Proposal 88: Clearing up 2C.4.2 Timing (Penalty) For Finish Line Dismounts [ Revision 2 ]Committee: Track
Submitted on 2019-05-23
Status: Passed on June 09, 2019
The text in 2C.4.2 is unclear and has been cleared up.
2C.4.2 Timing Penalty For Finish Line Dismounts
In electronically timed races, it’s possible that no time will be recorded for the rider’s successful finish. Instead of recording an actual finish time, the rider’s time will be recorded as 0.01 seconds faster than the next rider to cross the line after their remount and crossing. If the rider in question is the last one on the track, the time recorded should be their actual time crossing the finish line after their remount.
2C.4.2 Timing For Finish Line Dismounts
When a rider dismounts while crossing the finish line and has to back up, remount and cross the finish properly, it may happen that the first (illegal) finish is timed, and that this prevents the timing system from recording the time of the actual (proper) finish. (This may happen with a lightbeam finish timing system, or one based on chip timing. It will usually not happen with a modern slit camera system.)
If possible, the proper finish time must be reconstructed or estimated from whatever data is available, such as legitimate finish times of other riders in relation to the rider in question, video, photographs, or a "manual" reading from a running time display.
If it is in no way possible to assess an actual finish time, the rider’s time will be recorded as 0.01 seconds faster than the next rider to cross the line after their remount and crossing. In this way, the heat finish order is preserved. If the rider in question is the last one on the track, the time recorded should be the best possible estimate of their actual time crossing the finish line after their remount.
See Background and Discussion
Parent Discussion: https://iuf-rulebook-2018.committees.unicycling-software.com/discussions/157
- Revision 2 changed by Klaas Bil (24 May 18:14)
Changed "backup" to "back up".
- Revision 1 changed by Klaas Bil (23 May 16:50)
Votes on this proposal:
10 out of 10 voting members have voted.
Agree: 10, Disagree: 0, Abstain: 0.