Accessibility Widget: On | Off

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

Create New Tag

10/16/2020 11:39 AM
Edited Date/Time: 10/16/2020 2:05 PM

Photo
EDIT, 3:02pm mtn time: Originally this was posted for discussion as a cut-and-dry DSQ in my eyes. Turns out not everyone thinks so (half of you who replied), and the UCI rule is not specific about where "off course" is in relation to a course-marking pole. Also, FWIW, this mishap by Angel was not protested by any racer/team manager (that we know of), and the protest period passed with Angel's result standing. That's also the rule, so Angel gets the result. Cased closed.

Let's hope the UCI makes the off-course rules very clear from here on out!
--------------------------
ORIGINAL post - pulled from maribor race 1 webcast. as of now, angel has a result. his tires are outside of the pole, so should be DQ? claudio says "uh, well, i won't comment on that" as replay goes.

|

10/16/2020 11:47 AM
Edited Date/Time: 10/16/2020 11:49 AM

I think he should most certainly keep his result. Its obvious this wasn't intentional and its also pretty clear it cost him some time. So since it gave his run no advantage (quite the opposite actually) i'd say let him keep his result!

|

10/16/2020 11:59 AM

Narc!

|

10/16/2020 12:00 PM

a rider's intention is never a deciding factor. this would be a dq in a slalom run for sure.

|

10/16/2020 12:00 PM

Absolutely not

|

10/16/2020 12:07 PM

This is a clear cut DQ. You can't pick and chose when to apply rules and he clearly was on the left side of the tape.

|

10/16/2020 12:07 PM

here's rulebook screencap. tire outside of pole in ground = exit IMO
Photo

|

10/16/2020 12:08 PM

Yes, they DQ'ed the goat at Monte Saint Anne and Tahnee in Leogang for similar off's.

|

10/16/2020 12:11 PM

fwiw, there's a limited protest window. if nothing filed, then result stands regardless.

|

10/16/2020 12:12 PM

I think it’s fair to say that he exited and entered between the same poles

|

10/16/2020 12:16 PM

kleinblake wrote:

I think it’s fair to say that he exited and entered between the same poles

That's what I'm seeing as well. He never went to the left of a pole, exited and entered in the same gap even if he broke the tape

|

10/16/2020 12:24 PM
Edited Date/Time: 10/16/2020 12:26 PM

do you guys not see his tires to the left side of the pole in that screen grab? riders can smash through the pole with body and bars all they want, but tires can't break around the point of where the pole is in the ground. angel's do. if that pole was shin-high there wouldn't be a debate, would there? if this was between poles and he brought tires back inside, no issue either, but he's outside the pole, on the pole.

the other rule in play here is the protest time period, which is now over apparently. so that rule means that angel's result stands b/c it wasn't protested. case closed. so this is only fun, armchair racing. it's a really interesting discussion IMO, and i'm surprised at how differently the footage is interpreted.

|

10/16/2020 12:32 PM

https://www.redbull.com/pk-en/videos/tahnee-seagraves-run-leogang-uci-mountain-bike-world-cup-2018

1:12(in the video time) into Tahnee's 3rd place run at Leogang she goes off in the exact same manner, result=DQ

|

10/16/2020 12:32 PM

I see where youre coming from with that screenshot, but I think it still stands. To me it doesnt matter where the pole originates in the ground. If that were the case, they wouldn't specifically put poles in at extreme angles, rahter than always 90 degrees. Im struggling to remember one from last year near a jump that was also up for discussion.

|

10/16/2020 12:39 PM

I’ve always interpreted the rule to mean that the tires can’t pass the tip of the pole to its outside. That’s why it was legal for riders to clip the pole when hitting the stump gap last week. Given that interpretation, Angel shouldn’t be DQed. However, the pole was very close to snapping back to Angel’s inside before the back tire went over it!

|

10/16/2020 12:48 PM
Edited Date/Time: 10/16/2020 12:54 PM

sspomer wrote:

here's rulebook screencap. tire outside of pole in ground = exit IMO
Photo

Rules were meant to be broken wink


but in all seriousness I do think the rule could be a little less cut and dry. I think the rule could benefit from being updated. But yes judging by the rules, this is very close to (if not) a DQ

|

10/16/2020 12:50 PM

sspomer wrote:

do you guys not see his tires to the left side of the pole in that screen grab? riders can smash through the pole with body and bars all they want, but tires can't break around the point of where the pole is in the ground. angel's do. if that pole was shin-high there wouldn't be a debate, would there? if this was between poles and he brought tires back inside, no issue either, but he's outside the pole, on the pole.

the other rule in play here is the protest time period, which is now over apparently. so that rule means that angel's result stands b/c it wasn't protested. case closed. so this is only fun, armchair racing. it's a really interesting discussion IMO, and i'm surprised at how differently the footage is interpreted.

the screen grab is kind of misleading. In the grab, I'd personally say hes still "inside the pole" the pole already being leaned over so far makes it a hard call. Are we calling the point in the ground the barrier, or the pole itself the barrier? His rear tire almost makes it over as well. So you could say he went left of the pole because of that, but he's also down hill of he pole when his tire "goes out". Putting him between the pole he hits and the next one down, meaning he left and came in correctly. If the point in the ground is the barrier, then sure he went out above it. Had the pole been standing upright he would have clearly been outside and through the tape.

|

10/16/2020 12:56 PM

jefedelosjefes wrote:

This is a clear cut DQ. You can't pick and chose when to apply rules and he clearly was on the left side of the tape.

The UCI does.

|

10/16/2020 12:58 PM

Should we go back a few years and review Ratchel's incident where I believe she actually did end up winning?

|

10/16/2020 1:25 PM

Definitely a DQ if the UCI want to be consistent with their rulings, Bernard tried to argue this as he was DQ'd years ago for something similar, but the UCI Comm argues it wasn't intentional. Bernard gives his thoughts in my WynTV up later tonight.

|

10/16/2020 1:33 PM

In any other sport that has boundaries, (Football) out is out. It doesn't matter if it is intentional or not. I get that it is unfortunate to be dq'd for a fraction of a second out but the rules are what they are. Can you imagine people cutting poles like the one at Leogang that would give clear advantage. It has already been said but, you can't just pick and choose when to enforce rules. My hope is that this was simply missed by whoever has a say.

|

10/16/2020 1:33 PM

"he didn't go over the tip of the pole" is something i can sort of get behind. i still don't think it's the right call here. the pole is leaning, the tape is pulling the pole down and it there's an appearance of "riding over it" which could be more of a grey area, despite the tires being on the outside of the gate on the ground. that leogang stump triple had some vagueness with jumping "over" the point in the ground but not going around the pole. tires on ground vs airborne seems more obvious to me.

i always took the point in the ground as the course and tires have to go around. UCI rule is vague. slalom or 4x gates/poles are short, so it's obvious.

|

10/16/2020 1:34 PM

derekbnorakim wrote:

https://www.redbull.com/pk-en/videos/tahnee-seagraves-run-leogang-uci-mountain-bike-world-cup-2018

1:12(in the video time) into Tahnee's 3rd place run at Leogang she goes off in the exact same manner, result=DQ

She goes off in the same manner, but she goes around a pole or two instead of riding over one.

|

10/16/2020 1:39 PM

WynMasters wrote:

Definitely a DQ if the UCI want to be consistent with their rulings, Bernard tried to argue this as he was DQ'd years ago for something similar, but the UCI Comm argues it wasn't intentional. Bernard gives his thoughts in my WynTV up later tonight.

can't wait to hear!

|

10/16/2020 1:44 PM
Edited Date/Time: 10/16/2020 1:47 PM

photo sven shot at crankworx slalom w/ caption that says - Charre slips and goes down thinking she has thrown away her advantage and the win. But if you look close Mathilde gets sketchy and her back wheel ends up cutting inside of the pole, handing the win to Charre.

Photo

if the pole was tall, maybe mathilde would have "ridden over the pole" if the pole bent the right way - would that have been acceptable? i don't think so.

maybe UCI will make a more definitive rule soon.

re: "not intentional" - if rider intent is part of a DH ruling, there should be no rules. one person on course, one responsible for the outcome of their run.

"i didn't intend to crash. can i get another run, please?"
"i didn't intend to mess up that section, can i get another run, please?"

|

10/16/2020 1:46 PM

To me this is clear cut DQ.

Spomer, I second or two before your screen grab you can see the top of the pool bend under the rear wheel and come out on the right side of his bike (i.e. rear tire was completely outside the pole).

He also totally blows up the tape between the pole he hit and pole above it with the rear tire. That's OB. It's not like he hit the pole with his bars and the tape broke. It was the his rear wheel that's on the ground.

I agree with others saying I don't think there was an advantaged gained but tossing in that type of ambiguity into a situation just doesn't work for a DH racing. I don't want add more judgement to the outcomes that would arise from that because riders would push the limits of the "ref."

|

10/16/2020 1:49 PM

the track is the tape, not the poles. The pole's mission is to define the segments.

in my opinion, he leaves the course by breaking the tape after pole "A" and re-enters before pole "B". Since there is no poles skipped, he re-enters in the same segment, so I think there is no reason dor a DQ...

the sequence is: Over pole A, out of the track, back in the track, and over pole B

For the record, I think Tahnee's case in 2018 is the same thing, she sould not have been DQ. link here: https://www.redbull.com/int-en/videos/tahnee-seagraves-run-leogang-uci-mountain-bike-world-cup-2018

If you consider the course to be defined by only the points where the poles meet the ground, that would be cutting the track, but it would open Pandora's box about imaginary planes with the wheels in the air, and all that BS that causes so many problems in other sports like soccer, american football, etc.

if you can cut a segment of the track WITHOUT skipping any poles, and still gain time, that is just poor taping IMO, but this is not the case here in Maribor.

|

10/16/2020 1:50 PM

Sorry to double post here. But to add, I think the rule needs to be more clear. One thing I love about DH racing and watching it is there isn't this BS. Fastest Guy or Gal wins and there's no debate like with Rampage that is very frustrating.

|

10/16/2020 1:53 PM

|

10/16/2020 1:54 PM

League Game Smokey.

|