Documentation of Records - Part 2 - Witnesses
This discussion has an associated proposal. View Proposal Details here.Comments about this discussion:
Started
In the discussion so far, it has turned out that the current requirements with regard to witnesses are not really suitable for records that are set during competitions. This is mainly because the witnesses required currently are generally not suitable for actually confirming compliance with specific rules. Instead, officials and judges should confirm that a performance complies with the rules.
For all performances in competitions, the conformity with the rules should be confirmed by at least three different persons, a total of four officials or judges are required for a complete witnessing of the record attempt:
1. judge 1, in the case of track or road races this must be the starter
2. judge 2, in the case of track or road races this must be the timekeeper
3. referee
4. competition director
The referee is the head of all other judges, e.g. line judges for track races or marshals for road races. Each of the three persons confirms with their signature that the rules in their area of responsibility have been adhered to. The competition director serves as the head of the entire competition and in particular as the contact person for the general conditions (e.g. measuring the course).
From my point of view, one person can also hold two positions, e.g. judge and competition director or referee and competition director. However, the two judges must always be two different people. In total, at least three different people must witness the record attempt. I would require the following information from all witnesses:
1. first and last name
2. e-mail address
3. date and signature
4. for the judges, an additional specification of the position depending on the discipline, so that the WRC knows who was responsible for what in the case of possible questions.
Time Trails do not (yet) have their own detailed section in the Rulebook. However, I think the witnesses can be transferred analogously for now. However, we may have to ask for more witnesses for this category, as the time trails are usually individual attempts and not part of a large competition.
I could therefore imagine adding specific requirements for further witnesses in addition to the general requirements. This could then be done in the corresponding sub-chapter for the Time Trails.
Comment
As there have been no comments here so far, I have drawn up a concrete proposal. Two questions came up in the process:
1. Should one of the witnesses also be an IUF-nominated representative or a representative of a national or regional unicycling federation in the future? This could strengthen the credibility of the witnesses if we know that someone nominated by the IUF or a representative of a unicycle federation was present.
2. Do we want to ask for more witnesses for Time Trials, as the time trails are usually individual attempts and not part of an official event? We coud add specific requirements for further witnesses in addition to the general requirements. This could then be done in the corresponding sub-chapter for the Time Trails. But if we want do do so, I would add a short note on this special detail also in this section.
Comment
In my opinion it would be a good idea but on the other hand I think it is not always possible to make sure that a representative is there. What if a record happens just surprisingly, for example in 100m? Maybe the representative was on site but didn't watch the heat and that would mean the record would not be acknowledged.
Comment
I understand your concerns, but at the same time we want to make sure that world records are really in accordance with the rules and the smaller the event, the greater the risk that not all rules are followed 100%. The question I ask myself is, how likely is it that the event director or the referee is an IUF-nominated representative or a representative of a national or regional unicycling federation anyway and how many events would actually have a problem meeting this requirement?
In Germany, such a rule would certainly not be a restriction, as either the event director or the referee are practically always representatives of the national or a regional unicycling federation. I could also imagine that the referee would alternatively have to have completed a referee training course run by a national unicycling federation - although there probably won't be much in this respect so far. But this would create further alternatives.
Comment
In which chapter the records of the category "Track: Other Records" will be listed?
If this category will be listed in chapter 3, we should consider that these disciplines don't have the judging positions "starter" and "timekeeper".
So in my opinion we should write:
1. judge 1, in the case of standard track or road races this must be the starter
2. judge 2, in the case of standard track or road races this must be the timekeeper
instead of:
1. judge 1, in the case of a record according to section 3, 5 or 6 this must be the starter
2. judge 2, in the case of a record according to section 3, 5 or 6 this must be the timekeeper
Comment
The records in the category “Track: Other records” will be listed in a separate chapter (probably 4, which means that Road, Time Trails and Jumps will each be moved back one chapter).
Comment
I am against that an IUF-nominated representative or a representative of a national or regional unicycling federation should be required as a witness.
Just the fact, that someone is a representative does not automatically mean that this person is a better judge for all disciplines. This point we have already discussed in discussion "Adherence to Documentation Criteria".
To decide if a judge is experienced enough, is the job of the director. The director is experienced in his disciplines, regardless if he is a representative or not. Therefore, I am also against the requirement of a referee training course.
I agree with Mirjam that records can happen surprisingly. And in my opinion that is the normal case. A rider wants to take part in the competition, he wants to achieve a good result and maybe he breaks a record, maybe not. Unicycling competitions are not comparable with Guiness world record attempts, that are organized only to break a record.
The general problem I see ist that riders will loose their interest and motivation in claiming a record because the documentation and organization process gets more and more complicated.
For sure, I understand Jans idea, that records should not be acknowledged if they don't follow the rules.
But on the other hand we should also avoid that records that follow the rules were not acknowledged. (for example, because they are unclaimed)
To me it seems important to stay realistic and find the balance between these two opposites.
Comment
> Just the fact, that someone is a representative does not automatically mean that this person is a better judge for all disciplines. This point we have already discussed in discussion "Adherence to Documentation Criteria".
We mainly discussed the current requirements, which state “two independent representatives from your national or regional unicycling, bicycling or athletics organization” - without specifying in which position they must be on site. Especially in the case of representatives of a bicycling or athletics organization, it is of course doubtful how good the knowledge of the rules and thus the validity of a corresponding witness statement is.
However, I think it is different if an IUF-nominated representative or a representative of a national or regional unicycling federation is present as a judge, referee or event director. In this case, I would consider the witness testimony to be a bit more credible than that of a not official representative.
However, if the majority is of the opinion that this requirement is not necessary, we can leave it out - it is not included in the current proposal anyway.
> The general problem I see ist that riders will loose their interest and motivation in claiming a record because the documentation and organization process gets more and more complicated.
This is of course a problem that we can certainly address with a form that asks for the essential things in an organized way - but overall I see the proposed new rules for witnesses as ways easier to fulfill than the current rules, even if we would include the requirement that one of the witnesses must be an IUF-nominated representative or a representative of a national or regional unicycling federation.
Remember that right now you 5 independent witnesses and one IUF-nominated representative or two representatives of a national or regional federation are neccessary (apart from the option of local media, which is unlikely to be fulfilled at unicycling competitions unless they are explicitly invited for a record attempt).
Comment
I agree with the proposal.
The only point of vigilance that I see is to ensure that the organizers of the competitions define the roles according to the IUF rulebook (I think about the section 3D.2 for road races). Today, for road races, I have the impression that there are rather competition directors, and sometimes one of them is also the starter.
I agree that we must remain vigilant not to make the procedures impossible, but I think that unclaimed records are another subject.
Comment
> The only point of vigilance that I see is to ensure that the organizers of the competitions define the roles according to the IUF rulebook
I would completely agree with this - the question is whether we could improve the wording of the rule to strengthen the connection between the persons/positions mentioned and the definitions in the Rulebook.
For example, we could add “[...] appointed in accordance with the IUF Rulebook. [...]” - in total:
1. For all performances achieved in an official competition, compliance with the IUF Rulebook must be confirmed by the following judges and officials appointed in accordance with the IUF Rulebook.
Comment
A witness is not there to be a judge or expert in the competition. They are there to make sure the event took place.
The 2011 IUF WR guidelines were based on Guinness guidelines. They want to know that something happened, and that someone didn't just make it up. For records set in competition, you can assume there are plenty of witnesses.
That is different from making sure the record is valid- for that we need documentation via video/photos, measuring equipment, judges to ensure adherence to rules. If the competition follows the IUF rulebook, it is implied that there will be judges and a certain standard of measurement.
Comment
Thanks for your feedback Ken - but I don't quite understand what this means for the concrete proposal... In your opinion, is the title of the section “2. Witnesses” inappropriate and should be chosen differently?
Basically, the point is that the current WRGs are designed more to testify that something has taken place and not to prove that a record is actually valid. The discussion has already been held at great length elsewhere and I think the general consensus was that we should amend the WRG so that the evidence that the WRC receives really does provide proof of the validity of a record.
> If the competition follows the IUF rulebook, it is implied that there will be judges and a certain standard of measurement.
Nevertheless, for the documentation of a world record and the actual proof, some kind of evidence must be provided that the competition was actually carried out in accordance with the IUF Rulebook. And that is exactly what we are trying to establish documentation criteria for.
Comment
In Section 2.1, all you need to add is: 'witness statements are not required for records set in competition'. Of course, then you have to decide what counts as competition. Is a local club event with 10 people a competition?
All of Section 2 was designed to make sure a record is valid (witnesses/measurement/photos), but they were mainly for time-trial records outside of competition. You could add Section 2.4 'judges' and define them according to what is required in the IUF rulebook.
Comment
But since Time Trials are the only records that can still be set up outside of official competitions, I think it makes much more sense to handle the whole thing as proposed - there is a section describing which judges and officials have to confirm compliance with the rules and only for the Time Trails we add further documentation criteria in the corresponding section if necessary. Whether we call the section witnesses or judges doesn't really matter to me, but for me judges are also witnesses of a record attempt, which is why I personally find the section name suitable.
Regarding additional witnesses for Time Trials that's why I raised the following as an open question above:
> Do we want to ask for more witnesses for Time Trials, as the time trails are usually individual attempts and not part of an official event? We coud add specific requirements for further witnesses in addition to the general requirements. This could then be done in the corresponding sub-chapter for the Time Trails. But if we want do do so, I would add a short note on this special detail also in this section.
Comment
Regarding the open questions from the beginning:
1. I think the majority is of the opinion that none of the witnesses/judges/officialls must be an IUF-nominated representative or a representative of a national or regional unicycling federation. So I think in this regard there is no update of the proposed rule necessary.
But I would add to paragraph 1 "[...] appointed in accordance with the IUF Rulebook."
2. The question is still open - what do you think about that?
And then Ken raised the question, if we need to change the title of the section. For me, the title is still appropriate, because I would see the judges and officials of a competition as witnesses.
Comment
I'd like to quote question 2 because it's much higher up in the discussion:
> 2. Do we want to ask for more witnesses for Time Trials, as the time trails are usually individual attempts and not part of an official event? We coud add specific requirements for further witnesses in addition to the general requirements. This could then be done in the corresponding sub-chapter for the Time Trails. But if we want do do so, I would add a short note on this special detail also in this section.
I think that for a record not made during a competition, we shouldn't expect the same “officials” as for competitions. It would be simpler to assume that only (and all) time trials are performed in an out-of-competition event. And the day there are time trials in competition, it won't be too late to revisit WRG.
As for the name of the section, I don't mind keeping “Witnesses”.
Comment
Yes, time trails will most likely only take place outside of official competition events. That's why the current rules also state “For time trail records, equivalent positions must be taken by previously determined persons.”
The wording is a bit vague, but it is definitely the case that someone has to supervise the start of a time trail attempt outside of a competition and someone has to take the time. These would be equivalent positions to the starter and timekeeper of an official competition. There will also be someone who is responsible for ensuring that the rules are adhered to; for me, this person would be equivalent to a referee.
Therefore, the question for me was whether three people are sufficient - which would be covered by the current proposal - or whether additional witnesses should be required for Time Trails, which we should then mention accordingly in the general section and explain in detail in the Time Trail-specific rules.
Comment
As no further witnesses were requested in the discussion about the discipline-specific documentation criteria, I think this section would fit. The only thing that is not 100% covered by this is the fact that two timekeepers are always required for hand timing. Here it would make sense to require confirmation from both, or what do you think?
Comment
It would be nice if everyone could give a short feedback - even if it's just “I don't see any need for changes” or “Should be considered”.
Comment
Yes, confirmation from all timekeepers, in my opinion. Otherwise, who would be "the" timekeeper?
Comment
You are right, otherwise it would indeed be ambiguous and it does not make much sense to require two timekeepers and then only get confirmation from one.
I would suggest extending point ii as follows:
ii Judge 2, in the case of a record according to section 3, 5 or 6 this must be the timekeeper - for all hand-stopped performances where two timekeepers are required, the confirmation must be made by both timekeepers accordingly
Comment
I can imagine that also with electronic timing, more than one person could be operating the system, and all of them could be considered timekeepers. So I'd suggest to not make an exception just for hand-stopped timing, but that all timekeepers (be it one or several) should confirm.
If you don't follow this, I would change "performances" to "time measurements".
Comment
In the rulebook, the position of timekeeper is now defined as an official position and the organizer must appoint an official timekeeper for track or road races - there may be people who support this official timekeeper, but timekeeper is an official position, so this person can sign.
Comment
> If you don't follow this, I would change "performances" to "time measurements".
You mean "performances" in paragraph 1.? (1. For all performances achieved in an official competition, compliance with the IUF Rulebook must be confirmed by the following judges and officials appointed in accordance with the IUF Rulebook. [...])
Here "performances" is choosen instead of "time measurements" because the rule also applies to Coasting, High Jump and Long Jump - here no time measurement is taken.
Comment
> You mean "performances" in paragraph 1.? (1. For all performances achieved in an official competition...
No, I responded to what was your latest comment at that time, in which the word "performances" occurred only once. You suggested:
ii Judge 2, in the case of a record according to section 3, 5 or 6 this must be the timekeeper - for all hand-stopped performances where two timekeepers are required, the confirmation must be made by both timekeepers accordingly
So I would not write "for all hand-stopped performances" but "for all hand-stopped time measurements". The reason for this is that I see the "performance" as the achievement of the rider, such as how fast or slow they can ride. In that sense, it is not the performance that is hand-stopped. Rather it is the time measurement that is hand-stopped.
Comment
Okay, I see - that makes sense
Comment
I have adjusted the wording of the proposal once again - are there any further comments or is the proposal suitable for everyone?
Comment
Since there were no further comments here, I would put the proposals to a vote soon and hope that all members of the committee will also take part in the vote.