Retrospective world records?
This discussion has an associated proposal. View Proposal Details here.Comments about this discussion:
Started
The WRG state under 1.3:
"Retrospective world records may be granted, subject to discretion of the IUF, and fulfilment of the IUF World Record Guidelines."
I'm not exactly sure about the meaning of "retrospective" here, but it seems to mean that records may be acknowledged after it has been set or broken. But isn't this always the case? Of course we won't grant a record only on the basis that an attempt is announced.
I think this sentence can be deleted. If not, we should more clearly describe what is meant.
Comment
Perhaps this meant records that had not been claimed to the IUF in the foreword or records that had been set before the WRG had been written?
Without the "retrospective" I would possibly leave the sentence in the WRG in order to clarify once again that the right to recognize WR lies solely with the IUF and that the criteria of the WRG must necessarily be fulfilled. Whereby the fulfilment of the criteria is demanded anyway from paragraph 1.3.
Comment
What do you mean by "in the foreword"?
If the sentence in question is about records set before 2011, I think we don't need it anymore.
I understand he phrase "subject to discretion of the IUF" in the current text to pertain to "retrospective" records only, whatever retrospective means, and to indicate that IUF in any case has the right to decide whether they grant such a record or not. If we follow your suggestion to delete "Retrospective" and keep the rest of the sentence, then it indicates that the IUF has the right to not grant an IUF World Record even if there is no doubt that a claim fulfills all criteria. Do we want this explicit right to refuse valid WR claims? I don't think so.
Indeed the IUF is the exclusive owner or the World Record list, they are the only entity governing it. Maybe this is not clear enough from the text under 1.1, but then I think it should be stated under 1.1, rather than under 1.3 which is about WR attempts. I'm thinking of an additional sentence after the current one,
"The right to recognise an IUF World Record lies solely with the IUF."
Yes, the criteria must be fulfilled but that is already stated in 1.3. No need to repeat it.
Comment
I meant in advance... No idea what I have written there. I think it could mean record attempts, where the IUF was not contacted in advance and therefore it was not already known in advance that a record attempt would take place.
I wouldn't give the IUF the right to not grant an IUF World Record even if there is no doubt that a claim fulfills all criteria - but do the WRG include a paragraph that the IUF can refuse to recognise a record if they can provide reasons for doing so? (e.g. because the documentation is not considered credible by the committee) I think a paragraph like that would be useful. Even if it's just to cover some unlikely case that we're not thinking about today.
"World records may be granted, subject to discretion of the IUF, and fulfilment of the IUF World Record Guidelines.", could be such a paragraph, but in any case it should be added that in case of a refusal reasons must be provided. But such a paragraph should be also stated under 1.1, rather than under 1.3.
Comment
The two of us seem to agree, and apparently the others don't feel the need to chime in. That's OK.
I think we are getting ready for a proposal on both 1.1 and 1.3. Let me test it out here.
To 1.1 we would add at the end:
The right to grant an IUF World Record lies solely with the IUF.
World records may be granted, subject to discretion of the IUF, and fulfilment of the IUF World Record Guidelines. In case an IUF World Record is refused, the IUF will state its reason(s) for doing so.
As to 1.3,
(1) I would add to the first sentence "especially if you are planning a record attempt outside an IUF-sanctioned competition event".
(2) The reference to Section 2 may change completely once we have a Record Submission Form. But for now, I would leave it unchanged.
(3) The last sentence may be deleted, it is covered in the new text of 1.1.
Comment
Sounds good to me.
Comment
This is a get out of jail card for the IUF and is I believe essential. I can see the main reason for this is for records that were not submitted to the IUF before the attempt.
I think that "and fulfilment of the IUF World Record Guidelines" is superfluous and could tie the IUF down as it removes any flexibility. eg. the guidelines recommend that they need to notify before a record...
Comment
What is a get out of jail card... the inclusion of the word "retrospective"?
I don't think it should be required to submit (or announce) record attempts to the IUF before the attempt is made. In practice, this is often not done, especially when a record is set during a competition. But also for a non-competition record, it should not be required in my opinion.
Of course, it may happen that a record claim does not fulfill all requirements and has to be refused. The chances of this happening may increase if IUF only hears about it after the record attempt, so that they have no opportunity to advise on the measurement, witnesses etc. That's why I would recommend to contact the IUF beforehand in such cases, but not require it.
Comment
1. Sorry about the vague term. Get out of jail for free card is referring to a card in the game Monopoly and refers to a solution to unseen problems.
2. The example I gave I think is a valid example. It is not a requirement to contact the IUF before a record attempt, but is a recommendation (which I think is very valid and I am not suggesting we remove this). But... the rule as written says "and fulfilment of the IUF World Record Guidelines" This does not distinguish between recommended and mandatory guidelines.
3. For more clarity, it may be worth adding the word "mandatory requirements" to the phrase. So making it:
"and fulfilment of the mandatory requirements of the IUF World Record Guidelines"
Comment
I agree with Roger- we need some flexibility when approving a record. The onus is on the claimant to make sure they satisfy the IUF WR criteria to the satisfaction of the IUF WR committee. Although not mandatory, they should contact the committee prior to a record attempt to make sure the documentation and measurements will be sound.
The IUF WR committee has come under a lot of pressure from organisers and riders for not approving records set in competition, when the documentation was clearly inadequate.
Comment
(1) I know what get out of jail card means, I just wasn't sure what Roger referred to. He wrote "This" is a get of of jail card. My question was meant to ask: what is "this"?
(2) There is no phrase "fulfilment of the IUF World Record Guidelines" anymore, if the proposals get through.
There still is, under 1.1 "set in accordance with IUF World Record Guidelines".
If it helps to add "mandatory" here, I'll happily edit the proposal.
But personally, I don't think this is needed. It is a reference in the WRG, referring back to the WRG. So it refers back to the very same document that already makes this distinction between recommendations and requirements.
(3) Yes, riders attempting a record are recommended to contact us beforehand. But not if this is a record to be attempted in IUF-sanctioned competition. If riders contact us "too often", the disadvantage for us is that we have to check all the timing equipment, distance measurement procedure, officials etc, for every contact that is made. But it may not result in a record after all.
If we can prove that the documentation or anything else about a record attempt, is clearly inadequate, we should not feel pressurised by organisers or riders. It is their job to make sure that they have everything in order. Only when a record has been claimed, it is our job to make sure that all requirements are fulfilled. I wouldn't want the WR Committee to have the burden to make sure that many 'arbitrary' competition organisers have everything in order.
By the way, this subject under (3), i.e. recommending or requiring prior contact, is dealt with in Discussion #17 and Proposal #10, not in the current proposal.
Comment
I see it the same way as Klaas does: If a recommendation is made in the WRG, then it is not necessary to adhere to this recommendation in order for a record to be set in accordance with IUF World Record Guidelines. Because the WRG only say that it is recommended without pronouncing a requirement.
I don't like the idea of a "get out of jail for free card" - either a record meets all requirements, then it is recognized - or it does not meet them, then it is rejected. Even if it is only for formal reasons.
Of course, this requires careful consideration of the requirements, but then it ensures that we can always make completely transparent and comprehensible decisions and thus do not have to put ourselves under any pressure from organizers or riders.