Documentation of Records in Track Technical Disciplines
This discussion has an associated proposal. View Proposal Details here.Comments about this discussion:
Started
Comment
In order to have a complete overview of the documentation criteria, I have now created a proposal for each discipline with the discipline-specific criteria, which should supplement section 2 of the general documentation criteria.
Bei den vorgeschlagenen Dokumentationskriterien habe ich mich maßgeblich am IUF Rulebook orientiert. The proposed specifications for the length measurements correspond to the tollerance allowed by European Accuracy Class II (EU Directive 2014/32/EU) - there will be comparable guidelines for all countries, so that together with the required submission of which measuring equipment was used, compliance with the accuracy can be easily checked.
From my point of view, two major points remain open:
- Do we need to specify the resolution with which the length measurements must be submitted?
- Do we need to include a tolerance/accuracy for the time measurement?
Comment
- I don't think that this is necessary. If we require the measuring tape with the tolarance it is enough.
- 1/100 for techical track races and 1/1000 for the other ones is my suggestion.
Comment
- I agree with Mirjam, that measuring tape with the tolerance is enough.
- Maybe for IUF slalom, but for not for stillstand and slow balance.
It's important to consider, that the time measurement for stillstand is always done with stopwatches. Could you include this in the proposal?
At some competitions the time measurement for slow balance is also done with stopwatches. In my opinion, we should allow both for world records: electronic timing system and stopwatches as it is allowed for road races.
I am against the requirement of a video documentation for slow balance. That makes the whole process more complicated and judging the performance is not the task of the WR committee.
Comment
> It's important to consider, that the time measurement for stillstand is always done with stopwatches. Could you include this in the proposal?
That's absolutely right - there's nothing in the current proposal that would argue against it. But I agree that since the IUF Rulebook doesn't say anything about this and the road races explicitly mention that they may be measured with stopwatches, we should (for now) add something in this direction. In the long term, however, I think we should integrate this into the Rulebook so that we only have to refer to the Ruelbook in the WRG.
However, the stopwatches also lead to a problem if we want to prescribe a tolerance/accuracy for the timekeeping. Most manufacturers of stopwatches do not specify these values for their devices. Theoretically, such a specification would exclude a large number of stopwatches. So I think the question is, how decisive is the accuracy in these disciplines? The error caused by the hand stop should be in the region of 1/10 of a second, or slightly less for experienced judges. So if we require a measurement resolution of 1/100, then we might also assume that the measurement error of the measuring device will not be more than an order of magnitude higher than the resolution and will therefore probably be less than the measurement error caused by the hand stop anyway.
> I am against the requirement of a video documentation for slow balance. That makes the whole process more complicated and judging the performance is not the task of the WR committee.
The task of the WRC is to ensure that a performance complies with the rules. And wherever it is not really possible to check compliance with the rules without technical aids, additional evidence should be required. This is no different for the false start monitoring of track races. And as I have already written elsewhere, in the slow balance disciplines we are also in an area that cannot really be judged fairly and objectively without technical aids. For this reason, I think it is very well justified to use videos as technical aids here - yes, they should actually always be used consistently in order to enable a fair and objective competition. But then again, that would be a topic for the IUF Rulebook Committee.
Comment
I have been thinking about how we should deal with Hand Timing. In athletics, the following procedure applies, which I could also imagine for Slow Balance and Stillstand records - of course we would need to change "converted and recorded to the next longer 0.1 second" into "converted and recorded to the next shorter 0.1 second":
Three official Timekeepers must time any performances for record purposes. Unless the time is an exact 0.1 second, the time shall be converted and recorded to the next longer 0.1 second. If, after converting as indicated above, two of the three watches agree and the third disagrees, the time recorded by the two shall be the official time. If all three watches disagree, the middle time shall be official. If only two times are available and they disagree, the longer time shall be official.
Comment
Why three timekeepers?
As far as I know we have always had two, isn't that enough as we already have trouble finding enough volunteers?
Comment
As written, the text was taken from athletics in order to provide a basis for discussion. This does not mean that we have to copy the rules 1:1.
Comment
I agree that two stopwatches should be enough and I like the procedure to take the shorter time as the official result if the two stopwatches disagree after converting.
Comment
More comments to this?
Otherwise, I would suggest the following wording:
3.1 For Standstill and Slow Balance Forward or Slow Balance Backward, the time measurement must be carried out with a resolution of at least 1/100 of a second, unless the measurement system ensures that the times are always given to at least the next shorter 0.1 second.
If the times are stopped by hand, two official timekeepers must measure the time to record the performance and both times must be submitted. If, after converting as indicated above, the two watches disagree, the shorter time will be official.
We should also strive to include a corresponding rule on hand-stopped times in the Rulebook.
Comment
As there were no comments from the other committee members, I assume that everyone else agrees with the proposal?
Comment
Can you explain to me why you need proof of the venue for IUF Slalom? The plan for the course is clearly defined by the IUF rulebook (12x15m with the appropriate distance between the coles) so it is in my point of view irrelevant wether the 400m track complies to the IUF Rulebook. I can do a Slalom also on a normal tar.
Comment
The IUF Rulebook sets requirements for the venue - for IUF Slalom this will only concern the surface (when the revisions of the last Rulebook Committees have been incorporated into the Rulebook). In order for the records to be comparable, it must of course be ensured that the requirements for the surface (which will be in the IUF rulebook in the future) are met, and the first paragraph requires this proof.
Comment
Thanks for adding the sentence about hand stopped times.
> 5. For any Slow Balance Record a complete unedited video of the entire attemptt must be submittet, wherein the wheel must be recorded from the side as full-frame as possible.
This rule seems abstract. We have to consider that good judges are often crawling on the floor while they are judging. The judges need a lot of space beside of the wheel/board for this. So, a video recording that shows the wheel from the side full-frame during the whole attempt seems not realistic to me in the mentioned case.
@Mirjam: As far as I know, you have already experimented with video documentation in terms of the current female WR in slow forward. Could you please share this video with us by a link in this discussion?
For example, it would be very important to see from which perspective the video was recorded. Based on the video we could decide in which way a video documentation could make sense, from which perspective it should be recorded....and find an appropriate wording for the future rule.
In this way we can develop rules based on experience and in my opinion that is really necessary. We need rules which will be realistic to apply and not rules which make it impossible to break a record.
Furthermore, not all members of this committee are experienced in slow balance disciplines and therefore it would be very helpful to illustrate the proposed rule by a video.
Comment
This rule seems abstract. We have to consider that good judges are often crawling on the floor while they are judging. The judges need a lot of space beside of the wheel/board for this. So, a video recording that shows the wheel from the side full-frame during the whole attempt seems not realistic to me in the mentioned case.
I don't agree with that. I have rarely seen judges crawling on the floor and even if they do so, it is no problem to have another person walking along and filming.
The video from Julia is nowhere online as far as I know. I can send a screenshot to you via email, Ana, if you wish, so you can see the perspective of the filming. I can also imagine that the person who is filming is walking behind the judges, so they are not disturbed in any way.
Comment
I would like to briefly point out that we should not share any videos or photos that do not have the consent for publication of the material from all the people involved.
I can understand that the rule may seem a little abstract - but if I remember correctly, video recording has been experimented with at numerous competitions in the past. Weren't all the riders at the 2017 European Championships filmed from the side? I think there were also some competitions in Germany where this was done...
To illustrate the whole idea, I'd be happy to make a few “demo videos” of what such a recording could look like the next time I have a bit of time and come to the gym. The material could then be published without any hesitation.
Comment
When revising the Time Trail rules, I noticed two more things regarding hand timing that we do not currently include in the rules for the Track Technical Disciplines:
1. We mention in the last sentence of paragraph 3.1 "If, after converting as indicated above, [...]" but there is no explicit mention of what is meant by converting. I would therefore add the following sentence:
"Unless the time is an exact 0.1 second, the time will be converted to the next shorter 0.1 second."
2. Many stopwatches no longer output 1/100 seconds for long times. If it is known that the stopwatches output the next shorter 0.1 second in this case, this is not a problem and is taken into account by the current rule. In case this is not known, we should consider something in the rules. I would suggest adding the following sentence:
"If the measuring system only displays 0.1 seconds and it cannot be ensured that this is the next shorter 0.1 second, 0.1 seconds must be deducted from the displayed time."
Comment
Many stopwatches, when stopping to display 0.01 seconds for long times, don't switch to 0.1 seconds but to whole seconds.
Comment
Hm... the rule could of course be applied in analogy with whole seconds. The question is whether this really affects so many stopwatches and whether it really makes sense to use such a stopwatch for timekeeping in this case?
The rule for point 2 could also be formulated as follows:
"If the measuring system only displays 0.1 seconds and it cannot be ensured that this is the next shorter 0.1 second, 0.1 seconds must be deducted from the displayed time; in cases where only whole seconds are displayed, a whole second must be deducted."
What do the others think about it?
Comment
For one thing, should't it be the next longer 0.1 second? And add in stead of deduct?
Regardless, I don't see a reason to allow direct 0.1 second display reading if it "rounds" OK, but use a safety margin of a whole second in all cases where the stopwatch displays whole seconds. Why is that different from the 0.1 second case?
Comment
EDIT: oh wait, is this about the slow races only? Then my first comment is not applicable. It would apply however, to road races and time trials.
The second question still stands.
Comment
Correct, the rules here are only for the slow balance disciplines and stillstand - in all three disciplines the aim is to achieve the longest possible time, which is why a deduction is necessary. In the disciplines where the aim is to achieve the shortest possible time, it is of course the other way round, but these are not covered by the rule discussed here.
You are of course right that the deduction of a second would only have to happen if it is not ensured that the clock is not already displaying the next shorter second anyway. But I assume that we will not be able to check the direction in which the time is rounded on any watch that has this problem*. Therefore, in my opinion, the least complicated and simplest rule in this case would be to always deduct one second.
*High-quality stopwatches, which may even have a statement to this effect in the operating instructions, will still display 1/ 100 of a second even if the time is over an hour. And with inexpensive stopwatches, there is usually not even a statement about the accuracy of the measurement, let alone a statement about whether the displayed times are rounded up or down.
Comment
I know we are talking here about relatively short races, but something to consider is that we have the tolerance on the watch of 0.02% (2 seconds in 3 hours) - there are lots of sites that quote this figure as the best to expect and that a human stopwatch reaction time of 0.2 seconds (again appears to be often quoted).
Looking at numbers for a 120 second time could be:
between 119.976 and 120.024 for the stopwatch accuracy
and then between 119.6 and 120.4 for the human reaction times (start and stop)
So the worst case tolerance on our timing on 120 seconds could be between 119.576 and 120.424
Stop watches do not round mathematically, they show the time before the next digit. ie will be displaying a rounded down figure already. I feel round down to a second is a lot and if we need round down it should be to the 0.5 on a race of this length.
Comment
For Slow Balance races (10 m forward and backward), times are in the order of minutes. Any decent electronic stopwatch will display 1/100 seconds.
The only Balance discipline where some stopwatches may revert to displaying 0.1 or even 1 seconds, is for Stillstand where current WRs are over an hour. Rounding down to whole seconds would be appropriate, in my opinion.
Comment
> Stop watches do not round mathematically, they show the time before the next digit.
I would immediately agree that stopwatches do not usually round mathematically - but can we really be sure that they always show the next shorter time, i.e. always round down/truncate?
Timing devices for electronic timekeeping, e.g. in athletics, must be built in such a way that they always show the next longer time. Wouldn't it also be possible for stopwatches to display 35.68 seconds for a “true” time of e.g. 35.678 seconds? I haven't found any information on this from manufacturers in practically any instructions so far. With correspondingly “complex” systems (which I would no longer call stopwatches), the behaviour can usually be adjusted - but this systems can then also still display 1/ 100 of a second and have a significantly better tolerance than 0.02%. So that's nothig that need to be coverd by this rule extension.
> but something to consider is that we have the tolerance on the watch of 0.02% (2 seconds in 3 hours) - there are lots of sites that quote this figure as the best to expect
To be honest, I had expected stopwatches to be better - if these are the usual tolerances, then I ask myself whether we shouldn't go for an overall resolution of one second for stillstand. A precision of 1//10 of a second doesn't make much sense to me with such an imprecise time measurement.
Comment
What do all the other committee members think about the statement about the poor accuracy of stopwatches? Can we use them to set records to 1/10th of a second when we are talking about times as big as standstill? It would be really nice to hear the opinion of every committee member so that we can decide whether we need to change the proposed rule or whether everything can stay as it is.
Comment
In my opinion it would be better to round stillstand results down to a full second. The proposed rule in terms of converting can also be applied with full seconds.
If stopwatches are used, which display only full seconds (if the measured time is longer than 1 hour): I suggest to take the shorter time as the official result, if the 2 stoppwaches disagree.
Comment
Are there any other opinions on this?
Comment
I'm surprised at an accuracy rating of only 0.02%, for consumer-type electronic stopwatches. That's more than 17 seconds per day.
Run any stopwatch for days, and check it regularly against a reliable time, e.g. from the website time.is. Most likely you will find a much smaller deviation.
Comment
I would also have thought that stopwatches would have better accuracy. However, most stopwatches don't actually have any information on accuracy - whatever that means.
For world records, I don't really care whether we round down to whole seconds or 1/10th of a second - for times over an hour, a resolution of one second should be high enough. However, in my opinion, we would also have to ensure in the Rulebook Committee that results are generally not published with a higher accuracy, otherwise it will not be comprehensible why world records are “worse” than the performances of official result lists. At competitions, however, there are a lot of participants who only achieve significantly shorter times, for which stopwatches could certainly indicate 1/10 seconds with sufficient accuracy... So I'm not sure what we really want to recommend/implement in this case.
Comment
What do the others think about this topic?
I would like to finalize the official proposal so that all proposals for discipline-specific documentation criteria can be voted on at the same time after the review period has ended.
Comment
Please everyone give some feedback as to whether the proposal should be revised or whether everything should remain as currently proposed. I would really like to bring the proposals for discipline-specific documentation criteria to a vote as soon as possible and we should clarify the open points together beforehand.
Comment
This topic is the only one that is still “open” with regard to the discipline-specific documentation criteria - however, I have the feeling that nobody in this committee cares whether the time for Stillstand is rounded down to 1 second or 1/10 of a second. I would therefore tend to leave the rule as it is in the current proposal and hope that most stopwatches are more accurate than 0.02%.
Based on the lack of feedback here in the discussion, I assume that everyone here in the committee would also agree to the proposal in its current form and that we can vote on it soon.