It seems to me that what makes this a DQ is that he clearly rides over the pole outside of the point where it leaves the ground. There have been plenty of races where poles are leaned over on the inside of a turn and riders clearly jump over them with no complaints from anyone. But with tires on the ground riding over it seals the deal.
Looks pretty clear to me - He went off the track. He did not re-enter between the same poles that mark the course because his wheels (at least the back wheel) went off before the pole he hit. Should technically be a DQ.
Wasn't this brought up in one of the last turns at Lenzerheide a few years ago. Riders were hoping over a pole that was pulled over by the tape. I think it was determined that the tape was the line, not the pole?
Also, if it is up to the protest, who protested Tahnee in Leogang??? Atherton's???
I stopped and rewatched this part of Angel's run and I was certain he would be DQ for it, given how many racers have been DQ for similar instances in the past (Mannon Carpenter and Connor Fearon came to my mind.)
There is no question this a DQ. Multiple riders have previously been DQ'd for much less, and as always intent has no bearing on the ruling. I also find it interesting the protest period...no one protested, Rachel, Tahnee, Minaar when they went out of bounds, so it isnt a requirement either. I think the UCI officials just were taking a pee break during the run.
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.
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...
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
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.
You cannot have two limits on the track. For all intents and purposes, that pole could be anywhere, be run into the same way and, the tape still is a visible track limit.
Dumb as rocks, but is likely what is preventing any recon.
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...
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.
Lol going out the course is never intentional. Thats the point. UCI muppets!
Suarez to enduro next year. I hear its a certain french team. #teamrumours
Wait!?!? Sorry wrong thread
Ohh! Ouch!
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.
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.
Revisting this video really makes me miss Amaury.
https://youtu.be/JDiyOBVD4hw?t=1105
How different would this discussion (and Suarez's run) be if the poles were not "safe", ie were...
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.
I miss him too. Where did I miss the news that he had broken his back at worlds as Rob Warner said in the Maribor 1 replay? Im geo blocked here and no one managed to mention it in my world. And thank you. That is the exact corner/ course marker that I was talking about in my previous comment.
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...
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.
This run should be DQ, clearly went outside the tape and should have returned to were he exited.
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 find your point counter-intuitive. If the base of the pole is what matters, then why is the rest of the pole there? And why aren't they all set up perfectly vertical?
Also rewatching that Tahnee run, I don't think I realized at the time that she ran over the poles instead of leaving the poles.
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.
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...
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.
Agree - there was one last year with a strange and severe angle that guys were smashing and sort of jumping over. This is not exactly the same but close. No dsq.
As much as I would like to see him take a win, pole or no pole he clearly went outside the tape. Literally cut the tape and went outside, run should be dsq.
All past DQs aside I think we can all agree that if a pole is leaning that you can jump over the inside of it. Which would imply that the tip of the pole is the boundary. So if you can jump over it, why can't you ride over it? Jumping over it is even more questionable because it would require many camera angles to properly judge whether or not the wheels went beyond the tip of the pole in the most extreme case.
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.
I’d say that given my choice I’d have track limit rules per F1 - you can go outside of the track limits for safety or if you blow through a turn as long as you re-join with-out gaining an advantage (this could be determined using the micro-splits for the section), if you gain a time advantage by cutting the track, even by accident, lap/run time deleted and it’s a DNF/DQ.
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.
I haven't checked the results yet, was he actually DQed? He didn't just ride over the pole, which would make the call difficult, his back wheel went over it making him ride outside of the pole. BTW the call in this situation is made worse by the fact that there was a missing pole in that section and the tape was floppy.
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
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...
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.
Right. For example, in Leogang's stump section there's a very awkward corner with a pole placed at about 45* and lots of riders appeared (at least from the video) to be jumping it. No talk of DQ there. But again, maybe that's just camera angles
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...
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
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.
I think this is a reasonable way to look at it - and leaves little ambiguity.
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.
Heck yeah, Armchairracing at it's bet, here I come!
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!
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...
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.
It was the ending of one of the tracks last year. Every single rider was hopping over the bottom part of the pole, which was in the ground at basically a 45 degree angle.
Its sort of sad how much legal language I have had to look at in the last few years. This is intentionally meant to be a judgement call on the part of some group called the "commisaries panel" that ive never heard of.
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.
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?