Accessibility Widget: On | Off
2 of 4
Create New Tag
SylentK SylentK
10/16/2020 1:59 PM

All this talk about Poles and Dick Trees....I don't know about Maribor :D

| Quote
Big Bird Big Bird
10/16/2020 2:00 PM

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.

| Quote
10/16/2020 2:16 PM

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.

| Quote
Batts Batts
10/16/2020 2:34 PM

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???

| Quote
lucacometti lucacometti
10/16/2020 2:55 PM
sspomer wrote:

a rider's intention is ...more

This would probably be a dsq for most people in slalom, unless you were a certain french rider and bitched enough to get a rerun...

| Quote
taldfind taldfind
10/16/2020 2:56 PM

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.)

| Quote
Zuestman Zuestman
10/16/2020 3:17 PM

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 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.

| Quote
vmartinez vmartinez
10/16/2020 4:53 PM

Alpine Ski and Snowboard racing the would be a reason to be disqualified. He was outside the gate.

| Quote
Sesame Seed Sesame Seed
10/16/2020 5:03 PM
luckymixes wrote:

the track is the tape, not ...more

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.

We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the Internet, we know this is not true.

| Quote
Sven Martin Sven Martin
10/16/2020 5:08 PM
WynMasters wrote:

Definitely a DQ if the UCI ...more

Lol going out the course is never intentional. Thats the point. UCI muppets!

| Quote
grinch grinch
10/16/2020 7:17 PM

Suarez to enduro next year. I hear its a certain french team. #teamrumours
Wait!?!? Sorry wrong thread

| Quote
Cougar797 Cougar797
10/16/2020 7:51 PM
grinch wrote:

Suarez to enduro next ...more

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.

| Quote
fun house fun house
10/16/2020 8:02 PM

Revisting this video really makes me miss Amaury.


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.

| Quote
Big Bird Big Bird
10/16/2020 8:31 PM
fun house wrote:

Revisting this video ...more

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.

| Quote
MasterofStone MasterofStone
10/16/2020 8:47 PM
sspomer wrote:

do you guys not see his ...more

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.

| Quote
fun house fun house
10/16/2020 9:16 PM

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?

| Quote
fun house fun house
10/16/2020 9:19 PM

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.

| Quote
piggy piggy
10/16/2020 10:08 PM
fun house wrote:

I see where youre coming ...more

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.

| Quote
MasterofStone MasterofStone
10/16/2020 10:37 PM

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.

| Quote
AvidTrailRider AvidTrailRider
10/16/2020 10:51 PM
kleinblake wrote:

I think it’s fair to say ...more

No, he rode over a pole, so he exited at the end of one set and re-entered at the start of another

| Quote
stflood stflood
10/16/2020 11:15 PM

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.

| Quote
powermutant powermutant
10/16/2020 11:36 PM

Poor definition allows for interpretation.

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.

| Quote
Darth_Sloth Darth_Sloth
10/17/2020 12:29 AM

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.

| Quote
Zorglub911 Zorglub911
10/17/2020 1:09 AM

Reading the UCI rules.... they "Can" disqualify, so I understand that it's still their final decision to disqualify or not.

| Quote
10/17/2020 2:06 AM

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.

| Quote
gonza.s.m. gonza.s.m.
10/17/2020 4:15 AM
derekbnorakim wrote:


exact manner? really?

Angel lost time for sure
Tahnee probably 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.

| Quote
smelly smelly
10/17/2020 4:20 AM
fun house wrote:

I see where youre coming ...more

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

| Quote
Kolodzilla Kolodzilla
10/17/2020 4:32 AM
luckymixes wrote:

the track is the tape, not ...more

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.

| Quote
styriabeef styriabeef
10/17/2020 5:52 AM

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!

PS: very welcome, now plz give me my medal ;-)

| Quote
wilbersk wilbersk
10/17/2020 7:26 AM
fun house wrote:

I see where youre coming ...more

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.

| Quote
2 of 4

Post a Reply

Cool Wink Smile Tongue Laughing Shocked Sick Angry Blink Sad Unsure Kissing Woohoo Grinning Silly Pinch Sideways Whistling Evil Dizzy Blush Cheerful Huh Dry