to say "no advantage gained" is so subjective and shouldn't be part of the discussion. angel was 10th, dak norton 11th. their time diff was .11 seconds. if angel stayed on a line that kept him in the course (possibly meaning more direction change or hitting bigger bumps), he could have lost that .11 and may have given up a spot and points. his line almost looks straighter than it normally would have been.
Can someone post a screenshot of the rule? To add to the confusion, I must say I think that the rule about reentering between the same pole was written with other scenarios in mind. I think it was meant to prevent people crashing/riding offtrack (I mean like overshooting a turn) and just reentering wherever. This is a different case which might make the interpretation harder
He was never outside the pole, he was on the pole. Sure bending the pole over makes the track wider but going though the tape and back inside before the next pole also makes and is 100% ok. So to me as long as there is still pole between you no off track it’s should be ok.
I was honestly surprised this wasn't a DQ. I would argue it wasn't intentional or it is a weird track position but, if it was only 1/60 riders then a dq seems fair. he rode over the pole which means the front wheel exited before the pole and entered after the pole. I think the confusing thing is, does the bunting mark the rack or does the pole the bunting is attached to? if it is the pole then is it the top or the bottom of the pole?
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...
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.
Thanks. This is the first I've heard of Amaury. Perhaps the powers that be just assume that we all check Beige Bike as well. I never touch the stuff. I did see that Cathro video. (Through his YouTube channel, not the Bike.)
And back to the topic... The pole is clearly the boundary of the course. The tape is just a handy visual aid for the rider and to keep people off of the track. The rules talk about exiting and entering between the poles, not whether or not a rider breaks the tape.
It seems the only question is where the boundary is relative to the pole; tip or base? I say base.
to say "no advantage gained" is so subjective and shouldn't be part of the discussion. angel was 10th, dak norton 11th. their time diff was .11...
to say "no advantage gained" is so subjective and shouldn't be part of the discussion. angel was 10th, dak norton 11th. their time diff was .11 seconds. if angel stayed on a line that kept him in the course (possibly meaning more direction change or hitting bigger bumps), he could have lost that .11 and may have given up a spot and points. his line almost looks straighter than it normally would have been.
You can't guess time like that. So maybe he could have stayed on line and been .11 slower right there but gained .2 in the next corner. Or he got off line resulting in nearly going off course, and actually would have been a full second faster if he hadn't lost control. Who the hell knows.
I agree there's too many ways to interpret the markers of the course. However, because they frequently put poles in at an angle (presumably so that wheels have to stay inside the poles and handlebars inside the tape?), and don't get persnickety about lots of risers jumping poles when there's awkward placement, Angel's deviation strikes me as NBD, even when previously they've made a big deal over something stupid like Tahnee,Kerr, or GOAT. In fact, all the better if they don't do it now - maybe it's a sign they've learned from these previous questionable calls.
Hell this is a real mess. Each post I read I agree with, even if they have completely opposite opinions... This is so hard and vague to interpret the rule. Heck, I have even come to an absurd yet valid interpretation: He loses control before the pole and ride on the ground outside the boundaries = OUTSIDE. BUT, then he rides on the pole, more precisely on the right part of the pole that could be considered INSIDE the track=INSIDE AGAIN, and valid reentering as he technically reenters in the same segment of the course. Then he goes outside again by riding on the ground outside of the markers=OUTSIDE again, but he then reenters in the same segment so this is a valid reentering.
Thank you for your attention, I'll see myself out taking some paracetamol for my Headache.
P.S: I have seen Wyn's Interview of Bernard, and as I completely agree on the complexity of the situation I thought it was yet pretty annoying whining from him in the way he talks about it. And it's not the first time he whines in Wyn's interview (cf. Pietra Ligure where he was frustrated about riders shuttling in practice when it was clearly authorized by the rules of the event).
Well in Slalom, they ride around the pole, but knock it down with the legs and poles, shortening the distance traveled by a huge margin. From that point of view, as long as you're to the 'inside' of the pole (which Angel was), it should be kosher? Same if you jump over the point where the pole is in the ground, as long as the pole is tot he side and you literally jump over it (or move it out of the way by keeping inside of it).
The same situation resulting in a DQ sure makes things harder and requires a clarification of the rules going forward. Sadly, these situations mean different competitors get different results, but can mean the rules get cleared up and prevent issues in the future.
I use the feet or foot rule ( in this case tires). Most sports as long as your feet are touching inside the boundary line you are good to go. This means that your body parts can be outside that line but do not touch ground. In MTB the rule should read Tires (like feet) NEED to be inside line when on the ground. Send it all you want over poles but your tires need to land without going out of bounds. In this case his tires are outside the base of the pole which is or should be the definition of the track line. Boundary lines cant move - i. e. like the pole bending. They are set up so racers and spectators know where the course is. Paint on ground like other sports would be ideal but not real practical on course and impossible to maintain during practice/race.
And you can abandon the track anytime you want, there is no DQ for leaving it... The only rule is, you must re-enter between the same two poles that you left, wich Angel did obviously, because otherwise, he would have to break the tape again to enter.
It is the only way to make a rule like this enforceable. Looking if a wheel does touch the ground or is 7 cm above it is just not going to do.
Well, if the tape is the track and you can leave but come back between the same poles, then the poles are actually the checkpoints defining the track. So they in fact do matter.
As for going on the ground on the inside of the pole but being able to 'cut' through the air, when you ride over the pole you're technically not on the ground, are you? I mean the pole is something other than the ground, therefore...
Dual/4x was a bit different since it had short poles. I'm wondering what FIS would do if a skier somehow jumped and pulled the pole under him with his handheld pole to actually go 'over' the pole. The situation would be similar to this one then.
I’ll jump in to get to page 4. I’ve always interpreted it as you can’t touch the outside of the base of the poles. So like in the lenzerheide cathrovision I think riders could bunny hop fully inside the pole if they clear it. I think a “line” is drawn from one pole to the next and if you cross the line, you must cross back over before the next pole. I agree it sucks for angel, but I don’t see how they don’t dq him after so many other racers have had very similar things happen.
It’s simple and obvious. Should have been a DQ props to Bernard for speaking publicly what most of the other TM’s agreed on privately too (within official protest period too)
On the flip side of this great to see Angel riding so well and making such a good comeback.
It’s simple and obvious. Should have been a DQ props to Bernard for speaking publicly what most of the other TM’s agreed on privately too (within...
It’s simple and obvious. Should have been a DQ props to Bernard for speaking publicly what most of the other TM’s agreed on privately too (within official protest period too)
On the flip side of this great to see Angel riding so well and making such a good comeback.
so this was brought up within protest period but not determined DQ?
and yeah, angel is crushing. super consistent regardless of conditions
more grey area. photo by boris pulled from race slideshow about to go up. - edit: matt's bars hit the pole, bashing it down and making this photo look a lot more controversial than it was in reality. video replay shows.
Regardless of whether you think it was a DQ or not Im surprised there is also differing opinions as to whether Bernard was being a whiny baby in Wyn TV. Seemed like he had nothing to say about his own run, and instead complains about others. If all that is required for the UCI to investigate is a complaint, then file your complaint, go through the established channels, and dont just whine on youtube.
"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."
What has that got to do with anything? Half the people on the internet would vote for Angle if he raped his sister and shot the postman.
@sspomer and boris: great catch. Hahaa. So Sven and Wyn, what is it now?
Front wheel inside the pole, backhweel outside the pole. Tape is intact though, and arguably he is with both wheels in the air. I say NONDQ, because of my points mentioned above. Had he broken the tape though...
Complete UCI Rulebook here
https://www.uci.org/docs/default-source/rules-and-regulations/03022020-…
Cathro: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qu60MESM0g
Amaury: https://www.pinkbike.com/news/amaury-pierron-suffers-multiple-injuries-…
Don't know if Vital picked up on it?
It seems the only question is where the boundary is relative to the pole; tip or base? I say base.
I say tip and the rule is silent so here we are 3 pages in
I agree there's too many ways to interpret the markers of the course. However, because they frequently put poles in at an angle (presumably so that wheels have to stay inside the poles and handlebars inside the tape?), and don't get persnickety about lots of risers jumping poles when there's awkward placement, Angel's deviation strikes me as NBD, even when previously they've made a big deal over something stupid like Tahnee,Kerr, or GOAT. In fact, all the better if they don't do it now - maybe it's a sign they've learned from these previous questionable calls.
Thank you for your attention, I'll see myself out taking some paracetamol for my Headache.
P.S: I have seen Wyn's Interview of Bernard, and as I completely agree on the complexity of the situation I thought it was yet pretty annoying whining from him in the way he talks about it. And it's not the first time he whines in Wyn's interview (cf. Pietra Ligure where he was frustrated about riders shuttling in practice when it was clearly authorized by the rules of the event).
The same situation resulting in a DQ sure makes things harder and requires a clarification of the rules going forward. Sadly, these situations mean different competitors get different results, but can mean the rules get cleared up and prevent issues in the future.
And you can abandon the track anytime you want, there is no DQ for leaving it... The only rule is, you must re-enter between the same two poles that you left, wich Angel did obviously, because otherwise, he would have to break the tape again to enter.
It is the only way to make a rule like this enforceable. Looking if a wheel does touch the ground or is 7 cm above it is just not going to do.
Anyway, great racing. Thanks, Maribor!
As for going on the ground on the inside of the pole but being able to 'cut' through the air, when you ride over the pole you're technically not on the ground, are you? I mean the pole is something other than the ground, therefore...
Dual/4x was a bit different since it had short poles. I'm wondering what FIS would do if a skier somehow jumped and pulled the pole under him with his handheld pole to actually go 'over' the pole. The situation would be similar to this one then.
On the flip side of this great to see Angel riding so well and making such a good comeback.
and yeah, angel is crushing. super consistent regardless of conditions
What has that got to do with anything? Half the people on the internet would vote for Angle if he raped his sister and shot the postman.
Front wheel inside the pole, backhweel outside the pole. Tape is intact though, and arguably he is with both wheels in the air. I say NONDQ, because of my points mentioned above. Had he broken the tape though...
Why is there no UCI statement as of now?
Post a reply to: UCI DH Rule Unclear - DSQ for Riding Over a Course-Marking Pole?