Making trials tiebreakers more interesting for the audience

This discussion has an associated proposal. View Proposal Details here.

Comments about this discussion:

Started 18 Sep 03:27

I have spoken to a few people at Unicon about this. The reason being the tiebreaker between Mark and Erik.

How do you guys feel about the lenght and duration of trial tiebreakers? especially those for podiums.

For me, there's a huge buildup of energy and excitement (for the audience) in the finals itself with lines being finished after time ran out and all, but a possible tiebreaker for podium or even 1st place is done within a minute. This takes away so much of the energy in the, what should be, THE most exciting part of the competition, deciding who gets first.

Like allowing not 1, but 2/3/5 tries per rider. (That's similar to the speedtrial discussion where the competition can be over instantly if one of the riders makes an easy mistake)

(In lower tiebreakers for everything outside finals I feel like the current system works well and is faster for decision making.)

Comment 18 Sep 07:26

I understand when it's more fun that competitions are fun to watch and stuff, but we have to remember that they are competitions, not shows.

I think the tie-breaker for trials was probably one of the most tense and exciting moment of Unicon. Nobody was even cheering because it was so intense.

A tie-breaker is meant to decide between two riders, which one is the best. It's not a second round of competition, it's the ultimate showdown.

I like the 1 try in trials for tie-breaking because you need to be a good rider in everything, consistency, jumps, rail riding, etc. in ONE moment, the final decisive moment, because when there was more time and more tries, the competition couldn't make a clear winner. There's no point in having another competition to decide the winner, that's why there's tie-breaker. Like in high jump, it's not 12 tries again and then we see who gets higher. The first one that gets higher wins.

Comment 26 Sep 23:54

Despite these being competitions and not shows, sports often survive on how good they are for spectators so I don't think we should automatically disregard rule changes that make the sport more exciting to watch.

I do think the tiebreaker was missing something at unicon, but that being said I don't know if more tries was necessarily it. I would have liked to see both riders get further into the line to really make you wonder who would win but with the skinny rail being first up it made it tough. Not sure how to fix that though so I guess I have nothing useful to really add.

Comment 28 Sep 05:50

Emile, i still find the current system of tiebreaking for higher places/podium unfair.

First, because you can always mess up one try because of minor reasons, so having 2 or 3 attempts would level the playing field just a bit more / and make it more interesting.

Secondly, having only one line is much more likely to favor one rider over another by having the obstacles in a certain order. i.e. one rider might have an advantage on rails, the other one on higher jumps. If the rail is the first obstacle, that's a clear disadvantage for one rider that he could have compensated for in the competition itself. Having at least a few tries makes it just that bit more leveled for both.

I am not suggesting a whole competition for tie breakers, I am just for giving the riders a few tries instead of only one. To make it fairer and to make it more interesting and even more tense for the audience.

That being said, we have both Mark and Erik in here and neither seems to have a problem with the current system, so while I am convinced this would make it better, I will interpret that as: the riders are happy with how it is. So I will shut up ;-)

Comment 29 Sep 06:59

I would not say I love it - but not because I think it is bad, but because I have done it a couple times and it is a crazy amount of pressure :)

I am not sure if it would be better with multiple tries though. At EUC 15 Summer when Levente and I tied in finals for 1st place, we decided together that we would try the tie breaker line until one of us finishes the line. We ended up trying it for nearly half hour without any of us getting close to the end. Then we just agreed to have 3 finals tries each and whoever gets the furthest, wins. In my opinion that was not too ideal as spectators seemed to lose interest on the way and it was just silly to spend nearly as much time on the tie breaker as the whole finals itself.

What is really important is what have been pointed already: that the order of the obstacles and the obstacles in general doesn't really favour one rider. This is something hard to set, but as long as the line doesn't start with something that is one rider's speciality and the other ones weakness it is good - and I have never seen or done a tie breaker line that really preferred one rider against the other.

Comment 02 Oct 23:32

I also do not like the tiebreaker system.

It is huge pressure/ stress for riders for comps.

It makes comps run longer and that delays the next comp

It is stressful as the organizer to make something hard, not too hard... Not too easy... Equal and fair to rider styles. I had a hard time in Korea. I can't imagine what the riders went through lol. Good job Mark and Erik!

It gives the audience extremes: crazy spectacle or anticlimax.

And I think it's also not the best at doing what it is supposed to do: quantifying skill to distinguish podium finishes. A sample size of one is statistically nearly insignificant.

My proposition:

If the pedal grab rules are implemented (even for just finals), points will be much less likely to be even. This should help solve a lot of ties.

If the points are equal, then the rider who had the highest prelims score automatically wins. This makes prelims more important. A rider who does better in the prelims is a better gauge of their skill than getting lucky and going slightly further in a tiebreaker.

If both above does not work, (same prelims score, same finals score,) then keep this tiebreaker as a backup - although I wish unicon would allow podium ties like the Olympics.

Comment 02 Oct 23:42

I dont like one single attempt for tiebreaker. I think it doesnt necessarily provide an accurate result of best rider and I think the order of obstacles is more likely to affect the result with a single try.

I agree with all of Dan's comments above. I think the pedal grab rules reducing chances of a complete tie is a good point.

Comment 03 Oct 04:04

I support Dan's idea of going after the prelim results in case of a tie.

I did have the idea of noting the time each rider finishes each line and using the time the tied riders finished their last landed line as the breaker, but that would make things complicated again. Dan's idea is better and easier.

Is there a reason why podium ties are not allowed?

Comment 03 Oct 23:03

From what I understand, Podium ties are not allowed because the unicon hosts do not order duplicate medals. I think they do this because of the large quantity of age group medals handed out for all the disciplines. They protect the organizational nightmare of medalling by having a no podium tie blanket rule.

Comment 03 Oct 23:49

I dont really like the idea of a tie in trials. A tied podium just means that the range in difficulty in lines for finals was not broad enough.

Riders would almost never be "equally skilled", a tie in completed lines just means that that either all lines were too easy (if they tie completing all) or there wasn't a line that the difficulty was in the middle of the hardest completed line and the easiest non completed line for one of the riders to complete.

I think trials tying for completed lines is very different to a tied time in a race measured to multiple decimal places (such as speed trials) or a tie in a team sport.

Comment 04 Oct 14:41

I like Dan's Idea as well to use prelims points. Prelims become more and more a strategic part of Trials for the Top Riders. It offer an option to save some energie while keeping a little risl to be out of the finals in the end. If it counts for a finals tie, another strategic brick would be implemented. Mark already came up with a good report how bad ties can be (independent how you do them, single or multiple try). It is bad to loose after some hours just from a secodn of bad luck and it is exhausting for the riders and a bit boaring for the audience if the top riders have to battle each other to death. There shouldnt be a lot competitions where the 2 Top Level riders had same points in prelims and same number in Finals and finish in the same time as well. Maybe Mark has some samples as he often ride inner the top 2 ranfge ;)

Comment 04 Oct 14:48

I really dislike using the prelim results. I would much rather use time and prelim results.

Comment 04 Oct 14:51

oops, clicked create comment too quickly. I would much rather use time than* prelim results.

Comment 04 Oct 14:52

So: 1. Number of lines in finals, 2. Time in Finals, 3. Prelim Results, 4. Prelim Time ?

Comment 04 Oct 15:01

Or maybe a very important trials movetter to keep time a bit less in favour (some final lines are realy time eater):

1. Number Lines in Finals, 2. Numner of Lines in Prelims, 3. Time in Finals, 4. Time in Prelims

Comment 04 Oct 15:04

It could be a time stamp along with the judge signature (for finals only). Along with signature, time is written down for each completed line.

example scenario #1

SCORE CARD - RIDER 1 - #49
Line 1 - signature - 0:12
Line 2 - signature - 0:05
Line 3 - signature - 0:59
Line 4 - signature - 0:21
Line 5
Line 6 - signature - 0:02
Line 7
Line 8
Line 9 - signature - 0:11

The rider 1 would have had completed 6 lines in 0h59m.

SCORE CARD - RIDER 2 - #186
Line 1 - signature - 0:08
Line 2 - signature - 0:06
Line 3
Line 4
Line 5 - signature - 0:28
Line 6 - signature - 0:45
Line 7
Line 8 - signature - 0:32
Line 9 - signature - 0:11

The rider 2 would have had completed 6 lines in 45 minutes. The rider 2 would then have an advantage over rider 1. This could be done with all judge starting their stopwatch at the same time.

Let's check scenario #2

SCORE CARD - RIDER 1 - #49
Line 1 - signature - 0:12
Line 2 - signature - 0:05
Line 3 - signature - 0:45
Line 4 - signature - 0:21
Line 5
Line 6 - signature - 0:02
Line 7
Line 8
Line 9 - signature - 0:11

SCORE CARD - RIDER 2 - #186
Line 1 - signature - 0:08
Line 2 - signature - 0:06
Line 3
Line 4
Line 5 - signature - 0:28
Line 6 - signature - 0:45
Line 7
Line 8 - signature - 0:32
Line 9 - signature - 0:11

Both riders completed 6 lines in 45 minutes, but rider #1 completed 5 lines in 21 minutes while rider #2 completed 5 lines in 32 minutes. Rider #1 has advantage over rider #2.

Comment 04 Oct 15:17

Great Idea and that way the differences of the lines wont matter that much. Also to add time stamp in finals should be possible, it maybe needs two judges per line then but this is possible fo rsure. One observe and one take the time (and observe as well)

Comment 04 Oct 18:46

I support timestamping finals to decide tie breakers. I also think Emiles second example of using the last line that one rider completed earlier than the other works despite them completing the same total number at same total time.

Comment 05 Oct 14:14

I like Emile's idea as well and I think this is the way we should go because:

- Not too difficult to organize,

- straightforward, simple and fair

- fun for the audience, adds to commentary material and builds excitement

- it will make tiebreaking a thing of the past in finals. Emile's second example could also be taken a step further to third and fourth, etc lines.

A bit off topic, but having tiebreakers in prelims for age group medalling is also plagued by the same problem as finals currently.

I propose to keep with the time differentiation for tiebreaking in prelims. However, individual time stamping for each judge would be too difficult in prelims. Perhaps we could give riders the option to hand in their score cards early like Jenni did with me and Kornel at Unicon Korea.

Example:

Rider 1 and rider 2 have the same score in their age group.

Rider 1 handed in score card 15 mins before the end of the comp because they know they cannot finish another line. Event organizer writes down time at bottom of score card.

Rider 2 handed in score card at the very end of the comp. Nothing is written on their score card because no timestamp = full time used.

Rider 1 wins tiebreaker for age group medals.

Comment 05 Oct 17:44

I don't like the '"handing the card" time rule thingy because maybe rider one will accumulate 90 points in 15 minutes, but will try to get more for the whole remaining time, while rider 2 will accumulate 90 points in 1h29m but will give his card 1 minute before the end of the prelim round making him have an advantage over rider 1.

I think this would push people to go for a good/safe score, but quickly, rather than the most points.

Comment 08 Oct 15:38

My thoughts on using the time when riders handed in cards as tiebreaker for prelims:

This is how it is done at many events (including Winter EUC too if I am not mistaken), that if a rider decides to give in their scorecard before the final time, it is possible and the time is registered on the scorecard. I have seen the exact thing Emile described appear a few times, but definitely not often (two riders had the same score and they knew it, rider 1 decided to give in their scorecard 5 mins before the end of the comp, rider 2 was trying more lines but did not land anything, rider 1 got the better place). Generally I see that riders prefer to try lines for as long as they have a real chance of landing a new one and it is not widely used for tactical reasons. What I could imagine, is that finish time only means advantage, if the scorecard was given to the event organizer at least 15 or 20 minutes before the end of the prelims. In the last 15 or 20 minutes of the prelims, finish time does not affect their place UNLESS all lines are done (obviously if rider 1 finishes all the lines 10 mins before the end and rider 2 finishes all the lines 3 mins before the end, that is a clear situation that rider 1 gets the better place). This is just an idea, not saying it should be like this, but interested to hear your opinion - I think it might be a bit too complicated...

Thoughts on the core-topic, tiebreakers in finals:

I like and support the idea of doing timestamping; however I have one note about Emile's scenario #2. If we do that (to use the time of the 2nd last landed line in case there is a tie and the time of the last landed line is the same), then we motivate riders to do the less time-consuming lines first. This might not be a problem at all, but I thought I should mention it.

Example:
Let's say there are 2 nearly equally good riders in the finals, and they both land 6 lines in total. 5 lines out of these 6 were relatively easy, and took only 2 mins to land each, but the 6th was harder, it took both of them 5 mins to accomplish (for ease, let's say rider 1 and 2 had the same times on every line).

Rider 1 started with the hard line, and then did the 5 relatively easy ones.
Rider 2 started with the relatively easy lines, and did the harder one last.

They finish at the same exact time with the same points, but rider 2 wins because they did the lines in a different order (rider 1 finished the 5th line in 13mins, rider 2 finished the 5th line in 10mins).

I don't say this is wrong, just I thought it is something worth mentioning. This is correct if we say that the objective of Trials is to earn as many points as possible as quickly as possible (currently the rulebook says the objective is to earn as many points as possible by cleaning as many lines as possible).

I can imagine Olaf's suggestion could work in practice as written below:

1. Number of lines in finals
2. Finish time of the last landed line in finals
3. Prelim results
4. Finish time of the 2nd last landed line in finals
5. Finish time of the 3rd last landed line in finals
6. [...]

The reason why I think that this could work is because although ties appear even in finals, it is a very low chance that the riders finish at the same time.

Comment 08 Oct 17:12

That is a fair point Mark. If winning can depend on doing the less time consuming lines first then you may get a blockage as riders try to do the same lines first for strategic purposes which may alter how the competition runs. Instead of having riders across the park on different lines you have many all doing the same lines in similar order. It could alter what a trials comp looks like to spectators, for good or bad who knows. I am not sure if using the 2nd last line landed and so forth would provide you with the "best" rider winning as it would likely come down to order of lines completed.

I have the below suggestion in line with Mark. Because I think using the second last landed line etc may not provide us with necessarily the "best" rider winning I believe we could perhaps just use a tiebreaker after prelim results. The chance of two riders completing the same number of lines with the exact same completion time (to the second? if done on a stopwatch) and then have the exact same number of lines landed in prelim is probably going to be fairly rare in unicon. At that point I think going to a tiebreaker is more likely to give you an accurate result of who is the best rider than having them judged on their second last lines completed which will take into account order.

1. Number of lines in finals
2. Finish time of the last landed line in finals
3. Prelim results
4. Tiebreaker

The issue I see here is if you have comps where you are using this system but lines are not as crazy as unicon you may make number 3 useless as multiple riders may finish all the prelim lines.

Perhaps in this case you could do

1. Number of lines in finals
2. Finish time of the last landed line in finals
3. Prelim results (in case of all lines completed by both riders, the time of completion of all lines)
4. Tiebreaker

That does mean having a stopwatch in prelims for when a rider who has completed all lines hands in his card though.

Comment 10 Oct 17:14

As mentioned before by myself and Mark, timestamping scorecard when handed out should be avoided, either prelims or finals.

I would also timestamp lines in finals to the minute, no the the second. Otherwise you need at least 2 or 3 people using stopwatch looking exactly at when the tire touches the ground at the end of the line.

I think we're thinking a little to far right now. Tiebreakers happen sometimes, but not always. Timestamping the lines should fix the majority of the problems.

I now see what you mentioned Mark and you are right, we should only check timestamp for last line completed.

1. Number of lines in finals
2. If tied, when was last line completed
3. Tie break

I mean, if the riders both got the same time and same amount of line, I think it deserves a tie break. I believe using the prelim results would be kind of unfair, especially when the finals and prelims are on different days.

Comment 11 Oct 17:19

If we only go to minute is completion time of 10 mins 2 seconds and 10 mins 58 seconds both judged as finishing the line in 10 mins and thus tiebreak would be used?

Comment 16 Oct 15:00

Yes.

But that's only IF 2 riders in finals completed the SAME NUMBER of LINE annnnnd if they finished in the SAME MINUTE. Then you go to tiebreak. Which is very unlikely.

The problem with stopping at the second precisely is that you will need to double the amount of people on the course to have timers with the lines judge and line judge will have to check time very precisely as well as judging the line. The area is usually very crowded with about 3 people per line (line judge, rider + minder).

I think it is more fair to count the line at the minute. This way if 2 riders are very close, they should get a tie-break, not a win because a judge was too slow to write the time down properly.

Comment 25 Oct 18:16

So we have come to a consensus on this

Summary

Winner will be decided by

1. Number of lines in finals

if tied

2. when was last line completed

if tied

3. Tie break

Comment 26 Oct 03:24

Agreed.

This should make tie breakers a lot less common in finals.

I would like and need to come back to the original topic though:

I really dislike the 1-try-only rule in those high-pressure finals tiebreakers. Why not just give the riders 2 tries?

Emile said, the tiebreaker shouldn't become a whole new competition.

2 tries would barely take longer than 1 try, but it does allow the riders to fail just that one time and maybe make up for a course that favors the other rider a bit.

And it does make it a lot more interesting for the audience, since there is this opportunity that a rider can still catch up in his second try.

I don't see a single argument against having 2 tries. To be honest, for me it's an obvious choice that benefits everyone.

Comment 26 Oct 03:54

It's true that once the set up of the tie breaking line is done, having two tries doesn't make the competition much longer. Although I really like the once try only. I mean especially if there it's the third decisive aspect of deciding a winner.

Comment 26 Oct 04:04

Just because it's the third step in deciding a winner doesn't make it less worth discussing.

I made multiple arguments for a 2-try variant. It's one thing to hear from you that you like the one try only, but can you support that with any reasons why it's superior?

Comment 26 Oct 08:17

It's a tie breaker, especially now that there would be time, the two rider's are so close together, you can't have a new competition. I see it more as a sudden death, like in overtime in some sport, or for tie breakers for high jump.

Comment 26 Oct 08:28

In overtime in some sport or in tiebreaker in high jump you have a way better level playing field while in trials it's impossible to build a course that suits both riders equally. Two tries each would level it just that bit more. (and make it more enjoyable for the audience) two tries do not make it a 'new competition'.

Comment 26 Oct 15:47

I don't like a single try for tiebreakers either as I do believe its very possible to influence the result quite heavily by obstacle design/order and feel that the unfairness is negated somewhat by offering more than one try to a rider.

*Glaringly obvious example*

If you have a Tie breaker between Mark Fabian and Mike Taylor you first two obstacles used are between a 130cm hop up and a long irregular rev skinny rail with smaller technical.

If you put the 130cm hop as first obstacle Mike Taylor most likely wins that tie breaker, if you put the skinny rail as the first obstacle then Mark Fabian most likely wins. Both riders (probably) could do both.

Comment 26 Oct 15:49

Either that or we should be discussing "how to build tie breakers to not influence a rider" I believe it is extremely possible at the moment in a tie breaker to do so. Most commonly by accident as we tend to grab other lines that were difficult and put them together.

Comment 26 Oct 18:04

What we do often at EUC is that if both rider haven't completed one line, they both try to get the furthest on that line. If they don't share an uncompleted line, then one could be built for them.

I think the only matter for the line would be to get progressively harder, which is totally biased depending one who's doing the line, but then you kind of get something that is fair for everyone, kind of, no?

Comment 27 Oct 05:07

@Emile. I don't generally see it as fair for everyone. The main problem is the order of obstacle types. It does not matter how you build a line. It always comes down to that. And to make up for that give the riders 2 or 3 tries for the disadvantaged rider to work up to their weaker obstacle. i really see no point in not doing it. It seems so obvious to me.

Comment 28 Oct 18:41

I like the idea of using a line that both riders COULDNT complete, in that way you are not as obviously benefiting one rider.

I still have nothing against giving 3 attempts to go as far as possible on a line either. But currently we really only have 3 opinions on that point and 2 of them don't really do trials.

I think the below example is still fairly telling in how you can influence a rider winning or not.

If you have a Tie breaker between Mark Fabian and Mike Taylor you first two obstacles used are between a 130cm hop up and a long irregular rev skinny rail with smaller technical hop.

Comment 28 Oct 22:35

I would like to see a system that removes tiebreakers all together - or only in the most improbable case. I've stated my reasons to back up this argument earlier in the thread so I'm not going to say them again. In short: tiebreakers are stressful for riders and organizers and don't differentiate skill well enough to place a rider over another. My position is that tiebreakers should be removed entirely.

Timing in finals will be more logistically difficult but worth it to move away from tiebreakers.

I think a partial solution to this problem is in point reductions in pedal grabs is passed by us (whatever that would look like). The chance of a rider getting the exact same points as another rider will be greatly diminished if some sort of pedal grab rule is implemented. If the timing rule is also implemented than the chance of tiebreakers is massively reduced.

If for whatever reason a tiebreaker is needed even after all we decide to do, e.g., same score, same time, etc... Then I think prelims results is still a better gauge of skill than 1 (or 2) attempts at a single line thrown together for riders under huge pressure with often anticlimactic results for the audience.

I think the assessment for podium finishes should be:

1. Points

2. Time last completed line.

3. Prelims results (Emile, please explain your opposition to this more fully)

4. Give the riders a medal each! they are equal!

Comment 28 Oct 23:03

I personally don't like giving both riders a medal as they are not equal. Completing the same lines does not mean they are equal it means that we have to try and design lines more effectively. When you have a large variety of obstacle type/distance to jump there is basically 0% chance that riders are actually equal. Having riders clear the exact same number of lines just the change in difficulty between the hardest line completed and the hardest line not completed was so great that neither could complete it. But if you made the next hardest line a touch easier one of them would land it before the other.

Similar if you did a high jump final where you went up in 40cm increments and it went from 120cm (4 people clear it) to 160cm (0 clear it) the riders are not equal, the difference in difficulty just not adequate to demonstrate the difference in their skill.

Comment 29 Oct 04:39

Steven, but a tiebreaker wouldn't really solve that either, because as Dan said, it's only one line thrown together quickly, so not the best way to find the best rider either. You can really always only find the rider who does best under a certain set of rules.

@Dan: Am I understanding you right that you want to time the riders in finals down to seconds to reduce the risk of riders having the same time? Or are you fine with minutes?

I do like the idea to get rid of tiebreakers altogether. (Just saying that IF we had a tiebreaker it needs to be lengthened a bit)

Comment 29 Oct 06:07

No it isn't the best way to find the best rider, but it was our 3rd choice after, lines completed in finals and then time completed last line. It's not perfect but I would prefer to at least have a single winner than to try and pretend that the riders were equal.

I can't remember why we seemed to move away from using the preliminary round results as the 3rd decision on who wins though? I can see why we wouldn't use time of preliminaries but forget why we aren't just using number completed in prelims.

I don't believe in a tied first place result though.

Comment 29 Oct 10:59

Getting rid of tie breaking would be fine by me. If we have half points for pedal grabs, then we use time, it's VERY unlikely that a tie would happen... and even if it does, as Dan mention, give both riders a medal. I don't see why we bother so much no wanting ties on the podium. We see ties at the olympics quite often.

Dan I wouldn't want to use prelim results as this would be totally unfair. In the past Winter Olympics, two bobsleigh teams had identical times, to the millisecond. They both shared the same step of the podium. Once the qualifiers are over, a new competition starts. Having a better qualifier should give you a starting advantage, like in flat you decide who goes first, in bobsleigh you go last so you know how others do, but it is never a factor in the final result of a competition.

If 2 riders tie for 1st, 2nd or 3rd place, with the same amount of lines completed, with the same number of pedal grab deductions and finished their lines within the same minute? I mean, that tie is deserved.

Comment 06 Apr 14:46

We tested the new rule about pedal grabs in finals at this year's Winter EUC, and it worked very well; preventing a 3 way tie for 3rd place, if I remember correctly.

This means that it will truly be less likely to have ties, especially when we register times for completed lines as well.

As for timing, I would not go down to seconds for measuring-accuracy reasons. Perhaps half a minute could work.

I understand Emile's point on not using the prelim results, however I also think Dan's suggestion would probably be the best (1. Points / 2. Time of the last finished line / 3. Prelim results / 4. Equal).

Comment 07 Apr 04:44

I am still fine with this.

1. Points / 2. Time of the last finished line / 3. Prelim results / 4. Equal

Ian what is your thought on using the prelim results as third result? I think you are probably the last active person in this chat to put their opinion forward on this as we basically have a consensus.

Comment 07 Apr 12:48

I am also fine with 1. Points / 2. Time of last finished line / 3. prelim result / 4 equal

Comment 08 Apr 11:22

I'm also fine with this

1. Points / 2. Time of last finished line / 3. prelim result / 4 equal

Comment 08 Apr 16:41

I am currently trying to write these rule changes up including all instances where the rule will have to change in the rulebook

Comment 08 Apr 17:49

This required a lot of little changes everywhere so please have a detailed look. Some of the wording could be improved so any native English speakers have a look and see what you think

Old

12A.1 Definition

The object of unicycle trials is to ride over obstacles. A unicycle trials competition takes place on a “course” containing different obstacles called “sections”. Each section is worth one point, and courses typically contain 15-40 or more sections. Riders earn points by successfully riding (“cleaning”) each section from start to finish. The objective is to earn as many points as possible by cleaning as many sections as possible. At the end of a specified time period, the rider with the highest overall number of points is the winner.

New

12A.1 Definition

Old

12D.12 Tie Breaking

A tie occurs when the competition finishes and one or more riders have completed the same number of sections. The Course Setter should collaborate with the tied riders to create a new, “tiebreaker section” at an appropriate level of difficulty. This section should be relatively long and may consist of several existing sections joined together, or an entirely new section. The section should contain obstacles of increasing difficulty towards the exit location. Each tied rider attempts this section and the winner is the person who rides the furthest without dabbing. Only one attempt is allowed. The furthest location of a rider is defined by the part of the cycle that is touching the ground (the crank, pedal, or tire), prior to dabbing. There is no requirement for the rider to be in control. For example, if a rider lands a drop onto their tire, but immediately dabs, their furthest point would be the location where their tire last touched prior to dabbing. If more than one rider cleans the tiebreaker section, another tiebreaker should be conducted with a more difficult section

New

12D.12 Tie Breaking

In the case of multiple competitors finishing the finals round on equal points, riders will be separated by time taken to complete final line with preliminary results used in the case of equal finishing times.

The time stamp given by the line judge will be used to separate competitors, with the fastest completion time of lines (to the minute) receiving the higher placing. In the event that the time stamp does not separate tied riders, the preliminary round results will be used for placings. If competitors remain tied after finals points, finals time stamp and preliminary round points, no tie breaker will occur and the riders will finish equal.

Old

12B.5.5 Multiple Attempts

New

12B.5.5 Multiple Attempts

Riders may attempt any problem multiple times until they succeed or decide to abandon the section. During preliminary rounds, it is not possible to earn additional points by cleaning a section more than once, and no points are awarded if the rider does not clean the entire section. During finals a rider may re-complete a line with fewer pedal grabs to receive a higher score. Only the rider’s best result at each line will be recorded. Similarly, the time of the best result will be recorded as the finishing time for each line. E.g. If a rider finishes their final line at 25 minutes receiving 1 point but retries the line finishing the same line at 45 minutes with 2.5 points, their 2.5 points and 45 minutes time of completion will be recorded in the results. If the rider re-completes a line without improving their original score, the original time of completion will remain.

Old

12C.1.3 Line Judge

The line judges are responsible for judging whether a rider has successfully cleaned a section

New

12C.1.3 Line Judge

The line judges are responsible for judging whether a rider has successfully cleaned a section.

In the finals round, line judges will be responsible for counting pedal grabs of riders as they clean a section as well as time stamping competitors scorecards at time of line completion. In the case that a competitor re-cleans a line with an improved result the line judge should clearly mark the improved number of pedal grabs and time of completion on the competitor’s scorecard.

Old

12D.7 Assignment of Line Judges

Line Judges are responsible for judging whether a rider has successfully cleaned a section. There are several possible ways for an Event Director to organize Line Judges at an event:

• One Line Judge can be assigned to judge at each section. This is the best option but is normally not possible because there are normally more sections than Line Judges.

• Each Line Judge can be assigned to judge several sections in the nearby vicinity. In this case, it is the responsibility of the rider to ensure that a Line Judge is watching when they attempt a section.

• Riders can be split into groups, and one Line Judge is assigned to each group. This Line Judge would then follow the group around as they go from section to section. 193 12 Urban: Trials – Event Organizer Rules

• At small events, there may not be a need for Line Judges. Riders waiting to attempt a section may serve as Line Judges for the rider who is currently attempting the section. This is termed “self-judging”, and it is up to the riders to ensure that scores are honestly recorded. This is the most common method for smaller competitions.

New

12D.7 Assignment of Line Judges

Line Judges are responsible for judging whether a rider has successfully cleaned a section. For the finals round, line judges are to be provided with a synched stopwatch or clock to provide line completion time stamps to be used in the event of ties. There are several possible ways for an Event Director to organize Line Judges at an event:

• One Line Judge can be assigned to judge at each section. This is the best option but is normally not possible because there are normally more sections than Line Judges.

Old

12B.5.3 Scoring Points

The preliminary course is divided in different sections of easy, medium and hard lines. Easy lines are worth one point, medium lines are worth three points and hard lines are worth seven points. The objective is to score as many points as possible by successfully riding (“cleaning”) sections within the specified time period.

Preliminary Round

Difficulty Points

Easy 1 point

Medium 3 points

Hard 7 points

During finals, completion of a line with zero pedal grabs will be worth three points. A deduction of 0.5 points will be made for each pedal/crank grab used during completion of the line, with a maximum of two points deducted i.e. 4 pedal grabs.

Final Round

Base Points for Line Completion 3 points

Number of Pedal Grabs Used for Line Completion Total Points Received for Line

1 2.5 points

2 2 points

3 1.5 points

=>4 1 points

A pedal/crank grab is defined as the rider placing their weight on an obstacle through the bottom of the pedal/crank which is in contact with the obstacle (see 12B.5.4 Definition Of “Cleaning”).

A pedal/crank grab is considered complete after a clear takeoff by pushing through the pedal/crank and not though the tyre.

The pedal/crank may be re-positioned during a pedal/crank grab without being considered a new grab as long as the pedal does not move more than the width of the pedal away from the initial position on the obstacle. i.e. traversing an object in continuous half pedal width grabs will result in multiple pedal/crank grabs recorded.

New

12B.5.3 Scoring Points

Preliminary Round

Difficulty Points

Easy 1 point

Medium 3 points

Hard 7 points

Final Round

Base Points for Line Completion 3 points

Number of Pedal Grabs Used for Line Completion Total Points Received for Line

1 2.5 points

2 2 points

3 1.5 points

=>4 1 points

A pedal/crank grab is defined as the rider placing their weight on an obstacle through the bottom of the pedal/crank which is in contact with the obstacle (see 12B.5.4 Definition Of “Cleaning”).

A pedal/crank grab is considered complete after a clear takeoff by pushing through the pedal/crank and not though the tyre.

A time stamp (to the minute) of each line completion will be recorded by each line judge during finals to be used in the event of a tie.

Comment 12 Apr 04:35

Great job on the text, thanks a lot for making it!

I have a few comments:

What do you think of this part in 12A.1 Definition:

"Each section is worth one point, and courses typically contain 15-40 or more sections."

Now that we have the new rules for the finals it is probably time to rewrite it. In the finals each line worth 3 points maximum, and in the prelims they are all different per category.

12D.12 Tie Breaking

The new text is pretty good, however I think we shouldn't completely get rid of the old one, as we might still need it in case of age group ties (so that it should say that we do tie breakers the current way for age groups and the new way for finals). Or do we have a new concept for age group ties as well?

Comment 15 Apr 20:25

This required a lot of little changes everywhere so please have a detailed look. Some of the wording could be improved so any native English speakers have a look and see what you think

Old

12A.1 Definition

New

12A.1 Definition

The object of unicycle trials is to ride over obstacles. A unicycle trials competition takes place on a “course” containing different obstacles called “sections”. A course typically contain 15-40 or more sections and Riders earn points by successfully riding (“cleaning”) each section from start to finish. The objective is to earn as many points as possible by cleaning as many sections as possible. At the end of a specified time period, the rider with the highest overall number of points is the winner. In the case of a tie in finals the time of last finished line and preliminary results will be used to separate riders.

In terms of age group ties. For younger age groups there may be no finals is that correct? So what happens currently if two competitors from an age group finishes prelims equal? They do a tie breaker? Do we need a tiebreaker all the way to age groups or could we just put them equal? If they don't even get specific finals do we need to run a tiebreaker or is it adequate to just place them equal.

For older age groups two riders from the same age group who finish equal in prelims may make it into finals and then you could use the finals system for the placings?

Example. In the event that no finals round is held ties in age groups will be considered equal. (Therefore if finals round is held you can use that to decide placings)

Comment 16 Apr 14:45

I noticed one edit: “contain” should be “contains” in the new text.

Comment 23 Apr 02:15

Old

12A.1 Definition

New

12A.1 Definition

The object of unicycle trials is to ride over obstacles. A unicycle trials competition takes place on a “course” containing different obstacles called “sections”. A course typically contains 15-40 or more sections and Riders earn points by successfully riding (“cleaning”) each section from start to finish. The objective is to earn as many points as possible by cleaning as many sections as possible. At the end of a specified time period, the rider with the highest overall number of points is the winner. In the case of a tie in finals the time of last finished line and preliminary results will be used to separate riders.

Any other thoughts about the tiebreakers for age groups or just placing them equal?

Comment 23 Apr 15:54

Is this ready for proposal or do we need to sort out the age group ties first?