep it simple for the next years. But in the same time we can think if this proposal has a good meaning and we can start to adjust UDA to meet our future needs. UDA would collect data from all races that meet certain criteria (for example that are sanctioned or endorsed by the IUF), and make a 5 year ranking of the riders based on their maximum average speeds. I am not top racer anymore, but I don't want to hear complains from Simon Jan who may potentially be positioned in the 3 row of the first heat, and crash on the start. ;)
The Race Director if not participating in the race can take a function of Racing Clerk. "Any of those roles can be held by the same person."
Yes, the starting order is set according to given times, but the size of heats are set by the human and are not regulated, therefore the decision should not be done by the biased personnel. That is why the Racing Clerk may not compete, and the same reason why the competitors should have right to protest if they see errors or think that decisions are not fair.
Decisions to be made by Racing Clerk:
- the size of the heats (for example 20 people)
- how to deal with riders with the same time on the edge of the heat (for example if 19, 20, 21 have the same time)
- the increase or decrease of the size of the heats
Comment
> ll will give Expected Time base on calculation of average speed they expect to achieve. Than ask yourself how many people at Unicon can calculate average speed? I believe that most can do it, however some people not.
If this is seen as a problem, the UDA could simply provide participants with a calculation tool in case they really can't estimate what time they expect based on their training. In my opinion, however, the participant should enter an expected time at the end, which they confirm as their entry.
> Expected Time that is supported by UDA records guarantees that assumed average speed is not greater than achieved by the competitor in the past 5 years.
But the UDA will mainly contain times from Unicons (in Germany, for example, it will definitely not be used for competitions) - so the times will be at least two years old for many participants. Participants can use other material, prepare specifically for a competition - in my opinion, it would be extremely unfair to give preference to times from competitions that were run via the UDA instead of simply accepting a time expected by the participant - regardless of whether it comes from trianing or another competitive competition.
> But in the same time we can think if this proposal has a good meaning and we can start to adjust UDA to meet our future needs.
Again, the UDA is mainly used for Unicons. I don't see where a major development would bring any advantages if the majority of competitions are not handled via the UDA anyway.
> Yes, the starting order is set according to given times, but the size of heats are set by the human and are not regulated, therefore the decision should not be done by the biased personnel.
Then you simply publish the size of the heats with the announcement of the competition and then nothing has to be “subsequently” determined here. In my opinion, the heats should always be as big as possible anyway - and if a maximum of 20 people can start at the same time, then a protest against it is useless - if the course doesn't allow for more, then it doesn't allow for more.
> Decisions to be made by Racing Clerk:
> - the size of the heats (for example 20 people)
I don't see a problem here if this is determined by the race director, even if he starts himself - as I said, as many riders should always start at the same time as is reasonably possible on the course.
> - how to deal with riders with the same time on the edge of the heat (for example if 19, 20, 21 have the same time)
This could be defined in the rules and thus be decided 100% objectively - again no problem, if the race director makes the start list.
> - the increase or decrease of the size of the heats
This could also be defined in the rules and thus be decided almost completely objectively - again no problem, if the race director makes the start list.
Comment
>Again, the UDA is mainly used for Unicons. I don't see where a major development would bring any advantages if the majority of competitions are not handled via the UDA anyway.
I expect that it is easy to adjust UDA software to import data from other races. Today I asked Robin Dunlop - the author of UDA for his opinion on software edits.
>simply publish the size of the heats with the announcement of the competition
That's not doable in many cases, if not the most.
Current rule: "The Referee may not compete in any competition where they may be required to make a
decision....", in respect to starting order this should extend to any official, including Race Director.
If the rules would be as such that the Race director doesn't make decisions but only strictly follow the rules to make the starting order, than it would be OK, but I don't see it feasible. It is better that organizers can make decisions according to the situation they are into.
Comment
> I expect that it is easy to adjust UDA software to import data from other races.
That may be - but would all organizers do that? Or do the data protection guidelines of the other competitions even allow the data to be passed on in this form (from a German perspective, for example, the storage of personal data outside the EU is difficult).
I would agree that a central results database has many advantages, but from a data protection point of view in particular, I don't currently see that it is really feasible to store all results centrally at the IUF.
In addition, the big problem remains that competition times do not necessarily reflect the actual performance level of a rider for a specific competition and therefore, in my opinion, an explicitly expected time for this competition is much better suited to state the actual performance level. After all, in unicycling we don't have a competition every two weeks where you could ride an official time (if that were the case, it would certainly be something different).
> That's not doable in many cases, if not the most.
But does this mean that the size of the waves is not currently decided based on the course and the possible number of participants per wave? On what basis is it then currently decided how big the waves will be?
Surely the course is known in advance, so it must also be decided in advance how many riders can start in a wave? Surely this doesn't happen to be decided just before the race?