3D.12 Finishes
This discussion has an associated proposal. View Proposal Details here.Comments about this discussion:
Started
The current section 3D.12 concerns timing only. From the discussions we had in the WR committee, it seems that the use of the photofinish mentioned in this section is not necessary for the validation of a WR rounded up to the next second. The photofinish may be important for the classification of a race, especially at UNICON, but it should not be mandatory. I would be more of the opinion that if 2 competitors are less than 0.1 seconds apart and there is no photofinish, the competitors should be ranked equally.
Another important element seems to me to be the introduction of safety rules to define the finish area of a confrontation race (where there may be a sprint: wave start and mass start). I suggest adding that the finish should not be downhill, and that turns should be avoided in the last few hundred meters.
Downhill finishes more often result in falls (the finish of the UNICON20 marathon was on a downhill false flat and resulted in several falls, 1 of which was quite serious). As far as bends are concerned, there is often 1 bend close to the finish line, and when this is the case, the order of finish is usually decided before this bend.
Comment
I agree with you that a photofinish should not be mandatory - especially as it has rarely or never been used in practice.
I also think the other aspects mentioned are important. Definitely a good discussion.
We should also consider whether it would make sense to merge sections 3B.5.8 Finishes and 3D.12 Finishes to have everything in one place and not fragment the rules too much.
Comment
0.1 sec apart is equal to 111cm with 40km/h speed.
Acurracy of time measurement with passive chips is 0.1 sec, and with active chips 0.003 sec.
0.1 sec would not be a good separation for ranking. Riders could draft all the way and just get little closer to be ranked the same position.
Having few riders ranked equally may pose also a problem with awards.
I would keep fotofinish required at Unicon.
For the ease of judging I may consider fotofonish only for awarded competitors.
Fotofinish accuracy should be specified. 120 fps is not difficult to reach with amateur cameras and some smartphones, and with 40km/h gives 9 cm resolution.
Regarding the design of the finish area, I would include it in the rule for the design and safety of the racing course.
Comment
I'm convinced that the photofinish is useful for UNICON, but for other competitions, if there's no photofinish, I don't understand what you're proposing. Are you suggesting filming the finish with a smartphone?
Active chips are very accurate, but if the transponder is attached to the ankle or shoe, there can be a 30cm difference depending on the position of the feet on the finish line. In this case, the accuracy is more like 0.03 sec than 0.003 sec.
I find it hard to imagine competitors sabotaging the race by deliberately finishing within the same tenth of a second. It's not something that happens often. We could also say that if the gap is less than 0.1 seconds and there is no photo finish, the decision rests with a finish judge. And if he is unable to break the tie, then it's a tie...
Comment
Since we requiere photo finish, we should require minimum requirements for the camera. It is useless to have photo finish with 30 fps.
Human eye can perceive the image with 30-60 fps.
Suggested by me, 120 fps at least doubles the ability of human eye and is not difficult to reach without professional photo finish cameras (3000-20000 fps). Means, it is easy and cheap for the organizer.
I agree that neither active chips are good solution, because the rule states the front of the wheel crossing the finish line.
Photo finish must be required at Unicons and at least visual judging on other events.
Yes, if the judge cannot break the tie, its the tie. I imagine it being very unlikely.
3D.16 Accuracy of results already covers situations with ties, with or without foto finish.
Comment
I think that yes, a video of the finish line is a very appropriate way to determine finish order without professional photo finish. It would have to be set up in line with the finish to clearly capture the tire breaking the plane. I don't think issuing ties as official results make sense, and participants will not be satisfied with a tie being issued because we don't want to try to be accurate at the finish line. In practice we have had line judges to make the call and video for review of difficult calls.
I wouldn't say that human eyes "resolve" at any sort of reasonable framerate, their performance in tracking moving objects is much higher than a framerate measure would suggest simply because they work differently. I think a tie could be awarded if it truly cannot be resolved otherwise, but should be avoided when it is practical to capture video of the top finishers and review results for accuracy.
Comment
I'm no expert on photofinish devices. We discussed this subject in the WR committee and concluded that it was necessary for the classification of road races at UNICON.
But there are local or national races where there is no photofinish, and I don't think it's necessary to impose the use of a photofinish or video device for all races (potential IUF endorsed event?).
For example, at the last French nationals, the timekeeper was on the start line to validate the start times of the different waves, but he couldn't be at the finish to monitor a photofinish device. A 2nd timekeeper would have had to be paid, and it would have cost around twice as much to use a photofinish system.
I think the rulebook should provide tiebreaker solutions or not in the absence of a video system.
Official race and WR times are rounded up to the nearest second, so the use of a photofinish or other video device is only useful for tie-breaking.
> Regarding the design of the finish area, I would include it in the rule for the design and safety of the racing course.
It can be integrated into this other section, but in that case it must be made clear that these elements only concern races with waves start or mass start. For a race with an individual start or for a Criterium, these elements do not apply.
Comment
I think it is important that we differentiate in this discussion whether a photofinish system should be mandatory or simply a video recording of the finish. A photofinish system is not a normal video system!
Especially considering the inaccuracy of distance measurement in road races, I see no need for a photofinish system in a road race, its purpose would only be tie-breaking, as Simon has already written. Such a system is of course perfect for this - but in practice I don't think it's necessary for the vast majority of races.
If we want to prescribe a tie-breaking system in the rules, then this should be made clear that it is a tie-breaking system only and, in my opinion, we should definitely list alternatives to a photofinish system.
Comment
So i think in principle we need to have some form of video at the finish line. There are many parts of the course that may be out of our control as far as having resources to review, but a video of the finish to be retained until the protest period has ended seems the least we ought to do for anything that is IUF sanctioned.
A photo finish system at Unicon where the world champion title is on the line doesn’t seem overly onerous to me either but there is a clear increase in cost present there.
Comment
I think we should perhaps first answer the question of exactly what purpose we want to prescribe a photofinish system for?
As I said, I personally only see the purpose as a tie-breaker and I wonder whether such a system is really necessary. How much effort is it really worth to break a tie? At what point are two performances even worthy of differentiation (for example, one could take into account slightly different starting positions, a slightly different route resulting in different distances covered, external influences, etc.)?
If we look at other sports, e.g. athletics, where there are also fixed distance races in the form of road races, in which world records are also recognized and which, in my view, are very similar to our fixed distance races, then there is no need for a photofinish system there, for example.
Comment
Hmm, I see breaking a tie in exactly the opposite way. The only truly comparable performance between two athletes is their performance on a given day across the same course. The conditions are as similar as possible for everyone, and so a win or loss comes down to fitness and racecraft. Maybe top athletes see it differently, but I’d personally be very disappointed if an effort wasn’t made to say who finished ahead if I were involved in a very close finish for a podium. That’s the very nature of shoulder-to-shoulder confrontational races.
Comment
> The only truly comparable performance between two athletes is their performance on a given day across the same course.
I would agree with this in principle - however, I personally believe that this is not feasible up to any accuracy. For example, if someone would start two meters behind me at the start, but I would only be 1/1000 second ahead of this athlete at the finish, then the tie breaking would have a very unpleasant flavor for me. I would definitely prefer to be scored equally in this case, because I don't believe that the performances in this case can really be differentiated with such a high degree of accuracy.
But I can also understand if there are people who prefer to separate the rankings within a race with the highest possible accuracy. In this case, of course, a correspondingly high-resolution tie-breaking system is required.
Comment
How do the others see this issue? Should the rules continue to insist that a photo finish system must be used for tie-breaking purposes?
Comment
trying to follow the conversation quick, I'm not sure what we're discussing anymore.
I think photo finish for Unicon should still be required - plus almost all professional timing systems that are hired for Unicons have them.
But for small events, if it comes at a substantial cost to the organizer, could be encouraged by the rulebook, but not required to be IUF compliant.
Comment
I can try to briefly summarize the core of the discussion:
Since a performance in road races consists not only of the time component, but also of the distance covered and the distance measurement always gives the greater uncertainty, it makes no sense (especially in fixed distance races, where the focus is on the comparability of performances between different events) to indicate the times of the riders on the official results lists with an accuracy greater than one second. For this reason, the rules currently stipulate that measured times must be rounded to full seconds and world records are also kept with this accuracy.
A photo finish system of course offers a significantly higher time resolution than the one second that is relevant for the results. This means that a photo finish system is currently only really useful/neccessary for tie breaking. The question is therefore whether such a system is really required for the purpose of tie breaking in the rules.
Comment
>>The question is therefore whether such a system is really required for the purpose of tie breaking in the rules.
Having been the awards director at 4 Unicons (16, 17, 19, 20) and many NAUCCs, I can tell you it is the most irritating thing to hear from the race director that theres a tie. Awards are not purchased with ties in mind. Yes there is a buffer in the number of medals/awards ordered, but without rules to help break tie breakers, ordering awards becomes and even more complicated process than it already is.
For this reason - I think it should still be required for breaking ties at Unicon. Smaller events, like NAUCC and the like is should not be required.
Comment
Yes, from that perspective it makes perfect sense to have as few ties as possible, I agree.
But for me it sounds like a sensible compromise to only really require this technique for Unicons in the rulebook and leave it up to the organizers of other competitions to decide whether they want to use a photo finish system as a tiebreaker.
Comment
To move this discussion forward, I am making an unofficial suggestion to revise section 3D.12 Finishes. In my opinion, the section deals less with the actual finish and more with the timing, which is why I would rename it:
3D.12 Timing, Photo Finish
1. The use of Transponder Timing Systems or Fully Automatic Timing and Photo Finish Systems that fulfill the specified criteria are permitted for timekeeping in road races.
2. The use of Transponder Timing Systems is permitted, provided that:
i) None of the equipment used at the start, on the course or at the finish line is a significant obstacle to the progress of a rider.
ii) The weight of the transponder and its housing carried or worn by the rider is not significant.
iii) The System is started by the start signal.
iv) The System requires no action by a rider during the competition, at the finish or at any stage in the result processing.
3. The use of Fully Automatic Timing and Photo Finish Systems, provided they meet the criteria set out in Rule 2D.8 and are operated accordingly.
4. For all road races at Unicon, a Photo Finish System according to paragraph 3. must be used to determine the placings. The placing order must be determined at the finishing moment in accordance with rule 3B.5.8.
I would not copy the requirements for a photo finish system from the track chapter, but simply refer to it. If the majority is in favor of copying and pasting the rules here, I would be fine with that.
What do the rest of you think about the permissibility of hand-stopped times in road races? This is certainly not an option for the Unicon, but for very small events with few participants it could be an alternative under certain circumstances... Hand-stopped times are also permitted for world records, as long as at least two timekeepers have stopped the rider.
Comment
Any comments on that?
Comment
It would be nice if there would be some feedback on this - especially on whether we should include something on hand-stopped times in the rule.
Comment
I also think adding something regard the nature of the course finish would be useful.
For example, USA cycling rule:
"3A4. The finishing area should be at least eight meters wide and be adequately
protected so as to prevent spectators from entering onto the course. The last 200
meters should be free of turns and curves."
I also believe downhill finishes should be discouraged. But, this may be hard to create an objective rule, since I think it would depend on the rest of the course. If the majority of course is very flat, then the finish should be similarly flat. If there are plenty of uphill/downhills, then a similar downhill at the finish probably would be not as much of a concern.
I think this should be a separate section from "3D.12 Timing, Photo Finish"
For tie breakers at smaller events:
I think a video, even at 30 fps (33 milliseconds per frame), would be useful for tie-breakers. This is only 37 cm resolution at 40 km/h, but likely it is more useful than just a 37 cm gap, since you can estimate the speed of the rider and who was in front using the few frames before the riders cross the finish line.
I'd be hesitant to say two riders who are 100 milliseconds apart should get the same result. But less 33 milliseconds apart, with video evidence, would satisfy me if I were a competitor.
Chip timing:
Regardless of the accuracy of chip timing, I personally dislike chip timing because of the timing mat. A 1-3cm bump might not be a big deal for most riders, but I almost always slow down beforehand because I get scared.
I might be interpreting this incorrectly, but there is something similarly noted in a UCI document:
"g) Detection loop
This must comprise cables traversing the road. Mats or other
devices over 5 mm thick are prohibited for safety reasons."
Hand stopped timing:
I think hand-stopped times in road races is fine given precautions/redundancies, like having two timers. Like mentioned, if the course distance inaccuracy/resolution can easily be more than 10 meters, then half a second or two second error from a hand-stopped timing should not be a big issue. I personally prefer hand stopped timing over chip timing given my dislike of chip timing.
Comment
> I also think adding something regard the nature of the course finish would be useful.
In my opinion, this would be something that belongs in the “3D.1 Venue” section - there are already discussions about this here in the Committee, so you are very welcome to contribute your ideas and thoughts there.
> I think a video, even at 30 fps (33 milliseconds per frame), would be useful for tie-breakers.
Yes, a normal video can certainly also be used for tie-breaking, the resolution is of course significantly reduced compared to a photo-finish system. That was also my question above, whether we really want to prescribe a photofinish system only for the purpose of tie-breaking, or whether alternatives might also be an option.
I would definitely be open to giving organizers the option of using a normal video at the finish line for tie-breaking purposes. However, I would not make this mandatory for all events, as it makes the evaluation much more time-consuming, for example, as the video has to be evaluated manually and the placings have to be entered manually into the results system.
So I would be open to it as an option, but I would be against it being mandatory for all competitions.
> I might be interpreting this incorrectly, but there is something similarly noted in a UCI document:
The proposed rule also contains a sentence on this:
i) None of the equipment used at the start, on the course or at the finish line is a significant obstacle to the progress of a rider.
Comment
I agree with Jan that a separate Timing section should be created. I suggest integrating the current section "3D.16 Accuracy of Results" as a subsection. The official time is closely linked to the timing method.
I'm wondering about adding a specific case for the official time of a timed event, as a tiebreaker can't be achieved with a photo finish; only the time would break a tie. I'm not sure that rounding to the nearest second is always desirable as an official time if 1/we want to break potential ties and 2/we have the means to obtain a time with greater accuracy.
Comment
The current rule “3D.16 Accuracy of Results” is more about how to publish results - but you are right that this is linked to the timing itself.
> I'm wondering about adding a specific case for the official time of a timed event, as a tiebreaker can't be achieved with a photo finish; only the time would break a tie.
Basically, this is exactly what is done in a tie-breaking with a photo-finish system - you look at the unrounded time and use the time difference as a tie-breaker. However, a photo-finish system is the only system that actually records the time difference between the two times at which two different competitors finished the race (as this is the time at which the front of the wheel crosses the finish line). This time cannot be determined with the times from a transponder timing system and therefore time differences from the transponder measurement can never represent the actual difference between two finishes. Therefore, unrounded transponder times do not necessarily have to correspond to the actual order of finishing.
I think it would be very difficult for outsiders to understand why the times are rounded on the one hand, but the same times are used for the ranking on the other. I think it would therefore be more expedient to either use a system explicitly designed for tie-breaking or to leave ties as they are.
Comment
I'm not sure I understand your answer, especially since I made a mistake in my sentence. I meant the tiebreaker in a time trial. Official times can be rounded to the next second, but I suspect that depending on the timing method, the ranking can be determined more accurately or not.
Comment
If a photo finish system is used, then the official order can of course be determined very precisely, as the exact time of the finish can also be determined very accurately. This is difficult with other methods, as the exact time of the finish (front edge of the tire) cannot be determined when measuring with timing chips for example.
Comment
I don't mind having ties in the official time rounded to the second in a time trial, as it's necessarily rarer than in a race with a mass start.
If, during a UNICON, we have the means to install a photofinish connected to a central clock, we could break the tie using this method, but it seems complex to implement.
In cycling time trials, active ships and mats are often used at the start and finish. I believe this method is relatively simple and is suitable for most cases.
Comment
I'm not sure what the discussion at the end means for the proposed rule - should we adjust the tie-breaking paragraph again, or can we leave it at what's already covered in the proposal?
If we want to include something about hand-stopped times, then I would suggest the following:
Add to paragraph 1:
1. The use of Transponder Timing Systems, Fully Automatic Timing and Photo Finish Systems or Hand Timing that fulfill the specified criteria are permitted for timekeeping in road races.
Insert a paragraph for hand timing:
2. The use of Hand Timing is permitted, provided that:
i) Timekeepers are in line with the finish and all have a good view of the finish line.
ii) Timekeepers use manually operated electronic timers with digital readouts. All such timing devices are termed “watches” for the purpose of the Rules.
iii) The time is taken from the start signal.
iv) Two official Timekeepers time the winner of every event and any performance for record purposes.
v) Each Timekeeper acts independently and without showing their watch to, or discussing their time with, any other person.
vi) The time measurement must be carried out with a resolution of at least 1/10 of a second, unless the measurement system ensures that the times are always given to at least the next longer full second. Unless the time is an exact full second, the time will be converted to the next longer full second. If the measuring system only displays full seconds and it cannot be ensured that this is the next longer full second, one second must be added to the displayed time. If two watches are prescribed and, after converting as indicated above and two watches are prescribed, the two watches disagree, the longer time will be official.
Comment
Any comments on the proposed rule, or can we make an officiall proposal out of it?
Comment
Your proposal is very precise on the possibility of using manual timing and clearly lists the different methods compatible with the recording of a WR.
It lacks elements concerning tie-breaking (a start is made in section 3D.16 Accuracy of Results):
- define when a tie-breaker is necessary depending on the timing method used (I'd say <0.2sec for manual timing and passive chips and <0.1sec for active chips)
- recommend or require the use of photo-finishes at UNICON.
- For other competitions, a tie-breaking system may or may not be used.
- in the absence of a possible tie-breaking system, competitors must be ranked equally (and with the same official time, the time of the 1st ? let's say there can be less than 0.1 sec difference and a time rounded to the second different: 19m10.98s and 19m11.02s ).
I'd like to propose a structure:
3D.12 Timing, Photo Finish
3D.12.1 Accuracy of Results
3D.12.2 Tiebreaker
Comment
I realize that I missed paragraphs 3 and 4. There is indeed the obligation of a photo-finish at UNICON. Nevertheless, a more detailed paragraph on tiebreakers seems interesting for all races that don't have a photo-finish.
Comment
Here is a suggestion:
3D.12 Timing, Photo Finish
1. The use of Transponder Timing Systems, Fully Automatic Timing and Photo Finish Systems or Hand Timing that fulfill the specified criteria are permitted for timekeeping in road races.
2. The use of Hand Timing is permitted, provided that:
i) Timekeepers are in line with the finish and all have a good view of the finish line.
ii) Timekeepers use manually operated electronic timers with digital readouts. All such timing devices are termed “watches” for the purpose of the Rules.
iii) The time is taken from the start signal.
iv) Two official Timekeepers time the winner of every event and any performance for record purposes.
v) Each Timekeeper acts independently and without showing their watch to, or discussing their time with, any other person.
vi) The time measurement must be carried out with a resolution of at least 1/10 of a second, unless the measurement system ensures that the times are always given to at least the next longer full second. Unless the time is an exact full second, the time will be converted to the next longer full second. If the measuring system only displays full seconds and it cannot be ensured that this is the next longer full second, one second must be added to the displayed time. If two watches are prescribed and, after converting as indicated above and two watches are prescribed, the two watches disagree, the longer time will be official.
3. The use of Fully Automatic Timing and Photo Finish Systems, provided they meet the criteria set out in Rule 2D.8 and are operated accordingly.
4. For all road races at Unicon, a Photo Finish System according to paragraph 3. must be used to determine the placings. The placing order must be determined at the finishing moment in accordance with rule 3B.5.8.
3D.12.1 Accuracy of Results
For all road race results, unless the measured time is an exact whole second, the time shall be converted and recorded to the next longer whole second, e.g. 1:33:47.153 shall be recorded and published as 1:33:48.
3D.12.2 Tiebreaker
1. A tiebreaker shall be applied when the time difference between two or more competitors is:
i) less than 0.2 seconds when using Hand Timing or Passive Transponder Timing Systems,
ii) less than 0.1 seconds when using Active Transponder Timing Systems.
2. When a tiebreaker is required according to point 1, the order of finish shall be determined using one of the following systems:
i) A Photo Finish System
ii) A high-resolution finish line video
3. For all road races at Unicon, a Photo Finish System must be used to determine the placing order in all road races.
4. If no tiebreaking system is available, or if the available image does not allow reliable differentiation between competitors, and the time difference is below the applicable threshold, the competitors shall be ranked equally and assigned the same official time, corresponding to the rounded time of the first finisher among them.
5. When a tiebreaking system is used and the placing is determined based on the actual finish order, the result list shall indicate the method used (e.g., "Photo Finish: +0.03" or "Video Review: +0.06").
The requirement for a photo finish system at UNICON is mentioned twice, which is redundant, but I have the impression that it is less clear if it is only mentioned once...
Comment
Paragraph 4 was exactly the paragraph that should cover the topic of tiebreaking and I see a separate rule on this rather critically, because in my opinion it does not make the whole thing any clearer.
Point 1: Paragraph 4 of 3D.12 provides for the determination of placings via the photo finish system at the Unicon - but I understand your proposal 3D.12.2 to mean that this should only happen if the difference between two athletes is less than 0.1 seconds and otherwise both athletes should be placed equally? That doesn't make sense - shouldn't it be the case if the difference is greater than 0.1 seconds? In any case, the two paragraphs contradict each other!
Point 2: The system for tie-breaking must always be available if it is to be used in accordance with rule 3D.12.2 paragraph 1 from your proposal - so it must necessarily be part of the timekeeping? Then I would also integrate the rule into the timekeeping rule.
In particular, the contradiction mentioned in point 1 should be resolved.
Comment
I think the confusion arises from the fact that the photo finish can be used either as a timing system in its own right (Fully Automatic Timing System) or as a tie-breaker (with another method of Timing).
Fully Automatic Timing is the method used for athletics races. In road races, it's possible to do the same. But in general, timing is done with transponders, and the photo finish is used only as a tiebreaker. This is what is done in cycling races for example.
The section 3D.12.2 Tiebreaker that I propose concerns situations where fully automatic timing system is not used.
3D.12.2 Tiebreaker
1. This section applies to races where the primary timing system is not a Fully Automatic Timing System, but relies on Transponder Timing or Hand Timing.
2. A tiebreaker shall be applied when the recorded time difference between two or more competitors is:
i) less than 0.2 seconds when using Hand Timing or Passive Transponder Timing Systems,
ii) less than 0.1 seconds when using Active Transponder Timing Systems.
3. When a tiebreaker is required according to point 2, the order of finish shall be determined using one of the following systems:
i) A Photo Finish System
ii) A high-resolution finish line video
4. If no suitable tiebreaking system is available, or if the available footage does not allow reliable differentiation between competitors, and the time difference is below the applicable threshold, the competitors shall be ranked equally and assigned the same official time, based on the rounded time of the first finisher among them.
5. When a tiebreaking system is used and the placing is determined based on the actual finish order, the result list shall indicate the method used (e.g., "Photo Finish: +0.03" or "Video Review: +0.06").
We could add to the paragraph of 3D.12: Fully automatic timing systems do not require a tiebreaker, as they inherently resolve placement and time with photo-finish accuracy.
Comment
> But in general, timing is done with transponders, and the photo finish is used only as a tiebreaker. This is what is done in cycling races for example.
But this is exactly what paragraph 4 of my proposal also provides for!
The contradiction arises because paragraph 4 stipulates that the placement order should be determined with the Photo Finish System, but in paragraph 2 of 3D.12.2 Tiebreaker the tiebreaking system should only be used if the gap is less than 0.2 seconds respectively 0.1 seconds.
Furthermore, it still makes no sense to use a tiebreaker only if the time difference is less than 0.2 seconds or 0.1 seconds. This would mean that with a measured time of 1:33:47.153 and 1:33:47.653, both riders would finish in the same place with 1:33:48, but if their times were 1:33:47.153 and 1:33:47.163, then the tiebreaker would be applied. That makes no sense.
I would therefore suggest the following addition to my proposal if tiebreaking is to be explained in more detail:
1. The use of Transponder Timing Systems or Fully Automatic Timing and Photo Finish Systems that fulfill the specified criteria are permitted for timekeeping in road races at IUF sanctioned events. For other competitions, these are highly recommended, but Hand Timing that fulfills the specified criteria is also allowed here.
--- This would rule out the use of hand timing at the Unicon. Transponder timing would still be possible, which is certainly closer to the reality than the requirement of a Fully Automatic Timing and Photo Finish System ---
4. For all road races at IUF sanctioned events, a Tiebreaking System according 3D.12.2 must be used to determine the placing order when two or more competitors have the same official time. For other competitions, this is highly recommended.
--- So the rule would always apply if the official times (rounded to the next longer whole second) are the same, which in my opinion is the only reasonable thing to do if you want to require a tiebreaking system ---
3D.12.2 Tiebreaking Systems
--- Your original paragraphs 1 and 2 are not necessary, as tiebraking is always applied when the official time is the same. It does not matter which method was used to determine the official time and how large the gap in the raw data was, only the official (and therefore rounded) time is used as a basis. This makes the procedure uniform, simple and comprehensible ---
1. Using one of the following Tiebreaking Systems is permitted:
i) A Photo Finish System
ii) A high-resolution finish line video
2. The placing order must be determined at the finishing moment in accordance with rule 3B.5.8.
3. If the available footage does not allow reliable differentiation between competitors, the competitors must be ranked equally and assigned the same official time.
--- The part “If no suitable tiebreaking system is available,” is unnecessary in my opinion, since in this case the tiebreaking rule cannot be applied at all and the official (rounded) time can inevitably serve as the only basis for placings.
I don't understand the part “, and the time difference is below the applicable threshold,” - in my opinion, the tiebreaking system should either always be applied to the same official times or not at all. ---
4. When a tiebreaking system is used and the placing is determined based on the actual finish order, the result list shall indicate the method used (e.g., "Photo Finish: +0.03" or "Video Review: +0.06").
Comment
> The contradiction arises because paragraph 4 stipulates that the placement order should be determined with the Photo Finish System, but in paragraph 2 of 3D.12.2 Tiebreaker the tiebreaking system should only be used if the gap is less than 0.2 seconds respectively 0.1 seconds.
> Furthermore, it still makes no sense to use a tiebreaker only if the time difference is less than 0.2 seconds or 0.1 seconds. This would mean that with a measured time of 1:33:47.153 and 1:33:47.653, both riders would finish in the same place with 1:33:48
If the time difference is greater than the threshold required to use a tiebreaker, the timing system is sufficiently reliable to determine the order of finish. The tiebreaker is not necessary. In your example, the 2 competitors would be classified with the same time of 1:33:48, but not in the same position. The ranking is based on the timing method (more or less accurate), not on the official time rounded up to the nearest second.
> --- The part “If no suitable tiebreaking system is available,” is unnecessary in my opinion, since in this case the tiebreaking rule cannot be applied at all and the official (rounded) time can inevitably serve as the only basis for placings.
I don't understand the part “, and the time difference is below the applicable threshold,” - in my opinion, the tiebreaking system should either always be applied to the same official times or not at all. ---
I described the situation where the timing method alone is not sufficient to break the tie between 2 competitors. If the time difference is too small and there is no tiebreaking system available, then the competitors must be placed tied. Furthermore, 2 competitors might not be able to be separated by the timing system and have different official times (for example: 19m10.98s and 19m11.02s). If they are classified as equal, I suggest assigning them the same official time.
However, the tiebreaker section does not describe the case where a race is hand timed with a watch that does not have a resolution of 1/10 of a second as described here:
"vi) The time measurement must be carried out with a resolution of at least 1/10 of a second, unless the measurement system ensures that the times are always given to at least the next longer full second. Unless the time is an exact full second, the time will be converted to the next longer full second. If the measuring system only displays full seconds and it cannot be ensured that this is the next longer full second, one second must be added to the displayed time. If two watches are prescribed and, after converting as indicated above and two watches are prescribed, the two watches disagree, the longer time will be official."
It seems to me that this refers to outdated historical methods or a poorly configured timing system. If so, I would suggest simplifying to:
"vi) The time measurement must be carried out with a resolution of at least 1/10 of a second. If two watches are prescribed and the two watches disagree, the longer time will be official."
Comment
> If the time difference is greater than the threshold required to use a tiebreaker, the timing system is sufficiently reliable to determine the order of finish. The tiebreaker is not necessary. In your example, the 2 competitors would be classified with the same time of 1:33:48, but not in the same position. The ranking is based on the timing method (more or less accurate), not on the official time rounded up to the nearest second.
No, placings are always awarded on the basis of official times. Anything else is neither meaningful nor in any way comprehensible or transparent for athletes or outsiders. The same official times must therefore always mean the same places, as long as no tiebreaking system is used and this usage is visible on the results lists.
> If the time difference is too small and there is no tiebreaking system available, then the competitors must be placed tied.
Then both competitors have the same official time and there is no need for any further regulation that the same placing is awarded, thats alwasy the case for the same official time if no tiebreaking happens.
> Furthermore, 2 competitors might not be able to be separated by the timing system
Either they have the same official time, or they don't have the same official time - there's nothing in between.
> However, the tiebreaker section does not describe the case where a race is hand timed with a watch that does not have a resolution of 1/10 of a second as described here:
Of course it does - if both have the same official time, then the tiebreaking system is used as described - otherwise they have different official times and therefore automatically different places.
Why should we make rules unnecessarily complicated and try to reinvent the wheel when there are proven rules in athletics, for example?
> It seems to me that this refers to outdated historical methods or a poorly configured timing system.
This refers to many commercially available hand stopwatches that only output seconds and no longer 1/10 of a second for times greater than one hour, but without specifying whether the 1/10 is simply cut off or the next longer second is displayed. I don't know what this has to do with historical methods. Usually you can't configure commercially available hand stopwatches either, so how can this be a poorly configured timing system?
Comment
> No, placings are always awarded on the basis of official times. Anything else is neither meaningful nor in any way comprehensible or transparent for athletes or outsiders. The same official times must therefore always mean the same places, as long as no tiebreaking system is used and this usage is visible on the results lists.
Where does it specify in the rulebook that official times are used for rankings?
The official time, rounded to the second, has been introduced to follow the example of World Athletics. Could we do the same as World Athletics, i.e. use the precision of the timing system for the ranking and the official time for better readability of performances, comparisons and records?
Comment
> Where does it specify in the rulebook that official times are used for rankings? For what reason we should have official times if not tor determining the official results? A rule about that is not really neccessary, isn't it? > The official time, rounded to the second, has been introduced to follow the example of World Athletics. Could we do the same as World Athletics I would like to do that, but you want to reinvent the wheel and use some other rules to determine the ranking. The World Athletics rules are quite simple: Official times determine the placing if there is no tiebreaking system. That's what I would loke to use for uniscycling as well.
Comment
In my opinion the placings should not be after the official time but after the measured time and photo finish.
We can have official time rounded to 1 second, for the purpose of World Records or just for simplicity. However 1 second separation translate to 11 meters distance with the speed of 40km/h.
Ties should be in arm to arm situation, and not with separation of 11 meters, haha.
3B.5.8 Finishes
Finish times are determined when the front of the tire first crosses the vertical plane of
the nearest edge of the finish line. ...
In tie situations the pictures from camera should be used to decide on placings.
The worst scenario of placing the timing chips would be on ankles. It may happen that 2 riders cross the finish line with the same time in respect of the front of the tire, but with 40cm apart of the chips, which at the speed of 40 km/h gives difference 0.036 second (1/30 second). The camera with framing of 1/30 would be able to record the difference. With 120 frames per second it should not be problem to see the difference.
In my opinion, the organizer should make placings according to times measured with the timing system, and should be aware of the accuracy. The tie is whenever the time difference is smaller than the accuracy of the system. Accuracy depends on the timing system and should account for placings on the chips in respect to the tire
It is extra work to compare the camera footage for the placings and can be pretty much time consuming. I suggest that the ties should be solved only for the placings with awards. The rest of the ties may be unsolved.
Comment
I really don't understand why unicyclists feel such a strong need to constantly reinvent rules...
> In my opinion the placings should not be after the official time but after the measured time and photo finish.
If a Photo Finish System is used then there is a triebreaking system and the placings are decided by this System - thats what the rule says and thats how it is also done in athletics (and also in cycling btw).
But if there is no triebreaking system the official times are the official results. Not using official results to determine rankings, but something else, is simply non-transparent, incomprehensible, and illogical.
> The tie is whenever the time difference is smaller than the accuracy of the system. Accuracy depends on the timing system and should account for placings on the chips in respect to the tire
A tie occurs whenever the official time is the same – it's that simple. Everything else is non-transparent, incomprehensible, and illogical (and therfore probably used nowhere? else).
> In tie situations the pictures from camera should be used to decide on placings.
That's what my proposed rule says.
> It is extra work to compare the camera footage for the placings and can be pretty much time consuming.
Then use a Photo Finish System - like its done in other sports as well.
Comment
My aim is not to reinvent anything.
I have to admit that the World Athletics rules are not very readable, and it's hard to find the right information for road races.
In World Athletics' "C1.1 & C2.1 - Competition Rules & Technical Rules", PART VII ROAD RACES (rule 55, page 157) is particularly empty, there's nothing about finishing and timing.
I finally found a sentence at the very beginning of PART II TRACK EVENTS: "Rules 17.1, 17.6 (except under Rules 54.12 and 55.9), 17.14, 18.2, 19 and 21.1 of the Technical Rules also apply to Parts VI, VII, and VIII of the Technical Rules."
I consulted the rules cited. Rule 18 "The Finish" and more precisely rule 18.2:
"The athletes shall be placed in the order in which any part of their bodies (i.e. torso, as distinguished from the head, neck, arms, legs, hands or feet) reaches the vertical plane of the nearer edge of the finish line as defined above."
This is the rule that determines the classification of a race.
In fact, if you look at the results of running road races, you'll see that athletes who finish in the same time (official time rounded up to the nearest second) are almost never ranked in the same place.
The official time was introduced for simplicity, comparison and records, not for ranking.
Comment
> I have to admit that the World Athletics rules are not very readable, and it's hard to find the right information for road races.
I have to agree with you - for someone who is not familiar with the rules, it is often very difficult to find relevant positions.
> In fact, if you look at the results of running road races, you'll see that athletes who finish in the same time (official time rounded up to the nearest second) are almost never ranked in the same place.
Yes, of course, because in this case there is always a “tiebreaking system”: Either judges or video recording - but the unrounded times are not used to determine the order of finish - but that is exactly what is proposed here for the road races!
In other words, if we include a tiebreaking system as suggested above, then we are basically using exactly what is done in athletics (or cycling).
Comment
> Yes, of course, because in this case there is always a “tiebreaking system”
As I understand it, most running road races don't use photofinishes (they're only used at major events like the Olympics or the world championships). For most running road races, rankings are based on the time of the passive transponder system.
If this is indeed the case, we could repeat a similar sentence: "Riders shall be placed in the order in which the forward most part of their tire (typically the front of the wheel) reaches the vertical plane of the nearer edge of the finish line."
We might add that, in practice, it's the timing method that determines the ranking.
For tiebreakers, we can make things simpler than I suggested, without mentioning a threshold according to the timing method.
If there's a very close finish and the ranking isn't right, this could give rise to a protest.
I can see 3 possibilities (perhaps we don't need to be mentioned in the rulebook):
1/ There's a tiebreaker available and the problem is solved
2/ There is no tiebreaker and the time difference is too great for it to be a measurement error: the initial ranking is kept
3/ There is no tiebreaker and the times are too close, perhaps it's a measurement error: the competitors are placed on an equal ranking.
I've contacted the official from the athletics federation who was present for my 100km record, and I hope he can confirm or deny what I'm reading between the lines...
Comment
> As I understand it, most running road races don't use photofinishes
That's true, then the order is determined by who crosses the finish line first (according to rule 18.2 / 19.2 of the World Athletics Technical Rules).
> If this is indeed the case, we could repeat a similar sentence: "Riders shall be placed in the order in which the forward most part of their tire (typically the front of the wheel) reaches the vertical plane of the nearer edge of the finish line."
I would agree with this, as the tiebreaking rule I proposed does in fact include the same. However, I would also agree with not formulating it as a tiebreaking rule, but simply including it in the timing section in general, as is the case in athletics.
Paragraph 4 could look like:
4. Riders must be placed in the order in which the forward most part of their tire reaches the vertical plane of the nearer edge of the finish line. It is recommended that Judges and/or video recording(s) also be provided to assist in determining the finishing order and the identification of riders.
This would eliminate the need for me to introduce a additional tiebreaking solution.
Comment
Since today is the last day to create official proposals, I have made an official proposal. I've tried to find a compromise between Simon's and my proposals that I think covers all aspects (possibly taking into account some room for interpretation, but that would be okay for me).
In the proposal, I have not subdivided the rule into subsections regarding the permitted timing methods, what official times are and how the placement order is determined. However, if the majority is in favor of a subdivision, I could live with that and would adjust the proposal accordingly.
Please give me feedback on whether you would agree with the proposal as it stands or what specific adjustments would be necessary for your approval!
Comment
> However, I would also agree with not formulating it as a tiebreaking rule, but simply including it in the timing section in general, as is the case in athletics.
I agree that there should be no specific tie-breaking rule.
That said, I wonder if the section isn't too dense, as there are elements on finish, timing and publishing times. I'd prefer the section to be subdivided.
Otherwise there are 2 points 4.
And the WA official replied:
"That's why there are finish judges at running races. The WA rule requires that the times of the first 50 men and women be taken.
It's very exceptional to rank ex-eaquo (runners hand in hand - the federation doesn't like this very much - you can always see one chest go before the other, in races with mats there's often a camera with video for replay).
When there are two finish line judges plus the referee, the referee listens to the opinions and decides the problem."
> 7. When two competitors have the same official time and the placing is determined based on the actual finishing order, the result list should indicate the method used (e.g., "Photo Finish: +0.03", "Video Review: +0.06", "Judges Review").
This formulation forces to check all finishes with the same official time, whereas for most competitors with the same official time, the timing method will suffice to make the classification. It's like saying that a protest is automatic if the official time is the same. I wonder if we shouldn't simply delete this sentence.
Comment
For point 7/ I would prefer something like: "7. When a tie-breaking method is used to separate 2 competitors, the results list must indicate the method used (e.g. “Photo finish: +0.03”, “Video Review: +0.06”, “Judges Review”).”
For the organization of the section, I propose:
3D.12.1 Finish (points 5 and 6)
3D.12.2 Timing (points 1 to 4a)
3D.12.3 Results (points 4b and 7)
Comment
> For point 7/ I would prefer something like: "7. When a tie-breaking method is used to separate 2 competitors, the results list must indicate the method used (e.g. “Photo finish: +0.03”, “Video Review: +0.06”, “Judges Review”).”
What is the difference to my suggestion in the end? The whole paragraph should only serve to make it clear on the results list why different placings are awarded despite the same official time. Whereby my proposal even allows the leeway to publish result lists without this addition (should vs. must).
> For the organization of the section, I propose:
3D.12.1 Finish (points 5 and 6)
3D.12.2 Timing (points 1 to 4a)
3D.12.3 Results (points 4b and 7)
With 4a and 4b you mean splitting up paragraph 4 like this?
4a. For all times to be official, unless the measured time is an exact whole second, the time shall be converted and recorded to the next longer whole second, e.g. for 1:33:47.153, the official time is recorded as 1:33:48.
4b. Only official times will be published.
Would you really start by determining the ranking? I would have tended to leave the order the same for a subdivision, so:
3D.12 Timing, Finishing Order, Publication
3D.12.1 Timing (points 1 to 4a)
3D.12.2 Finishing Order (points 5 and 6)
3D.12.3 Publication of Results (points 4b and 7)
Although I would still tend to count the finishing order under timing, I can understand that publishing results is actually a different topic. I would therefore tend to keep timing and finishing order simply under timing.
Comment
> What is the difference to my suggestion in the end? The whole paragraph should only serve to make it clear on the results list why different placings are awarded despite the same official time. Whereby my proposal even allows the leeway to publish result lists without this addition (should vs. must).
What I don't find clear in your point 7 is the link between the official time and the tiebreaker. For most competitors who have the same official time, a tiebreaker is not necessary because the precision of the timing method is sufficient to make the ranking and on the contrary, two competitors might not be in the same second and need a tiebreaker (for example: 19m10.98s and 19m11.02s). On the other hand, I wrote "must" but "should" is also fine for me, what is important is that the classification is correct.
> With 4a and 4b you mean splitting up paragraph 4 like this?
I meant that there are 2 points 4 in the proposal (hand timing and publication of results):
4. The use of Hand Timing is permitted, provided that:
[...]
4. For all times to be official, unless the measured time is an exact whole second, the time shall be converted and recorded to the next longer whole second, e.g. 1:33:47.153 shall be recorded and published as 1:33:48.
> Would you really start by determining the ranking?
For me, the results publication must necessarily be placed last, since the results include the ranking and the official times. As for the order between the timing method and the finish, that's debatable. I prefer the finish to appear first (like WA, which has a finish section (rule 18) and then a timing section (rule 19)). Even if the ranking is automatically calculated based on the timing method, it must ensure that it respects the finish order of the competitors, regardless of the timing method used.
Comment
> What I don't find clear in your point 7 is the link between the official time and the tiebreaker.
In the end, it is not a tiebreaker in the classic sense - the proposed rule (paragraph 5) “only” stipulates that the order of placement must correspond to the order of finish. How exactly this is ensured is not described 100% precisely in my last proposal ( similar to the rules of athletics), thus (quite deliberately) leaving a certain amount of leeway. This means that my proposal does not necessarily mean that a video must always be evaluated.
Paragraph 7 is only intended to ensure that riders with the same times and different placings on the results list can see how the placings came about.
> I meant that there are 2 points 4 in the proposal (hand timing and publication of results):
Oh, my mistake - I'll adjust the numbering.
> For me, the results publication must necessarily be placed last
Which is the case with my proposal. 4b* does not really refer to the publication of the results, but to how a timekeeper must deal with the results of the measurement.
If we want to split this paragraph for publication, I think it would be as I said:
X. Only official times will be published.
> I prefer the finish to appear first (like WA, which has a finish section (rule 18) and then a timing section (rule 19)).
We already have the "Finish" section in the competitor section (3B.5.8 Finishes)!
> Even if the ranking is automatically calculated based on the timing method, it must ensure that it respects the finish order of the competitors, regardless of the timing method used.
I agree - we could modify paragraph 4b* as follows and maybe place it behind paragraph 5 and 6:
For all times to be official, unless the measured time is an exact whole second, the time shall be converted and recorded to the next longer whole second, e.g. 1:33:47.153 shall be recorded and published as 1:33:48. All official times must be determined considdering paragraph 5 and 6 where required.
Comment
> We already have the "Finish" section in the competitor section (3B.5.8 Finishes)!
Yes, I thought about it after posting my message. It's not the first time I've forgotten this section. I'm having trouble switching between sections B and D. So, the first sentence of point 6 is redundant, can we put a reference to 3B.5.8 Finishes or do we delete the sentence? If other committee members have an opinion that could help us.
> Paragraph 7 (8 after update) is only intended to ensure that riders with the same times and different placings on the results list can see how the placings came about.
I don't understand the part "When two competitors have the same official time and the placing is determined based on the actual finishing order", since the second part of the sentence is supposed to apply to everyone. For most cases where competitors have the same time, the timing method is sufficient to determine the ranking without resorting to a photo finish, video, or a finish judge. In the end, I would suggest dropping point 8.
> 4b* (5 after update) does not really refer to the publication of the results, but to how a timekeeper must deal with the results of the measurement.
I'm not sure I understand. It seems to me that the timekeeper should record the times as accurately as possible, and that the rounding to the next second only concerns the publication of the official results.
Comment
> So, the first sentence of point 6 is redundant, can we put a reference to 3B.5.8 Finishes or do we delete the sentence? If other committee members have an opinion that could help us.
I wouldn't delete the sentence, but rather refer to rule 3B.5.8. I believe this was actually done in a suggestion earlier on. Suggestion:
"6. The placing order must be determined at the finishing moment in accordance with rule 3B.5.8. [...]"
> I don't understand the part "When two competitors have the same official time and the placing is determined based on the actual finishing order", since the second part of the sentence is supposed to apply to everyone.
Yes, but if there are no two riders with the same official time, then it is immediately apparent to everyone from the different times on the results list why the riders have different placings, so in this case there is no need for a note on the results list. In this case, the results are self-explanatory.
> For most cases where competitors have the same time, the timing method is sufficient to determine the ranking without resorting to a photo finish, video, or a finish judge. In the end, I would suggest dropping point 8.
But if we delete paragraph 8 completely, this means that in future there will be different placings with the same official times on the results lists, and many riders and outsiders will probably not understand how the different placings came about. Therefore, in order to explain this to riders and outsiders, I would print a note on the results list in these cases explaining how the different placings came about.
In any case, there must always be at least one judge who determines the order (in case of doubt, the timekeeper) – without additional photo finish, video or Judges, it is therefore up to the timekeeper to determine the placing order, taking into account 3B.5.8. It is therefore a “judges' review,” which can then be published.
What would be the advantage of omitting paragraph 8 and thus keeping it unclear why different rankings can result from the same times?
> I'm not sure I understand. It seems to me that the timekeeper should record the times as accurately as possible, and that the rounding to the next second only concerns the publication of the official results.
The timekeeper must be the person who determines the official times.
Let's take the case wherider A has a measured time of 1:33:47.001 and rider B has a measured time of 1:33:46.999. However, the timekeeper cannot be sure whether rider B really finished the race earlier than rider A (because rule 3B.5.8 must be observed). The rounded times cannot simply be accepted as official times, as this would contradict rule 3B.5.8. The timekeeper must therefore either check whether the order is clear based on a photo finish, video, or judges' review, or assign the same official time and place to both drivers. If a video shows that rider A finished the race earlier, both riders must of course also be given the same official time.
Official times are therefore by no means always simply the rounded measured times – yes, they are always given in whole seconds, but they are determined taking all other rules into account.
Comment
> "6. The placing order must be determined at the finishing moment in accordance with rule 3B.5.8. [...]"
I'm very happy with the addition of a reference to rule 3B.5.8.
> What would be the advantage of omitting paragraph 8 and thus keeping it unclear why different rankings can result from the same times?
It seems to me that 1/ the point 8 isn't clear (unless it's just me who doesn't understand); 2/ in track and field road races and cycling races, there's no need to show how competitors with the same official time at the finish were separated; 3/ it adds additional work on the chornometer. The important thing is that the classification and official times are correct. My opinion is to omit point 8 or to write a sentence like : “When a visual tie-breaking system (e.g., photo finish or video) is used to determine the finish order between competitors with the same official time, the method may optionally be indicated in the results list for transparency purposes.”
> Let's take the case wherider A has a measured time of 1:33:47.001 and rider B has a measured time of 1:33:46.999. However, the timekeeper cannot be sure whether rider B really finished the race earlier than rider A (because rule 3B.5.8 must be observed). The rounded times cannot simply be accepted as official times, as this would contradict rule 3B.5.8
When I read the rule, I understand that point 5 only concerns the publication of official times. In which case, there is no contradiction with the other rules. Moreover, point 7 solves the example you describe. In any case, it's possible that the results will be published and that there will be an error in the ranking. If the error is critical (for example, if your example concerns the top 2 in the race), a competitor will submit a protest and the officials will do what they can to resolve it.
We haven't really talked about it, but it's true that we should recommend a finish judge on the finish line (all the more so in the absence of another tie-breaking method). But we haven't really talked about it before, and today, the “finish judge” role doesn't exist in road races, it only exists in track races.
Comment
> 1/ the point 8 isn't clear
But in what way is it unclear to you? Perhaps it could be reworded to make it clearer... but I don't quite see where the lack of clarity comes from. For me, the rule is quite clear—if the official time is the same but the placings are different, the results list should indicate how the different placings were determined. This can be done either by a photo finish system, a video evaluation, or a judge's decision (which includes a determination by the timekeeper based on the information available to him).
> 2/ in track and field road races and cycling races, there's no need to show how competitors with the same official time at the finish were separated
Yes, it is absolutely correct that such a note is not standard practice here. However, in contrast to unicycling, I believe that in these sports (this is my assessment), it is common knowledge that an identical official time does not necessarily mean an identical ranking, but rather that the rankings are determined based on the actual moment of crossing the finish line.
In unicycling, on the other hand, I have the feeling that many riders are extremely focused on the last available decimal place and do not really understand that this is not always the decisive factor. So if times are consistently rounded to whole seconds (which, unfortunately, is still often not the case), then I think it would be helpful for ourriders to understand how different rankings come about in this case – and this is exactly what the addition to the results lists is intended to provide.
3/ it adds additional work on the chornometer
I would say that depends very much on the software used to generate the results lists. It doesn't sound like an impossible challenge for software to specify that, for example, a photo finish system was used and, in the event of different placings but identical times, to automatically display a message saying “Photo finish: ...”.
And if it is indeed an unsolvable task, then the rule only says "[...] the result list should indicate the method used" - so a result list without this note is also possible with the rule.
To make it easier, you could always write “Judges Review,” since at the end of the day, the timekeeper is the one who determines the official times and placings, and he can only use different information for this... but I think if a photo finish system is used, you can certainly show that. For me, however, it would also be perfectly okay to simply distinguish between “photo finish” and “judges' review” – or “timekeeper's decision”; in the end, both the video and the judges only provide additional information for the timekeeper.
> When I read the rule, I understand that point 5 only concerns the publication of official times.
Paragraph 5 primarily deals with how the official times are determined and what the official times are. That is why I suggested above that the paragraphs be amended slightly:
5. For all times to be official, unless the measured time is an exact whole second, the time shall be converted and recorded to the next longer whole second, e.g. for 1:33:47.153, the official time is recorded as 1:33:48. All official times must be determined considdering paragraph 6 and 7 where required.
8. Only official times will be published.
> Moreover, point 7 solves the example you describe.
Yes, but that's precisely why the rounded times can't just be about publication. When determining the official times, the order in which the riders cross the finish line must inevitably be taken into account, as this can have an impact on the official time beyond the rounding. But as you say, this is covered by the proposed rule.
> But we haven't really talked about it before, and today, the “finish judge” role doesn't exist in road races, it only exists in track races.
You're right, we should describe this role in the rulebook in the long run. But for now, I think we can live with the official role of timekeeper that we have introduced.
Comment
> 8. When two competitors have the same official time and the placing is determined based on the actual finishing order, the result list should indicate the method used (e.g., "Photo Finish: +0.03", "Video Review: +0.06", "Judges Review").
I'll try again to explain what bothers me about paragraph 8.
It seems logical to me that the ranking should be determined before the official times. In the event of a tie between two competitors, they must be awarded the same official time. This situation should not occur if there is a tiebreaker (photofinish, video, finish judge) or should be exceptional.
In most races, the timing methods used have an accuracy of less than 1 or 2 tenths of a second. In my opinion, paragraph 8 is valid only if the accuracy of the timing method is always to the second.
Most competitors who are ranked with the same official time have a time difference greater than the accuracy of the timing method. In these cases where the official time is the same and the precise time difference is greater than the accuracy of the timing method, it is not necessary to use a tiebreaker (photofinish, a video, or the judgment of a finish judge) to determine the ranking. The way paragraph 8 is worded suggests the use of a tiebreaker (photo finish, video, or finish judge), if one is available, to verify the rankings of all competitors who would have finished within the same second, whereas in most cases, time alone is sufficient to determine ranking.
Comment
> It seems logical to me that the ranking should be determined before the official times. In the event of a tie between two competitors, they must be awarded the same official time. This situation should not occur if there is a tiebreaker (photofinish, video, finish judge) or should be exceptional.
I would say that determining the ranking and the officiall times is a joint process since both are related - and it would also be covered by my above-mentioned proposed paragraph 5:
5. For all times to be official, unless the measured time is an exact whole second, the time shall be converted and recorded to the next longer whole second, e.g. for 1:33:47.153, the official time is recorded as 1:33:48. All official times must be determined considdering paragraph 6 and 7 where required.
> In most races, the timing methods used have an accuracy of less than 1 or 2 tenths of a second. In my opinion, paragraph 8 is valid only if the accuracy of the timing method is always to the second.
I see it differently. Regardless of the timing method used, the timekeeper must always ensure that the order of finish (i.e., paragraphs 6 and 7) is taken into account when determining the ranking and official times. So if the timekeeper is certain, based on the measured times, that the order can be determined purely on the basis of the measured times in accordance with paragraph 6, then that is his decision (and thus a judge/timekeeper decision). That is why I said that we could simply write “photo finish” or “timekeeper decision” in paragraph 8.
> Most competitors who are ranked with the same official time have a time difference greater than the accuracy of the timing method. In these cases where the official time is the same and the precise time difference is greater than the accuracy of the timing method, it is not necessary to use a tiebreaker (photofinish, a video, or the judgment of a finish judge) to determine the ranking.
In this case, it is still up to the timekeeper to decide whether his measuring system can be used to determine the order of the riders, taking into account paragraph 6, based on the measured times. If the timekeeper believes that the information available to him is sufficient to determine the order, then he can do so. However, this does not change the fact that it is the timekeeper's decision.
Everything you refer to as a tiebreaker is ultimately just additional information for the timekeeper to determine the finishing order. If the timekeeper cannot determine a finishing order based on the information available to him in accordance with paragraph 6, paragraph 7 applies.
> The way paragraph 8 is worded suggests the use of a tiebreaker (photo finish, video, or finish judge), if one is available, to verify the rankings of all competitors who would have finished within the same second, whereas in most cases, time alone is sufficient to determine ranking.
But paragraph 8 does not say this at all—paragraph 8 says that a note should be added if riders have the same official time and the placing was determined based on the finishing order. It does not mention anywhere that a photo finish, video, or finish judge must be used for that. According to the rules the timekeeper is responsible for determining official times and thus also for following paragraph 5, 6 and 7.
However, since the proposal must be put to a vote soon, if you do not agree with paragraph 8, I would remove it and instead insert only the following:
8. Only official times will be published.
Comment
I have updated the proposal and I hope that the purpose of paragraph 8 (old)/9 (new) is now clearer. If you still disagree with paragraph 8, I would delete it completely so that we can put the proposal to a vote quickly, as we are really running out of time. All proposals should have been put to a vote by yesterday.
Comment
I find the section long, I would have preferred it to be subdivided. But we can also say that a rule is missing to define the official "finish judge" and probably others rules... This leaves room for improvement for the next rulebook revision.
I agree with this rule as it stands.
Comment
That sounds good, then I would say I'll put the proposal to a vote as soon as possible so that we can finish this round of the Rulebook Committee.
The numerous changes we have implemented this time will certainly need to be adjusted again in some places next time. We can then address these things in the next revision of the Rulebook.