Accuracy of published results (new rule)This discussion has an associated proposal. View Proposal Details here.
Comments about this discussion:
The current World Record Committee discussed in detail the accuracy with which world records should be published. It was found that there are some good reasons to limit the accuracy of published times, not only for world records but for all published results.
The result of the discussion has confirmed what is already prescribed in the current IUF World Record Guidelines for all standard track races: All times should be rounded UP to the nearest 0.01 seconds, except when they are an exact multiple of 0.01 seconds.
To sum up the discussion here are the reasons for this determination in a very short summary:
1. The time delay between the acoustic/optical start signal and the automatic triggering of the timing system is in the magnitude of 0.001 second. If the result list is given with 1/1000 values, this delay is in the same order of magnitude.
2. The accuracy with which the competition facility is measured. A standard 400m track may be 400 m + 0.04 m long, 100 m may be 100 m + 0.02 m long. Here, too, there is a possible inaccuracy of approx. 0.004 seconds ( for 20 seconds at 100 m). If the result list is given with 1/1000 values, this is again in the same order of magnitude.
It is therefore not realistic to achieve an accuracy of 1/1000 second with a timing system - even if a resolution of 1/1000 second is no problem!
By the way, it should be mentioned that in other established sports, such as athletics, the same procedure is used and results are not published with 1/1000 values.
Another reason why all published results should have the same accuracy is, because published results will always be compared and if the result lists of competitions will have a higher accuracy than our World Record list, it will not be clear to outsiders why this is the case.
Therefore, I believe that we need to include a rule in the rulebook that ensures that all organizers of competitions according to IUF rules publish results that can be meaningfully compared with each other and are in accordance with the official world record list of the IUF.
Now some of you may ask what happens when two riders from the same heat have the same rounded time and the finishing image actually shows a difference in the 1/1000 range: We have worked out a solution for this as well:
In the event that there is a tie for the placings, the unrounded time of the measuring system or the data from a photo finish system will be used to decide on the placings.
Since this is a direct comparison within one and the same competition, the differences can be regarded as certain.
However, the results will only be published with the given accuracy and a reference to the unrounded time/ a hint, that the placing is decided by photo finish, for the decision about the placement will be added. This would allow us to reliably distinguish the placings within a race and still publish the results with an accuracy that allows a realistic and meaningful comparison between different competitions.
This woud mean something like this for the result list:
1st Place Rider X 0:07.08
2nd Place Rider Y 0:07.08 (Photo finish: +0.006)
Also for the other Track Disciplines the World Record Committee has established accuracies with which the world records will be published, and here, too, the result lists of the competitions should have the same accuracy. In order to avoid the text getting longer, I will list all the specified accuracies here:
Track Races: 1/100 second
Stillstand: 1/10 second
Slow: 1/10 second
Gliding/Coasting: 0.1 meter
I fully agree to put this in the Rulebook.
I am also in favor of this rule.
Give another day for others to comment, then please make a proposal.
Fine for me!
This discussion is about accuracy of TIMES in Track Racing (and ready for a proposal).
I will start a separate discussion about accuracy of coasting and gliding, since they are about DISTANCE.
Oops, I was too hurried again, because of the time squeeze we're in. I now see that gliding and coasting ARE included in the above, so forget my previous comment.
I'm not sure where we should add the corresponding rules. For all track races, you could put an appropriate sentence into a Timing, Photo Finish and False Start Monitoring rule... but such a rule does not yet exist. Therefore I suggest a separate rule in the chapter 2D and 3D Event Organizer Rules.
2D.10 Publishing results
For all track races, unless the time is an exact 0.01 second, the time shall be converted and recorded to the next longer 0.01 second, e.g. 14.533 s shall be recorded as 14.54 s.
3D.3 Publishing results
For all Gliding and Coasting disciplines where the distance is mesuared, unless the distance is an exact 0.1 meter, the distance shall be converted and recorded to the next longer 0.1 meter, e.g. 34.53 m shall be recorded as 34.5 m.
For all Slow disciplines (3B.6.4, 3B.6.5, 3B.6.6) and Stillstand (3B.6.7), unless the time is an exact 0.1 second, the time shall be converted and recorded to the next longer 0.1 second.
For all other events mentioned in this chapter, unless the time is an exact 0.01 second, the time shall be converted and recorded to the next longer 0.01 second.
I think that's good.
I think "recorded" must be changed to "published". Internally we should not only record (measure) but also keep all available decimals, if only to (re)construct things like Photo finish: +0.006).
In the Gliding rule, "longer" must be changed to "shorter".
Klaas, thanks for the note with "longer" vs. "shorter", I'll correct that. I think for Slow and Stillstand it must be also "shorter", because the goal of the disciplines is to achieve as much time as possible.
To the point "recorded" vs. "published" - I agree with you that for some purposes it may be necessary to use the full resolution of the measurement system. However, the times do not have to be converted into decimal numbers with more digits, since the images of the finish image system are usually preserved anyway and the differences between two riders can be read from these images with full accuracy. I would therefore recommend that the conversion of the times from the finish image for storage as a numerical value is only done with the accuracy in which the times are published. And if ne difference is needet you can convert the difference out of the image.
Agreed for Slow and Stillstand.
I also agree to your last paragraph provided the finish camera images are preserved "forever".
Indeed that is even better than converting them to, say, 0.001 second resolution, and then deleting the evidence.
What happened to this:
This would mean something like this for the result list:
1st Place Rider X 0:07.08
2nd Place Rider Y 0:07.08 (Photo finish: +0.006)
I don't see it in the proposal.
You're right - I would add the following sentences:
In the event that there is a tie for the placings, the image of the Photo Finish System shall be used to decide on the placings. In this case, the note (Photo Finish +0.00X) is printed on the result list as an addition to the official time.
Example: If two riders have reached a time of 0:07.08 and the image of the Photo Finish System shows a difference of 0.006 seconds, the following will be printed on the result list:
1st Place Rider 1 0:07.08
2nd Place Rider 2 0:07.08 (Photo finish: +0.006)
Go ahead, you are the owner.
I have adapted the sentence slightly to make clear what is to be done in the event of a tie, even for those cases in which the sentence does not apply.
I didn't spot the adaptation, the edited rule and your text (three posts up) seem idential.
Anyway, it looks good to me.
I have changed this proposal back to pre voting. Jan wanted to make some changes to the wording.
After I put the proposal to voting Klass wrote me an E-Mail that the originaly proposed wording "In the event that there is a tie for the placings, if a Photo Finisch system was used, the image of this system shall be used to decide on the placings. In this case, the note (Photo Finish +0.00X) is printed on the result list as an addition to the official time. In other cases it shall be determined to be a tie and the tie shall remain." is not very clear - of course a tie always has alwys an effect on placings... But what I was thinking about was the following: A tie is only a problem when it comes to qualifying for the final or awarding places. In all other cases, I don't think it would be necessary to increase the effort in order to resolve possible ties.
We have therefore decided that it would be most reasonable to adjust the wording again. I changed the sentence into: "In the event that there is a tie where an award and/or a place in the final is at stake, if a Photo Finish system was used, the image of this system shall be used to decide on the placings. In this case, the note (Photo Finish: +0.00X) is printed on the results list next to the official time. In other cases it shall be determined to be a tie and the tie shall remain and gets published as such."
If there are further comments or suggestions for improvement I look forward to your feedback.
I agree to this change.
If there are no further remarks or suggestions for improvement before tomorrow, I hope that the rule is now clear and comprehensible and will put it to the vote again.