Relationship and referencing between World Record Guidelines and IUF Rulebook
This discussion has an associated proposal. View Proposal Details here.Comments about this discussion:
Started
The WR Guidelines refer to the IUF Rulebook for some definitions and other rules. E.g. in 1.2 TERMINOLOGY, it is stated that definitions and other unicycling related terms are to be found in section 1.23 of the IUF Rulebook.
But the Rulebook is updated more often than the WR Guidelines, which creates discrepancies. This causes several issues:
1. The references are not guaranteed to work. E.g. there is no section 1.23 in the current IUF Rulebook (version 2017).
2. Sometimes, the references are not complete. E.g. for track racing records, 3.1.3 says that unicycles must comply with the definitions set in 2.2. of the IUF Rulebook. I guess these definitions are now found in 1D.1 Unicycle, Wheel Size Classes.
However, which of the unicycle classes is applicable? I guess it is 24 Class, but this is stated nowhere. It might also be 24+ Class, or even 29 Class.
3. Implicitly, the World Record Guidelines may change every time the IUF Rulebook changes. While this might be a good thing to keep everything aligned (e.g. if the allowable wheel size would change as has happened in the past), it causes "instability" in the World Records.
For these reasons, we might consider to drop all references to the IUF Rulebook, and make the WR Guidelines a stand-alone document.
Comment
I agree that the references, particularly in explicit form, are problematic. The current references are no longer correct and it may happen again and again in the future that the Rulebook changes and the references are therefore incorrect.
But I think making the WR Guidelines a stand-alone document ist also problematic:
1. The IUF Rulebook is the basis for how the disciplines have to be executed and evaluated, which criteria must be observed, how the competition facility looks like, and so on... So I think we will not be able to come around refering to the Rulebook. But maybe we can use implict references only (e.g. The World Record has to be conducted under and in compliance with the IUF Rulebook). Or - if possible, for very short parts of reference - we use the original text of the Rulebook.
2. Even if we could manage to put all relevant rules together in a stand-alone document, it could happen that the Rulebook is changed and the WR Guidelines then contradict the rulebook. I think in this case it only helps to check the WR Guidelines for consistency after each rulebook update and in case there are inconsistencies to discuss how the WR Guidelines can/must be adjusted.
Comment
The references can be improved if we don't use explicit section numbers, but rather say something like "Definitions and other unicycling related terms are explained in the latest IUF Rulebook".
Re your point 1: Now that I think about it harder, there should be MORE references to the Rulebook. This would include a general statement that (unless stated otherwise) all records have to comply with the rules for corresponding competitions as per the latest IUF Rulebook - I think this is currently missing.
This would apply to start position, what is a false start, what is a correct finish etc. There are a few exceptions (e.g. the maximum of 12 attempts in high and long jump would not apply) which we would need to state explicitly.
Re the last sentence in your point 2: the consistency might in part be automatic if we reference the Rulebook in a smart way.
I maintain that the reference to wheel sizes is incomplete. What would we do when someone claims a World Record on 100 m sprint, performed on a 29 Class wheel with short cranks? It seems to comply with all the rules in the WR Guidelines, including the current reference to the Rulebook.
Comment
I think we should add a part where it says that in general all records which are done should be done under the „conditions“ that are mentioned in the rulebook.
Like this we could avoid to make references with numbers and sections, but would still have the general connection to the rulebook.
Comment
We are getting near the point where a proposal for specific WRG text can be made.
A few questions:
The WRG state in 1.4 NUMBER OF ATTEMPTS:
"A world record can be attempted as many times as necessary."
Is it no problem to accept a best result from an "unlimited" number of record attempts, contrary to competitions where the number of attempts is limited? E.g. track race competiton usually allows one attempt, IUF slalom two attempts, high and long jump three attempts per height). I'm asking because in competition, you need to ride a bit conservative in order to avoid failure. If an unlimited number of attempts is allowed, you could take more risk than in competition and thus hit a better result in between "a lot of" failures.
Related to this, I remember that the current world record for 4 x 100m (which is now still on the "additional" list) was set immediately after the competition round in ECU 2017. I also remember that some people complained that this should not be a valid record, because it was set outside competition. In the current WRG, there is no basis for this complaint.
Do we accept records from training? (Provided of course, that the measurement is up to standard.) From the WRG it seems that we do - are we happy about that?
Do we accept records that were officially timed during competition, but in which the rider is later DQ'd for a reason that does not make his ride invalid in itself?
Again, from the WRG it seems that we do accept that.
Such a case may seem far-fetched, but we had this situation in our Dutch nationals a few years ago. A rider complained to have been hindered and was allowed to raced again. Later, after close inspection of video evidence, it was decided that the rider was not hindered in the first race, and the result of the second race did therefore not count for the competition. But in itself the second race went OK, it was officially timed and would have been a national record if it had been valid. We dismissed it as a national record because (in hindsight) it was not set during official competition.
Comment
Is it no problem to accept a best result from an "unlimited" number of record attempts?
There are several records apart from the 4x100 relay that were done right after the competition. We do that often in Slalom that right after the finals the winner in female and male gets two additional attempts to break the world record. For sure this is only done by riders who have the potential to break it (and I think it's in every riders discretion if he/she is capable). Both records in Slalom were done like this and I also know from long and high jump that attempts were already made after competitions).
I don't consider this as a problem and furthermore I don't think that one rider will try 5 times to break a record. If he/she doesn't after two attempts he/she will with the most likelihood also not do it in the other three attemps. I take again the example from IUF slalom. 99% of the slalom riders who have the potential to break the record do not have appropriate timing system themselves and they "take the chance" to ride under these conditions also right after a competition.
Another example: I attempted 24h record two years ago and broke it. I attempted it again this year but had to stop after 10hours because of my knee. I will attempt it again next year. There is no part that says that I'm not allowed to do that.
Do we accept records from training?
I don't like that idea at all and I also think we never had the situation before. I don't know any other sport who does this. Probably Usain Bolt runs much faster in training than he does in competitions. That's normal - you don't have pressure and don't ride conservative at all. I'm also much faster in training than at competitions in certain disciplines and I think you cannot compare training and competition athmospheres.
Do we accept records that were officially timed during competition, but in which the rider is later DQ'd for a reason that does not make his ride invalid in itself?
This sounds very complicated but I guess we shouldn't do that. DQ is DQ.
Comment
1. (Unlimited number of attempts)
OK, I would agree that an attempt immediately after competition is valid.
But I also questioned doing a lot of consecutive tries, like ten attempts on one day or so. This would only work for short disciplines anyway, like a sprint, slalom or jump. Our current guidelines allow it, but I tend to think that it is not OK.
If someone re-attempts to break a record (like the 24 hour record in your case) after a year, that is totally fine with me. Doesn't matter if it's their own or not.
2. (From training)
OK.
If others think the same, we should think of somehow excluding this in the rules.
3. (DQ'ed rider). This may need some more thought.
If someone is DQ'ed (as in my example) that has meaning for the competition. But not necessarily for a record attempt.
If someone is DQ'ed for a false start, or getting outside of a lane, or e.g. in highjump over a bar for not crossing the 3m line after the jump, then the record attempt in itself is not good. That of course should not count as a record.
But if the ride (or jump, whatever) is good in itself, what is the fundamental difference between my example, and someone riding/jumping immediately after a competition like in your slalom example, or Mike Taylor in his highjump on platform world record attempt in Ansan, also after competition? Why not allow my example, but allow the other two?
Comment
1/ Maybe we can solve the problem by defining the conditions under which a record attempt is valid. It seems reasonable to me that for a WR attempt there are no more trials than there are in a regular competition. In this respect the Slalom and 4x100m records are correct. For jumps 3 additional attempts should be allowed on WR hight/distance, but not more.
I do not like the idea to allow an unlimited number of consecutive trials.
For example 30m wheel walk. This is an all or nothing discipline where usually more or less only half of the starters are finishing. If you should give 10 consecutive trials to the top riders there is a good chance that the WR will no longer be in line with any result that is possible in normal competitions.
2/ Records from training. No option for me. We cannot expect officials to attend a training for a record attempt.
3/ To avoid creepy situations like in the Dutch nationals I propose that we should claim that a separate WR attempt should be announced as such. In Holland is was just a re-race that was overruled afterwards, so DQ and no possibility for record validation.
If we agree on all of this it should be implemented in the Rulebook, possibly as a separate chapter World Records.
Comment
(Number of attempts)
Sounds good to me. For a WR attempt(s) immediately after competition, you get the number of attempts as in regular competition. For jumps, that means 12 in total, and 3 per height/distance.
Note that (if I remember correctly) Mike Taylor in Ansan tried 148.5 cm after competition, as a specific WR attempt. He then went on to try 150 cm, and was given three new attempts (but no more) at that height by someone present as IUF representative. He failed all three and that was the end of his WR attempts on that occasion.
(Records from training)
I borrow from Eriks comment on the third point. If we require that any WR attempt is announced as such, we automatically exclude training results. Sounds good to me.
(DQ'ed rider)
I agree: such a situation is resolved (and does not count as a record) by requiring that any WR attempt must be announced beforehand.
I don't think we need any of this in the IUF (competition) Rulebook. It is sufficient if the WRG has these rules.
Comment
(Number of attempts, additional thought)
Allowing only the number of attempts as in regular competition, is in contradiction with 1.4 NUMBER OF ATTEMPTS, which explicitly allows an unlimited number of attempts. Does anyone of the experienced Committee members know why this was (is) allowed?
Even if a WR attempt does not immediately follow competition but is specifically set up as a (standalone) WR attempt, I think it would be good to allow only the number of attempts as in regular competition.
This raises the question however, how long one has to wait until doing a new WR attempt. If someone does that 5 minutes later and gets that number of attempts again, he effectively still has unlimited attempts. Must we decide for a minimum waiting time? Or am I overthinking this?
Comment
I agree with Eriks points.
If we get two more attempts for a slalom record right after the competition, normally all the equipment is teared down and there is no possibility of doing two more attempts five minutes later. You normally then wait until the next slalom competition.
For me it's fine that if the attempt itself is announced as a WR attempt also after a DQ that we should count it. I probably misunderstood that point before Klaas. But I see that there is not much difference between point 1 and 3.
Comment
1. (Number of attempts)
I like the idea of only allowing the number of tries that would be allowed in regular competition for additional WR attempts. Like Erik, I do not like the idea to allow an unlimited number of consecutive trials, as it is right now.
2. (Records from training)
I like the idea to require that any WR attempt outside a normal competition is announced as such.
In my opinion we do not necessarily have to exclude WR attempts in training. In my opinion, these attempts would only have to be announced far enough in advance and all other conditions would have to be fulfilled (number of attempts, required equipment, measurement of the track etc.).
3. (DQ'ed rider)
I think in Klaas example the additional race was meant as a regular race in competition. As a race permitted and executed according to the competition rules - in this case I would be against the duty of announcing a record attempt in advance.
I think it would actually be more logical to recognise a record set in such a race, even if the performance for the competition itself is subsequently declared invalid.
Comment
But I think this discussion leads us away from the actual topic and should possibly be dealt with in a separate topic (number of attempts for WR).
Comment
Jan, your last comment is true. In my post of (now) 6 days ago, I posed a few questions that had not very much to do with the original topic. I can't remember why I put those questions in this thread.
But it's not only about the number of attempts. There were three questions that in my opinion are related and don't need to be separated out, i.e.
* number of attempts
* records set during training
* DQ'ed rider in competition in which the race/jump/whatever in itself was done OK, and officially measured.
The common thing between these sub-subjects is something like
"Under what conditions can valid WR attempts be made?"
Would this be a good title for a new discussion in which we discuss them further?
Please comment.
Then I can create that and copy the relevant text there.
With that done, the original issue is ready for a proposal, I think.
Comment
I think your proposed title describes the issue quite well.
Regarding the original discussion I think we are pretty much in agreement and you can make a proposal.
Comment
I have made a proposal, based on this discussion.
However, in the discussion "Rename Jump Events and adding Long Jump on Platform", I wrote that with regards to disciplines there is no automatic link between the Rulebook and the WRG. All Rulebook items are "manually copied" to the WRG. I wonder if we can somehow delineate areas (chapters) in the Rulebook, such that all disciplines in these areas automatically have an associated WR, including the name from the Rulebook.
Upon further looking into this, I think that the relevant chapters from the IUF Rulebook are:
* Track: Racing
* Track: Other
* Road: Races
* Urban: Jumps
So I suggest that I will edit the proposal such that all disciplines regulated in the IUF Rulebook in the above chapters, are automatically acknowledged as valid world record categories, using the same discipline names as in the Rulebook. I tend to think that they should also be grouped under the same chapter titles. Note that this is not an exhaustive list of all possible world records. There must still be room for the current records that are not included in the above, such as time trials.
The advantage of my suggestion would be that this creates automatic and 'lasting' consistency between Rulebook, WRG and WR list.
A possible disadvantage is that World Record categories are prone to be discontinued if the Rulebook changes.
What do you think?
Comment
The proposal is technically ready to be voted upon, but I have a question relating to my own proposal text.
It says that the "latest" IUF Rulebook is applicable. What is the moment in time that we look at what the "latest" is? Should this refer to the date of the record attempt, or the date of the claim. I think it should be the date of the attempt. In other words: the attempt should comply with the IUF Rulebook that was valid at the time of the attempt.
This implies that if the Rulebook changes afterwards, this does not invalidate the record.
A possible issue with relying on the Rulebook in this way, is that it becomes difficult to see under what Rules a specific World Record has been set. You have to look at the date of the record, then search back in the archives of the Rulebook to find this information.
Thoughts?
Comment
I agree with that idea.
I also think that most of the attemps are claimed as a record quite quickly (mostly within 1 or 2 weeks) and the chance that the rulebook changes within that time is rather small.