UCI DH Rule Unclear - DSQ for Riding Over a Course-Marking Pole?

In ski they bend the poles all the time, hell, they even have specific gear in shinguards and handguards to punch them flat... I see no problem at all with Walker's photo.

Did he miss any poles? (as in passing by one riding to the outside of the tape) --- Not in my opinion

Also, that particular point of the track could have a higher pole, with tape on two diferent heights (think a "fence") to avoid this controversy


edit: 4th page... mission complete

This.

Taken down?

Interview on WynTV from Maribor #1.

If he really wanted that extra position he should have claimed it on the track by going faster, rather than trying to get others DQ'd (whether the rules say Angel should have been or not).

For some reason I thought this happened in Race 2... Never mind me then, clearly I don't know what I'm talking about, race 1 WynTV is up.

I'm torn on this and don't have an opinion on whether this was a definitive DQ or not.

If you disregard what's stated in the rulebook, and simply look at the action in question; If Angel had simply bunnyhopped at the moment he was running over the pole a lot of these pro-DQ arguments would be thrown out the window. He'd have done the same thing as many riders in Leogang last weekend.

OR... If he had ridden the same line just after the pole in question without running over it, but still come back in before the next one it raises even more questions.

Is the course defined by an imaginary line from each pole to the next, defined by the tape, or a mixture of both?

There are definitely conflicting stances.

When our rider (Tahnee) did this in Leogang Tony was contesting the DQ and I recall being in support of this. But, there definitely does not seem to be a clear definition of the course boundary.

This topic would make a great video for someone to film at the next WC pit, just sayin'. We've heard from the armchair racers, what about the real racers!

I don't understand why people think being in the air or on the ground makes a difference for going out of the course, nothing in the rules states or suggests this matters. Same with the people considering "advantage" gained or not. That is in the old rule and was too vague so they amended it to the current one which states you have to enter between the "markers" you exited between.

Current Rules -

UCI MTB General Rules Sections Rule 4.1.035:
"If a rider exits the course for any reason, he/she must return to the course between the
same two course markers where he/she exited.
In case a rider fails to return to the course as provided for in this article, the commissaires’
panel can disqualify the rider."

Rule 4.3.007 in the DH COURSE section reads :
"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."

These rules do not use precise enough language to provide transparency/consistency in rulings like Angel's, Bernard's, Tahnee's, etc. Greg's DSQ from Cairns was very obvious as per the rules because he went fully around a "marker" without making contact. Situations like his are why the old rule accounted for "advantage" because sometimes getting back between the markers is almost impossible.

Another applicable rule that applies due to the "course" definition in the above rules is 4.1.037:

"Anyone who is found to have altered the course has his/her accreditation removed or, in
case of a rider, is disqualified (DSQ)."

Yes, It's safe to interpret the course is defined as the space between the tape and "barriers," but "barrier" limits are not explicitly defined. Another issue is the "course," as defined, is variable (albeit, very slightly) with wind, hitting of the poles (wouldn't this be considered as "altering" the "course"? 4.1.037 says the rider should be DSQ for doing this), a spectator pulling a pole down for you mid run (4.1.037 would cover this as well with no penalty to the rider), etc. Too much vagueness brought on by undefined verbiage!

The next vague term is "exiting," is this the rider's elbow, head, center of mass, handlebar, front tire, back tire, both tires, etc. going around a marker? This is not detailed in the UCI MTB nor the UCI General rulebook. I think the UCI should amend rule 4.1.035 to explicitly define the limit of the "course" and what constitutes "exiting."

Reading rule 4.1.035, it seems riders are allowed to push, pull, or break the tape without any consequence as long as they return to the "course" between the same "course markers." It's probably safe to say they mean the "non-metallic.. stakes" as the "course markers," but if the course is "marked and protected with tape or barriers" wouldn't that mean the tape itself is considered a "course marker?" This would make it very difficult to define which two "markers" or "tapes" you "exited" between. And by bending a pole, the tape, a tree, wouldn't the rider be subject to DSQ under rule 4.1.037 for altering the "course" as defined in 4.3.007?

Other rules in the DH course section include details for min/max course lengths, start and finish area dimensions, when to use a second tape line as a buffer zone, etc. Just wish they used such precise numbers and wording in the rules that actually matter to racers who are searching for every advantage they can and require consistency in rulings that effect their careers. I do believe the precedent from past rulings on these exact versions of the rules can be used to clarify poor wording, but it seems like Angel's situation was inspected by the UCI and ruled in his favor, simply muddying the water for what constitutes "exiting" the course.

The UCI should amend quite a few of their MTB rules or at least enforce existing rules.

My least favorite unenforced DH rule (BRING BACK THE SKINSUIT!!!) is 4.3.011:
"All lycra-elastane based tight-fitting clothing is not permitted."

"All" to me clearly reads as any clothing worn, exposed or not, so I'm sure there are good number of DH winners who should have been DSQ for their briefs, under shorts, or undershirts. The point is that the rules should be more clearly written (maybe something is lost in translation to English, but I doubt it), especially when riders at the World Cup are competing for their livelihoods.

Yeah, DSQ for sure. Maybe a poorly placed pole, but an even more poorly placed bike. Why should other racers have less points?

Shit happens, definitely not worthy of a dq, you are going race pace and slip up on a line, it wasn’t intentional and you are bound to mess up at some point even if it is small or big

How in the hell this:

should be more a DQ than this (??) :

Can't believe this is still being debated... So let's throw another view into the void.

Rules are rules, but they shouldn't be applied in an algorithmic manner. Upon breach the incident should be reviewed by a human and then a decision made. In this case the call could go either way. (I personally would keep the result, but I would not be upset by a DQ).

Being overly strict on the rules leads to ridiculous incidents like T. Moseley getting disqualified from winning a round at the EWS, because she fell and lost the number plate on her back. Are you kidding me? This happened, a complete farce to this day. How does that have any relevance to fairplay or sportsmanship?

Part 4.1.035 of the rule book was changed for the 2019 release to actually mention course markers and that it can result in a DSQ. I recall 2018 had quite a few instances were this rule needed to be more clear: a) some commented that riders should merit a time penalty but not a DSQ (perhaps due to short unintentional adventures outside the course markers), b) it has to be defined how one actually exits a course and where a rider might be deemed to return fairly, as there were also notable incidents in 2018 where this needed to also be clear.


The version above is from the 01-01-2019 version of the UCI Cycling Regulations. The amendments are in red font.

I wonder if 4.1.035 will be amended again for 2021, in reference to Angel's incident. I hope a team manager or two brought this up to the PCP's attention (PCP: President of the Commissaires Panel), not necessarily as a protest, but to document a request that the rules may need to be amended further.

If unclear, just take pole with?

He was clearly out and made no effort to reenter properly. DSQ.

You guys can't read a rule book! ;-) Rule states "rider" not bike (Finn..... it's ambiguous for a reason. Because somewhere in the wide world there's a keyboard warrior who moonlights as a UCI commissaire ready to DSQ all who breath. :-)