Should interference from another rider or other source be a false start?
This discussion has an associated proposal. View Proposal Details here.Comments about this discussion:
Started
2B.6.8 states that a false start occurs if a wheel moves forward too early, or if "one or more riders are forced to dismount due to interference from another rider or other source". 2C.3 regulates what happens with false starters, basically either a warning or DQ.
I am not sure what is meant by interference from another rider. Is it e.g. that someone swerves in the wrong lane at the start? Is that a false start? And what is "other source"? This probably includes external influences. Who is getting a false start (warning or DQ) for that?
We might avoid some difficult questions by considering a false start to mean exclusively that a rider's wheel rolls forward too early. Dismounts or other disturbances due to interference (from whatever) would be a reason to abort the start procedure and begin again, but without assigning a false start to anyone.
If this is agreed upon, I will make a proposal both here and in Road racing where a similar rule currently applies.
Comment
To be honest, I also do not know exactly what is meant by the wording "[...] if one or more riders are forced to dismount due to interference from another rider or other source".
But I think it is very important that a dismount during the starting process can also considered as a false start - otherwise I see the risk that a rider who notices that his start is too early simply dismounts and then argues that it was not a false start but a dismount to not get warned or disqualified. "Can considered as a false start", because I think dismounts can also happen due to reasons where no rider should get assigned a false start, external influences would be such reasons for me.
However, I think it should be the very important task of the starter to recognize whether a start - for whatever reason - must be aborted (regardless of whether a rider starts too early or not) or whether an false start caused by a rider is given and the rider must be punished.
Maybe something like that would be more clear:
"A false start occurs if:
(a) A rider’s wheel moves forward before the start signal.
(b) A rider dismounts before the start signal.
(c) A rider disturbs other riders in the race through sound, movement or otherwise."
Even though (c) is not a false start, I think the starter should be able to treat the rider as if he had made a false start. Actually, to make the whole thing conclusive, you would have to rewrite the whole rule and make a warning and disqualification dependent on whether the start percentage was interrupted... but I think we don't have time for that this year.
Comment
(b) is not a false start either. I would agree that riders who do (b) or (c) should get a warning or even a DQ, but in my opinion it does not fit here. I'm not sure if the rulebook has anything about sportmanship or sportive behaviour. If not, something like this would fit in in 1B.1, and would then be the basis for a warning or more severe punishment, up to removal from the convention altogether.
I would like a false start to mean (exclusively) that a rider starts too early.
Comment
But what if someone notices that he starts too early and then "just dismounts"? Of course, a dismount does not necessarily have to be an false start, but it can be one.
In the end I would say that in all three cases it is crucial that the start has to be aborted and it would be logical to punish the responsible rider - not necessarily for the false start itself but for the fact that the start has to be aborted because of the false start. But this is hairsplitting again ;)
Currently, there is no rule as to why a driver could be warned or disqualified for points (b) and (c) (unless the very vague sentence in Rule 2B.6.8 is interpreted in this way). Therefore, I thought that the best way would be to rewrite the whole rule and make aborting the start a "rule violation". This would cover all three points and the starter would still have the possibility to cancel the start due to external influences and not to punish a rider. At the same time, we could do the definition of a false start as you suggested - that a false start means (exclusively) that a rider starts too early - becuase other points are coverd by some other parts of the rule then.
Comment
Quote: But what if someone notices that he starts too early and then "just dismounts"?
(1) If what the rider does involves rolling the wheel forward, it is a false start already, and he gets false start (warning or DQ).
(2) If what the rider does involves leaning forward too early but keeping the wheel still, then notice it is too early, then dismount without moving the wheel forward (it will probably move backward), that would be the problem that you think of.
(2a) Do you think this may happen in practice?
(2b) (If it would happen) Would a referee be able to see that he was not "forced" to dismount (as per the current rule)?
Quote: make aborting the start a "rule violation"
We need to reword this. Aborting the start is not something the rider can do. Only the starter can do that, but that is of course not a rule violation. What you probably want to say is that acting in such a way that the starter has to abort the start because of it, should be a rule violation. But I don't like that - as a rider I can't be sure what I may do or not... when will the start be aborted because of something I do?
In principle I like your approach but I don't know what the actual text should be.
Comment
That would be the case I was thinking about. I have no idea if this really might happen in practice, but I think no one will have tried it yet, because with the current rule a dismount during start can considered as a false start (because the second sentence of the false start rule gives some room for interpretation). But what will surely happen is that when you dismount to the front you will trigger a flase start if an electronic false start monitoring system is used, even if the wheel does not roll to the front - so you will abort the start no matter how you dismount...
But you're right, aborting the start is something that the starter or the false start monitiring system does and not the rider (because of this, I put the "rule violation" in quotation marks).
However, unfortunately I have no good idea how to formulate such a rule at the moment.
Comment
Quote: But what will surely happen is that when you dismount to the front you will trigger a flase start if an electronic false start monitoring system is used, even if the wheel does not roll to the front...
Not sure. You might bridge the light beam: wheel behind the beam, and feet before.
I think we should find the solution in discriminating between having been "forced to dismount", versus "dismount on purpose". Unfortunately, this does not remove the human judge from the decision.
Does anyone have a text suggestion?
Comment
"A false start occurs if:
(a) A rider’s wheel moves forward before the start signal.
(b) A rider dismounts before the start signal.
(c) A rider disturbs other riders in the race through sound, movement or otherwise."
(b) can be a false start; it's all about the when it happens. If it's before the start count/beeps, it's not a false start But if the dismount causes the wheel to go forward, it could also be considered a false start but really not until the actual start is about to happen.
(c) can also be a false start if it's done intentionally by one rider to try to make another rider start too soon, or if it's something like a loud noise that startles one or more riders. Again this is only the case at the time immediately before the starting sequence begins, or more likely during the start count/beeps.
The old wording is written as it is to allow for a variety of weird things to happen, and for the Starter or Referee to interpret if it counts a s a false start or just a do-over. But that wording, which is probably from the 80s or 90s (by me), can surely be improved.
If a rider starts too early and dismounts, the false start already happened. Unless it's before the actual initiation of the start.
The "interference with other riders" thing stems from somebody losing balance and/or pushing over a starting post, for instance, that is also supporting a neighboring rider. This can lead to a Dominos-type situation where I've seen half the starting line-up fall off. If it's before the start, it's not a thing.
A false start is either one or more riders starting early, OR something else happening during the count/beeps that disrupts peoples' concentration or position. If it's a car backfiring or other outside influence, it's just a do-over and nobody gets penalized. But I call it a false start because it requires everyone (including the timers) to reset themselves and start again. A false start penalty should only be assigned if one (or more) people, for whatever reason, start to go too early.
"Aborting the start" could result in a penalty if done on purpose, but in my experience, these are usually accidents and people who are nervous. I remember in many 100m Final races, seeing people do what might be considered intentional false starts to relieve the tension among the group. It takes away the jitters.
I've been the Starter, and the Racing Referee, at many national and international competitions. It is pretty rare to have something happen in a race start that can't be figured out as long as you're watching. If someone falls off, what that means depends on when it happens. If before the start is initiated, it's not a thing. If it's during the start, it could be considered a false start or just an accident. If it happens after the start, too bad for that rider. Unless it interferes with other riders, in which case I would most likely recall everyone and just run the heat over. As a Referee (and as a rider), I much prefer a clean heat. If we can just start over without losing much time, that's the best way to go.
Comment
I have created a virtually empty proposal, hopefully before the proposal submission deadline expires.
I tried to make a real proposal, but then I realised it was becoming very complicated. This is how far I got:
OLD RULE
2B.6.8 False Starts
A false start occurs if a rider’s wheel moves forward before the start signal, or if one or more riders are forced to dismount due to interference from another rider or other source.
NEW RULE
2B.6.8 False start, and aborting of starts
The starter can abort the start procedure for the following reasons:
(a) A false start. This is when the wheel of a rider moves forward during the start count, before the final buup or BANG.
(b) A rider dismounts during the start count, before the final buup or BANG.
(c) A rider intentionally disturbs other riders in the heat through sound, movement or otherwise.
(d) A rider unintentionally disturbs other riders in the heat through sound, movement or otherwise.
(e) Unforeseen circumstances.
(a): the rider in question gets a warning if this is the first aborted start because of (a) for the particular heat. Whoever does (a) in a subsequent start of the same heat, is disqualified for that event.
(b): the rider in question gets a warning if this is the first aborted start because of (b) for the particular heat. Whoever does (b) in a subsequent start of the same heat, is disqualified for that event.
(c): the rider in question gets a warning if this is the first aborted start because of (c) for the particular heat. Whoever does (c) in a subsequent start of the same heat, is disqualified for that event.
(d) or (e): the heat is restarted without issuing a warning or disqualification.
The reason I penalise (a), (b) and (c) separately, is that I don't find it acceptable that if one rider at the start would dismount during the start count (intentionally or not), no one can make a false start thereafter without being DQ. But this makes it very complicated, probably too much too handle for the starter as well as for the riders.
Then I realised that the above is only for the option "one false start per heat". So it would become even more complicated to include rules for "one false start per rider". Let alone to execute such rules - that's a lot of counters to keep track of.
So I'm stuck. The original rule is not nice as I have tried to make clear in the discussion, but I don't see how to improve it.
Does anyone know the way out?
Comment
Unless someone has good suggestions on how to proceed with this, I think we should leave it for now, and pick it up in the next Rulebook round (it won't be any easier then though).
This equally holds for Discussion 162.
Comment
Unfortunately, I have no idea how to formulate a new rule in a reasonable way. But until the next rulebook update I will definitely think about it, because I completely agree with you that we have to adjust the rule.
Comment
I will (try to) close this discussion now - to be picked up next year.
Comment
Hmmm, I can't seem to close it even though it says "Privileged Action: Close this discussion" at the top of the page.