Hello Vital MTB Visitor,
We’re conducting a survey and would appreciate your input. Your answers will help Vital and the MTB industry better understand what riders like you want. Survey results will be used to recognize top brands. Make your voice heard!
Five lucky people will be selected at random to win a Vital MTB t-shirt.
Thanks in advance,
The Vital MTB Crew
Also, if it is up to the protest, who protested Tahnee in Leogang??? Atherton's???
Only way that would not be a DQ is to jump the pole, and not have the tires touch the ground while straddling the pole. You jump the pole...all good, you didnt touch the ground outside. As previously stated bash the pole it bars all day long, but tires have to be inside the pole where the pole touches the ground and they cannot ride over said pole.
I guess if you took that image and argued that he rod around the pole and ended up in that situation then you could say no DQ... but only way to get in that situation in that location is to ride over the pole.
No question a DQ is warranted in my mind if the UCI ever wants to say they are consistent.
Dumb as rocks, but is likely what is preventing any recon.
Wait!?!? Sorry wrong thread
But seriously my guess is the UCI official missed this and none of the other riders are going to be butts and call him out. I’m willing to bet when anyone else has been DQd it’s not normally over another rider calling in the dispute but rather direct from a UCI marshall.
https://youtu.be/JDiyOBVD4hw?t=1105
How different would this discussion (and Suarez's run) be if the poles were not "safe", ie were rigid unyielding pieces of metal. Interesting that the safety component adds to the ambiguity.
As for the pole marking discussion (I am no expert) however, would say that the base of the pole is what marks the limit of the track otherwise what's the point of having a pole there.
I guess there really is a difference between wheels on/off the ground, as silly as that sounds. The still image in Cathro's video is pretty extreme example of this!
Would be awesome if in the next slide show we could get thoughts from a UCI worker, or even a WC guru like Whiteley.
Course: "The entire downhill course must be marked and protected with tape or barriers, using non-metallic, preferably PVC, stakes (slalom stakes) 1.5 to 2 meters high."
"Exit" is not defined so riding over a pole could be riding the course (as defined above). Other sports/disciplines rules or personal opinion shouldn't apply.
Also worth nothing DQ for exiting and not re-entering at the same section is at the discretion of the commissaires.
That said, if they have a rule they currently enforce then they should do that, consistency is what’s most important.
Also, I feel like this is being lost a bit; Angel obviously didn’t intend to break the tape and while that shouldn’t have a bearing on if this is a DQ or not I also don’t think he should be lambasted for basically just making a mistake.
Angel lost time for sure
Tahnee probably not...is needed to check it.
From my side is not a "same manner" in the moment of the result in term of time win or lost.
Personally I see the poles as being part of the track "walls" in combination with tape. Flexible walls. If its OK to bend the pole at all, with no clear or enforceable limit to angle, then should be OK to bend flat. If its OK to bend the pole with body and bike, including bars and pedals, it should be OK to use the tires (and there is precedent as already mentioned). Airborne or grounded should make no difference as that is too open to interpretation -- is floating a 1/2" off the ground airborne (and would it read as such in replay)?. So long as the body and bike stays 'inside' the physical pole - no matter what angle the pole is at, even 0 degrees - you are inside the track. Id argue this makes ruling simple and consistent, and the risk that a rider would be able to abuse this is slim to none.
After watching the video there are 4 things happening:
1. Angel rides over the pole with his frontwheel
2. His back wheel is kicked to the left and therefor the pole somehow exits under him on riders right while his back wheel is on the left of the poles point in the ground, touching the ground (not sure if before, at the same height or after the poles point in the ground)
3. He breaks the tape (not sure where, but it seems in the segment before that said pole)
4. He rides outside of the tape after the pole, but reenters before the next pole.
IMHO: 1 is ok if the tape is the track, 2 means he was outside the track no matter if the solely the tape or the poles point in the ground is the boundary but means he has to reenter the course where he left. Which is subject to intense videostudies if it was the segment before or after the pole. 3 would mean dq if segment before and 4 is covered by the rule if the segment is the deciding factor (what has been the case in the past) and not the exact same point where he left.
@Wyn: looking forward to Bernard's comment but neither his example, nor that of Tahnee is the rule. The rules are, and the interpretation of it by the uci, which should be consistent. I'm not sure, but I think the technical delegate has the last word.
Speaking of, there has been a switch in interpretation. Chris Balls Interpretation was "gaining of advantage or not". David Vasquez enforced the rule books "enter where you left". Not sure if the rules has ever changed.
So in the interest of everybody, please get an official statement by the uci!
PS: very welcome, now plz give me my medal ;-)
One key word- "can". The rule could be written as "...the commisaries' panel shall/must disqualify the rider. Instead it says "the commisaries' panel can disqualify the rider."
I havent read all the rules, nor will I, so ultimately taking this small screenshot takes this language out of context. The question is what is the commisaries' panel, how do they come to decisions, do they have statutory criteria to meet in deciding if they need to call a DQ or not.
For the record, I think if there was a reason vague language was included here, allowing for some exceptions to the rules, it was scenarios like this. A rider leaves the course, out of control and clearly to no advantage, and makes an attempt to re-enter as fast as possible. This is also nothing like running a wheel inside of the pole on a slalom gate, which is a clear shortening of the track 100% of the time.
Post a reply to: UCI DH Rule Unclear - DSQ for Riding Over a Course-Marking Pole?