Officials in time trial record attempt
Comments about this discussion:
Started
I'm opening this discussion because it seems to me that there's a problem with the new witness rules, and I didn't realize it until we were having concrete discussions about record attempts. Here are the rules we recently voted on:
2.2 Witnesses
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. For time trail records, equivalent positions must be taken by previously determined persons.
i Judge 1, in the case of a record according to section 3, 5 or 6 this must be the starter
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 time measurements, the confirmation must be made accordingly by both judges measuring the time
iii Referee
iv Competition director
2. It is permissible for one person to act in two of the functions according to paragraph 1. However, the two judges must always be two different persons. In total, at least three different persons must witness any record attempt.
3. Any witness cannot be the spouse or an immediate family member of the claimant, and cannot have monetary gain from the record attempt.
4. The following information must be submitted about every witness for complete confirmation.
i First and last name
ii Contact e-mail address
iii for the judges according to paragraph 1, the position of the judge must be indicated
iv Date and signature
This would mean a minimum of 3 different persons for 4 officials functions: starter, timekeeper, referee and competition director.
In a time trial record attemp, the competition director is always linked to the claimant, when it's not the claimant himself. This almost always means having 3 different officials for 3 functions: starter, timekeeper, referee.
I think it's important not to combine these roles for a collective competition, but for an attempt involving just 1 person, I don't see the problem in combining the 3 functions. I think it would be better for the referee to give the start himself than to leave this function to someone who would leave the premises after giving the start.
With the new rules, there's a risk that uninvolved people will be appointed to official roles to fill the gaps.
The roles of officials should be given to competent people for their role to be effective. You don't appoint officials to be witnesses. When you have 2 judges present to count the laps, it seems to me normal and good that they should also be starters and referees.
Comment
> With the new rules, there's a risk that uninvolved people will be appointed to official roles to fill the gaps.
I don't understand what you are trying to say? In a time trail attempt outside of an official competition, all persons are always “uninvolved” with the exception of the person making the attempt - they become involved persons because the person making the attempt assigns them to a certain position or a certain task. And I think it's extremely important that people are explicitly assigned to the tasks of starter, timekeeper, referee and competition director for time trails outside of official events. By explicitly assigning these positions to certain people, it is ensured that not simply anyone takes on a position, but someone who is explicitly tasked with it, which in my opinion also significantly increases the weight of his statement.
Comment
I agree that 1/ it's good to explicitly designate the roles of the officials in the same way as for collective competitions 2/ it's necessary to have several testimonies from different people for the homologation of a record regardless of the type of record.
I find paragraph 2 suitable for collective competitions, but for a record attempt outside an event I don't find it suitable.
What bothers me most is that there is no independent competition director in a time trial record attempt. And if a claimant appoints someone else, I wouldn't find that normal. And it forces you to have 3 different people for the 3 roles: starter, timekeeper, referee.
The starter doesn't really need to be present throughout the whole event to carry out his functions. It's better to have someone who is present for the whole event, even if it means taking on other responsibilities.
That's the whole problem with wanting testimonials from officials. An official doesn't necessarily have to be present during the event...
If we want to require a minimum of three officials, we could perhaps add the course measurer as an official. Even if he's not necessarily present during the event, but it's an official role. Unless we prefer to take testimony from someone who is present and not an official...
Comment
> And it forces you to have 3 different people for the 3 roles: starter, timekeeper, referee.
No, sentence two does not force you to do this - sentence two only stipulates that in the event that two judges are prescribed, these two judges must be different persons. This ensures that there are always at least two people actively observing the attempt. The starter can also be the referee, or the timekeeper can be the referee. If there are two timekeepers, one could also be the starter and the other the referee.
Sentence two goes on to say “In total, at least three different persons must witness any record attempt.” - which makes sense in my opinion. Only two witnesses for a record would be too few for me personally. But I don't think it should be an impossible task to find a third person to witness the record. In particular, sentence two does not stipulate that these three witnesses must necessarily be the officials named under 1!
> That's the whole problem with wanting testimonials from officials. An official doesn't necessarily have to be present during the event...
Of course not - I don't ask the starter if there has been any illegal drafting during the race, for example, I ask the referee for this. Nor do I ask the starter about correct timekeeping, I ask the timekeeper for this. That's why there are individual officials who are responsible for individual areas and ensure that everything has been done according to the rules in their area.
> It's better to have someone who is present for the whole event, even if it means taking on other responsibilities.
This is the reason why I have asked more than once in the discussions whether we want to prescribe further witnesses for time trails outside of official events or whether the statements of the starter, timekeeper and referee are really sufficient for us. In the discussions, however, no one spoke out in favor of requiring additional witnesses, which is why I have not included anything about additional witnesses in the proposals.
Comment
> If there are two timekeepers, one could also be the starter and the other the referee.
It doesn't seem clear to me. I read that judge 1 (=starter) and judge 2 (=timekeeper) must be 2 different people.
> In particular, sentence two does not stipulate that these three witnesses must necessarily be the officials named under 1!
There is nothing in the voted proposal that explicitly states that a witness may not be an official.
> This is the reason why I have asked more than once in the discussions whether we want to prescribe further witnesses for time trails outside of official events or whether the statements of the starter, timekeeper and referee are really sufficient for us. In the discussions, however, no one spoke out in favor of requiring additional witnesses, which is why I have not included anything about additional witnesses in the proposals.
That's why I replied that we couldn't expect time trial "officials" to be the same as for competition road races. I had written “officials” instead of “witnesses”, because I understood that the proposal was that only the testimony of officials has value.
Comment
> It doesn't seem clear to me. I read that judge 1 (=starter) and judge 2 (=timekeeper) must be 2 different people.
Okay, I think I see where the confusion is coming from. The intention behind the addition “However, the two judges must always be two different persons.” was actually to differentiate between technical disciplines that require a technical judge (such as coasting, high jump, long jump, IUF slalom, etc.) and the disciplines where these judges do not exist. In the disciplines with a technical judge, the two judges should of course not be the same person, otherwise the rulebook would not require that there be at least two judges at Unicon or international events.
For the other disciplines where the rulebook does not provide for this type of judge, other officials should confirm compliance with the rules for their area instead of the judges (in the technical disciplines there is no subdivision into different areas and each judge always observes the entire attempt). Since the Rulebook does not specify in which way the officials have to be different persons in the non-technical disciplines, I see no problem if the positions of starter and timekeeper are carried out by one person (or referee and timekeeper).
> There is nothing in the voted proposal that explicitly states that a witness may not be an official.
The new rule no longer provides for any mandatory statements other than those made by the officials or the people appointed to replace them.
> That's why I replied that we couldn't expect time trial "officials" to be the same as for competition road races. I had written “officials” instead of “witnesses”, because I understood that the proposal was that only the testimony of officials has value.
I still don't understand this point. The essence of the rule is that every position that exists in a official competition must also be explicitly assigned to a person who monitors compliance with the rules for the area assigned to them in an out-of-competition attempt.
It is clear to me that this also eliminates the previous additional witness statements, which is why I asked so often in the discussions whether we might not want to require additional witnesses in the case of time trails outside of official competitions.
Comment
separate to all the points above, I want to point this part out (see my vote comment).
"3. Any witness cannot be the spouse or an immediate family member of the claimant, and cannot have monetary gain from the record attempt"
This is a problem if the timekeeper is a witness, because we often pay sports timing companies to run chip and/or photo finish timing. We should just remove the 'monetary gain' requirement. No professional is going to work for free. Those who do will have a varying degree of ability and reliability.
Comment
> This is a problem if the timekeeper is a witness, because we often pay sports timing companies to run chip and/or photo finish timing. We should just remove the 'monetary gain' requirement. No professional is going to work for free. Those who do will have a varying degree of ability and reliability.
I can understand you thought and realize that the sentence isn't optimally worded: I've always understood the sentence in the rules to mean that none of the witnesses may have monetary gain from the record attempt being successful. If I pay a timekeeper to measure the time, they have no monetary gain from measuring a better or worse time for me. They are paid regardless of the result, which I think is perfectly fine. I wouldn't think it would be okay if they were only paid if the record attempt was successful, because that could compromise their independence.
Comment
"I've always understood the sentence in the rules to mean that none of the witnesses may have monetary gain from the record attempt being successful."
It doesn't say that at all. It just says 'monetary gain'. You would assume that anyone involved in the attempt, even if they are paid regardless of failure/success, would like to see a world record broken.
I'm not sure how far we can avoid conflicts of interest before making it too restrictive. Most officials in a sport like unicycling will be known to the participant, so it's hard to be completely free of bias.
Comment
> It doesn't say that at all. It just says 'monetary gain'.
You are absolutely right that the current wording does not reflect my interpretation of the rule. I just never questioned my interpretation because it seemed perfectly logical and self-evident to me that a professional timekeeper, for example, would be paid to time a record attempt.
> You would assume that anyone involved in the attempt, even if they are paid regardless of failure/success, would like to see a world record broken.
I would not assume that. If I pay a professional timekeeper to measure the time, then I assume that he does this completely objectively and that the outcome of the attempt has no influence on his performance.
But I would indeed see it as problematic if someone would only get money if the record was successful.
Comment
I wasn't questioning the integrity of a professional timekeeper or witnesses, just saying that it is almost impossible to have a completely neutral official, so we should avoid being too restrictive.
In a timekeeping role, bias is less an issue than a world record where there is a subjective component. Although none of these exist, when we wrote the 2011 guidelines, it was thought that we might add some world record categories in a discipline like freestyle.
Comment
> I wasn't questioning the integrity of a professional timekeeper or witnesses, just saying that it is almost impossible to have a completely neutral official, so we should avoid being too restrictive.
I agree, everyone who comes wants the record to be broken. Those who don't won't be there.
The independence (family or monetary gain) of the starter and timekeeper(s) doesn't seem important to me. On the other hand, I think it's more important for the referee. Even if we can't guarantee impartiality, I think it's a minimum requirement that the referee not be paid or a family member. And it would be positive if the referee were involved in unicycling (club, federation...) rather than being an illustrious unknown.
> Since the Rulebook does not specify in which way the officials have to be different persons in the non-technical disciplines, I see no problem if the positions of starter and timekeeper are carried out by one person (or referee and timekeeper).
Ok, but in paragraph 2 it says: “However, the two judges must always be two different persons.” So this sentence doesn't apply to records in sections 3, 5 and 6? As currently written, it doesn't seem clear to me.
> Sentence two goes on to say “In total, at least three different persons must witness any record attempt.” - which makes sense in my opinion. Only two witnesses for a record would be too few for me personally. But I don't think it should be an impossible task to find a third person to witness the record. In particular, sentence two does not stipulate that these three witnesses must necessarily be the officials named under 1!
If one timekeeper is the starter and the other timekeeper is the referee, what official function can a 3rd witness perform?
Comment
> I wasn't questioning the integrity of a professional timekeeper or witnesses, just saying that it is almost impossible to have a completely neutral official, so we should avoid being too restrictive.
I would agree with that - but you can still read the current rule in such a way that an official timekeeper must not have a monetary gain from the record attempt, which definitely doesn't work. So the question is whether we can adapt the wording here without giving up too much. I think a certain restriction is sensible and justified, and I would definitely keep the restriction that no direct family members should hold official positions. Of course, that doesn't mean that other people are always more neutral, but I just think it looks more professional if we at least exclude close family members as officials at this point.
> And it would be positive if the referee were involved in unicycling (club, federation...) rather than being an illustrious unknown.
I had raised the question in one of the discussions as to whether we wanted to retain the current requirement that at least one of the officials should be involved in a unicycle club or official position. Overall, however, there was practically no one in favor of demanding further requirements in this regard. I would have been open to this anyway.
> Ok, but in paragraph 2 it says: “However, the two judges must always be two different persons.” So this sentence doesn't apply to records in sections 3, 5 and 6?
That's what I had in mind for this sentence, as for sections 3, 5 and 6 there are not “judges” in the sense of the rulebook, but special officials. In fact, the sentence as it is currently worded is misleading, I have to admit.
Maybe "i Judge 1 or in the case of a record according to section 3, 5 or 6 the starter" would be better?
We could also make an addition to paragraph 2 to stress that. Maybe "However, when the Rulebook prescribes judges to observe an attempt, the two judges must always be two different persons."
> If one timekeeper is the starter and the other timekeeper is the referee, what official function can a 3rd witness perform?
As I already wrote, the third witness does not have to be one of the officials mentioned under 1, as long as they are covered otherwise. The sentence only says that a total of three different people must witness the record.
Comment
> I had raised the question in one of the discussions as to whether we wanted to retain the current requirement that at least one of the officials should be involved in a unicycle club or official position. Overall, however, there was practically no one in favor of demanding further requirements in this regard. I would have been open to this anyway.
I agree that it's too complicated to require officials to be involved in clubs and federations. Perhaps a recommendation would be sufficient, especially for the role of the referee, which is a key one. For example, if only one member of a federation is present as an official at a timed record attempt, we might be surprised if he doesn't take on the role of referee. Perhaps the minimum condition would be that the referee belongs to a club affiliated to a national federation recognized by the IUF. This may be too restrictive for some countries that don't have a national federation, but I think it's a good idea to move in this direction.
Comment
> I agree that it's too complicated to require officials to be involved in clubs and federations. Perhaps a recommendation would be sufficient, especially for the role of the referee, which is a key one.
Von meiner Seite aus können wir gerne eine solche Emfehlung einfügen. Wie wäre es mit einem zusätzlichen Absatz zwischen dem ersten und aktuell zweiten, der in die folgende Richtung geht:
"2. It is recommended that the referee belongs to a club that is affiliated with a national association recognized by the IUF."
Maybe we also want to add another sentence to this paragraph about the importance of the referees task:
"[...] In particular, the referee must ensure that the other judges or officials have understood their responsibilities and know the relevant rules of the IUF Rulebook."
> It's already better. Do you think we can incorporate this slight change without another vote?
I think that if we want to add a paragraph on the referee anyway, then it makes sense to have a joint vote on the adjustments.
> I think it's important not to take evidence from a race director, as the organization of the attempt is the direct responsibility of the competitor in 99% of cases. In any case, if a competitor submits a testimonial from a race director, I'd be suspicious.
So you would exclude a statement of the Competition diretor for Time Trails outside of official competitions? We could change the corresponding sentence in paragraph 1 to the following:
"[...] For time trail records, for i) to iii) equivalent positions must be taken by previously determined persons."
Comment
> 2. It is recommended that the referee belongs to a club that is affiliated with a national association recognized by the IUF."
Not all countries are organised the same. In the Netherlands, we hardly have unicycling clubs, and none of them are affiliated with our national organisation "Stichting Eenwieleren Nederland", or "SEN" for short. The clubs ( I think there are two, not counting youth circuses) have no formal link with SEN whatsoever. In addition, I don't think SEN is formally recognised by IUF, although there have been communications betwee IUF and SEN. So with the above proposed rule, we would have to recruit referees from abroad for any competitions or events where world records are possible - but this is not feasible.
Comment
> So with the above proposed rule, we would have to recruit referees from abroad for any competitions or events where world records are possible - but this is not feasible.
The proposed rule therefore only says “It is recommended [...]” and not “It is required [...]”. So if there are no clubs at all or no clubs affiliated with a national association recognized by the IUF its still possible to fullfill the rule without recruiting referees from abroad.
Comment
Thanks, I missed that.