A Little Guidance From the FIS

[Marcus Rietema]

Follow this link to see a copy of the FIS rulebook (International Ski Federation) who governs the World Cup, Olympics and all major ski racing events around the world. They preside over Slalom, Giant Slalom, Super G and Downhill. This is a very detailed rulebook and more than the ISSA needs to worry about at this point put I think it can also give a lot of guidance.

http://www.fis-ski.com/data/document/ICR04.pdf

[Pat Chewning]

In the FIS parallel (dual) races, if a racer DQ's on his first run, and the other racer finishes, then there is no 2nd run.


I think this is correct, and that is what I'd like to embody into the skateboard racing rules.

No "magic number" for a DQ penalty carried into the 2nd run. You DQ on the 1st run, you're out. (Unless you both DQ)

[Ramón Königshausen]

You omitted one aspect:

If you DQ in the first run and your opponent doesn't, there is still the possibility that your opponent DQ's in the second run.

So you could give someone a "real" DQ in the first run and let the racers run the second run as well to see if the other racer DQ's too. This would be like a second chance for the first DQ'er.

Then the question is: Do we want to give second chances or not?

rmn

[Pat Chewning]

You omitted one aspect:

If you DQ in the first run and your opponent doesn't, there is still the possibility that your opponent DQ's in the second run.

So you could give someone a "real" DQ in the first run and let the racers run the second run as well to see if the other racer DQ's too. This would be like a second chance for the first DQ'er.

Then the question is: Do we want to give second chances or not?

rmn

I didn't omit that aspect, the FIS rules DO NOT PROVIDE for a 2nd run when a single racer DQ's in the 1st run.

The FIS has decided NOT to give a second chance.

I agree with that decision and I think it should apply to dual slalom skateboard races.

[Ramón Königshausen]

Okay, but it could be an option for us.

rmn

[Jadranko Radovanovic]

I never saw a parallel slalom ski competition except at the Olympics. But this was an speial diszipline.

Look at the FIS Snowboard Parallel rules. They are closer to slalom skateboarding than ski.


Disqualifications
2511.1 Causes for disqualifications are the following:
- false start (art. 2505.3)
- changing from one course to another
- disturbing opponent, voluntarily or not
- incorrect gate passage
- turn not executed on the outside of a gate
- not finishing the run with at least the front foot fixed to the board.

2511.2 The competitor who is disqualified or does not finish his first run of a round
will start in the second run with a penalty time.

2512 Penalty Time
The Penalty Time will be calculated using the best time of the qualifications
for women and men. A 4 % penalty, with a maximum of 1,5 seconds,
of his time will be used in the parallel finals.
In all cases the maximum time difference for the first run of each pairing
can never be higher than the penalty time. i.e. the actual time difference is
3 seconds, the penalty time is 1.3 seconds, then the second run will be
started with a handicap of 1.3 seconds for the loosing competitor of the
first round.
If both competitors are tied after the second run by their respective penalty
times the competitor who wins the second run advances to the next round.
If both competitors are disqualified in the second run at the same gate, the
competitor who won the first run advances to the next round.
If both competitors are tied in each of both runs by the real times (0/0 tie),
a third run has to be conducted. The course has to be chosen by draw.
On delayed start gates the second run governs if there is a tie.

[Marcus Rietema]

I feel it would be good to have separate rules for the Amateur/Open classes and rules for the Pros.

Since the Ams/Open racers are there for recreation and most of them need all of the practice they can get, they should get a 1.5 penalty for a DQ. It's important for them to get in all of their race runs. Keep the AMS/Open skaters happy and they will continue to support the events and grow the sport.

The Pros should be held to a higher and tougher standard. For them it would make sense for a DQ to mean automatic elimination.

[Hans Koraeus]

I agree also to skip 2:nd run in case of a DQ in one of the corses. It saves time. And even though I agree with Ramòn it often ends up with a very lame situation where the racer who did not DQ knows that if he only manage to run through the course he wins. And often that is exactly what he does and it does not look good. The DQ racer goes for it to take his revenge and wins by great margin. After comes the other racer on his sunday promenade. And the winner is... the man with the walking stick. And the audience thinks: "How did that happen?".

[Claude Regnier]

If you make a DQ a knock out then you will definitely save some racers travels expenses. It's a great way to discourage participation.

It's fine to have a higher DQ penalty for Pro's and Am's but there is always a chance of a comeback. It has been done before. Many people will not like that one.

[Martin Drayton]

I agree with Claude...Anyone remember Kenny Mollica-v-Gary Fluitt, Morro Bay World Champs 2003? Mollica DQ's and gets a 1 sec penalty, charges 2nd run like a madman (entertaining to the crowd), beats Flu and goes on to WIN the World title? Should he not have been given that chance then?
Not getting a second run after a DQ is VERY harsh and although the Ams are supposedly just there for fun, it still costs a Pro the same amount of money to get there usually with little chance of prize money to offset these costs.
Doesn't it make more of a spectacle to have someone risking everything on that second run from an entertainment point of view as well as watching the mix of skill and desperation?

I agree also to skip 2:nd run in case of a DQ in one of the corses. It saves time. And even though I agree with Ramòn it often ends up with a very lame situation where the racer who did not DQ knows that if he only manage to run through the course he wins. And often that is exactly what he does and it does not look good. The DQ racer goes for it to take his revenge and wins by great margin. After comes the other racer on his sunday promenade. And the winner is... the man with the walking stick. And the audience thinks: "How did that happen?".

But it is the right thing to happen because if that lucky racer who wins after one DQ goes to the next 'more competitive' round, he is going to look just as bad if not worse as he gets stomped by a much faster guy...Or maybe there will be another first run DQ then someone who really shouldn't be there advances twice!

As a former World Cup Snowboard GS racer I agree with J-Rad, it makes much more sense to me to look at the Snowboard rules rather than the Ski rules. We always race dual in skateboarding and snowboarding, skiing generally only does it for rare Pro events .

[Hans Koraeus]

My comment was for the case that a DQ is a real DQ. Not a time adding thing. If there is a time penalty for DQ then of course you will need the 2:nd run.

[Olga Kiseleva]

I totally agree with Jadranco and Claud, I suggest we should keep closer to snowboard rules, why do we care what ski people decide?
Also, at some races the courses (white and red) are not exactly the same difficulty, and then the result may depend on who goes on which one first, which I think is not fare.

[Dominik Kowalski]

C'mon...everybody deserves a second chance, huh?

[Donald Campbell]

just to make sure this is understood

slalom skateboarding comes from skateboarding and not from ski-racing



think about it

[Pat Chewning]

The vote is currently running highly in favor of a 1.5 second add-on for DQ in head-to-head racing. (Vote # 6.1)

If this holds true, then a 2nd run will be taken.



The vote in question 6.3 (whether to take a 2nd run after DQ) was for the case where the DQ penaly was HUGE (999 seconds). I find it interesting that even with a 999 second time, there is still a majority of people who want a 2nd run. This doesn't make sense to me. A 2nd-run chance only makes sense if there is a "reasonable" chance of making up the difference. A 999 second DQ time does not make for a "reasonable" chance.


A 1.5 second penalty for DQ is fairly harsh on a 15-second tight slalom course. But not so harsh on a 100-second SGS course.

[Claude Regnier]

Maybe that's why th 10% percent rule would make more sense. You could look at it in the same manner as couerse setting. What's the use of setting a 5' TS on an 11 degree slope?

Some things need room for adjustments according to the situations presented. Of course we could continue with what we've been doing and just ignore sounds points then bring them up when we need to look good or make ammendments.

[Jonathan Harms]

The vote in question 6.3 (whether to take a 2nd run after DQ) was for the case where the DQ penaly was HUGE (999 seconds). I find it interesting that even with a 999 second time, there is still a majority of people who want a 2nd run. This doesn't make sense to me. A 2nd-run chance only makes sense if there is a "reasonable" chance of making up the difference. A 999 second DQ time does not make for a "reasonable" chance.

I voted for allowing a second run if Racer A DQs (and gets a time of 999 seconds) Racer B doesn't--because maybe Racer B will DQ in the second run and Racer A won't.

Completely unlikely? I don't think so; it certainly could happen. Sure, Racer A DQs in the first race and Racer B doesn't. But maybe Racer B is on the edge of disaster throughout the run and BARELY avoids DQ'ing. Maybe one lane is harder than the other and the situation is reversed in the second run. If you don't GET a second run, you'll never know.

As I see it, the point of these rules is to ensure that the person who races better on a given day continues to advance. The way we currently do that is to combine the times of two runs. Unless you allow both runs to occur, you're basically saying "the first person to DQ automatically loses," and you don't know for sure who actually raced better over two runs.

I couldn't recall, however, whether there was a rule that decided how to handle such a scenario. Does one exist, either current or proposed? In other words, if each racer DQs exactly one run (if the 999-second DQ is adopted), how do you determine who advances?

[Jonathan Harms]

Maybe that's why th 10% percent rule would make more sense. You could look at it in the same manner as couerse setting. What's the use of setting a 5' TS on an 11 degree slope?

I agree, which is why I voted for the 10% rule. I think it applies a reasonable standard, and one that applies regardless of course length.

One potential problem: Timekeeping/bracketing software would have to be modified to calculate and apply the 10% penalty, which would of course vary from racer to racer and run to run. But as best I can tell, that's a fairly simple fix.

[Pat Chewning]

I couldn't recall, however, whether there was a rule that decided how to handle such a scenario. Does one exist, either current or proposed? In other words, if each racer DQs exactly one run (if the 999-second DQ is adopted), how do you determine who advances?

If each racer DQ's (Racer A in 1st run, Racer B in 2nd run):

**************** In the case of 999 second DQ penalty
Racer A: 999 + (time in 2nd run) = A-total-time
Racer B: (time in 1st run) + 999 = B-total-time

If, by some stroke of fate, they should still be tied, then go on to tie-breaking rules

**************** In the case of 1.5s DQ penalty
Racer A: (B_1st_run_time +1.5sec) + A_2nd_run_time = A-total-time
Racer B: B_1st_run_time + (A_2nd_run_time +1.5 sec) = B-total-time

Racer A and racer B are guaranteed to be tied after each DQ'ing. They need to go on to tie-breaking rules.

=======================================

The tie breaker would go to the racer with the higher qualification placing. See rule 6.3






One conclusion from this: If the goal is to see which racer was better over these 2 runs, then the 999s DQ penalty does a better job in this case.

[Pat Chewning]

Here is a case where the slower racer is guaranteed to win -- yes that's right -- the slower racer is guaranteed to win!

Scenario: 10% DQ penalty. Racer A DQ's 1st run (racer B gets 10 second)
Scenario: 10% DQ penalty. Racer B DQ's 2nd run (racer A gets 15 seconds)

Racer A has just won the race by getting a slower time than racer B.

How?


Run #1
A_1 = 10 + (.1 * 10) = 11 seconds
B_1 = 10 seconds

Run #2
A_2 = 15 seconds
B_2 = 15 + (.1 * 15) = 16.5 seconds


Sum of A_1 and A_2 = 26 seconds
Sum of B_1 and B_2 = 26.5 seconds

Both racers completed a time in the same lane and DQ'd in the same lane, yet Racer A wins with a slower time.

[Claude Regnier]

I'm pretty sure th 10% rule is meant to be from the qualiffying times before the head to head starts. It was never meant to be added or calculated on a per run basis.

If both racer obtain a DQ facing each other then the fastest racer should advance. if for some odd reason they run identical times then we should resort to the faster qualifying time.

This can also make a natural seperation for different DQ's for Pro & Amateur divisions along with Juniors and women;s if you choose.

I know some people feel that qualifying means nothing (5th, 9th,17th place ties and so on) but this would make qualifying more important for everyone.

As we've seen 1/10th of a second on certain courses (Paris for example) many riders can in that 1/10th span. Since points are calculated for rnkings after the top 4 or 8 or 16 by qualtimes then lets make sure that everyone undeerstand how important it really is.

[Wesley Tucker]

If both racers DOUBLE DQ (in other words nobody makes the course) then NOBODY should advance. If you can't make the course in head-to-head racing then you are done.

In the next round whoever did advance earns a bye.

If no one makes the course then no one advances. It's called "elimination racing." If neither racer can make the course then both are eliminated.

Qualifying times have nothing to do with whether or not the two racers in the brackets advance if NEITHER can make the course.

This is racing. If a racer can't make the course then they are done.

I would have discussed this in the discussion period but I didn't know it was a matter for consideration.

[Jack Smith]

"Qualifying times have nothing to do with whether or not the two racers in the brackets advance if NEITHER can make the course. "

But yet we use the Q times to determine final placings below the round of four, still makes no sense to me at all.

[Claude Regnier]

We;re talking about one DQ each not double DQ's. Get it?

[Pat Chewning]

I'm pretty sure th 10% rule is meant to be from the qualiffying times before the head to head starts. It was never meant to be added or calculated on a per run basis.

If both racer obtain a DQ facing each other then the fastest racer should advance. if for some odd reason they run identical times then we should resort to the faster qualifying time.

Using the above technique, the racers are guaranteed to be tied.

Let's use the same example, but with a 10% applied to the qualifying time.
Example is qualifying time of 10 seconds, so the DQ penalty is 1 second.

Run #1 (racer A DQ's, Racer B 10 sec)
A_1 = 10 + (1) = 11 seconds
B_1 = 10 seconds

Run #2 (racer B DQ's Racer A 15 sec)
A_2 = 15 seconds
B_2 = 15 + (1) = 16 seconds


Sum of A_1 and A_2 = 26 seconds
Sum of B_1 and B_2 = 26 seconds

Racers are tied even though racer A went 50% slower than racer B ....

So again, we go to the tie breaker which is based on qualifying time.

==============================================

All of these examples expose the basic flaw with adding a penalty to the OTHER racer's time to come up with a DQ penalty. It just doesn't make sense to me.

This is why I voted for a 999 second DQ penalty, and no 2nd run. I can't see any method of taking a DQ and making it "fair" for going into the 2nd run. No scenario seems to work. The racer didn't finish the course so he should be out.

===============================================

However, I am committed to implementing whatever rules are voted on -- no matter if they make sense or not!

[Claude Regnier]

Perhaps someone who has used this 10% rule can step in here.

From what I remember, the 10% rule applies to the fastest qualifiers time in said division. The actual racers time have nothing to do with the 10%. The only way they would tie was if they raced to equal race time during their head 2 head heats.

So try that again.

[Pat Chewning]

Perhaps someone who has used this 10% rule can step in here.

From what I remember, the 10% rule applies to the fastest qualifiers time in said division. The actual racers time have nothing to do with the 10%. The only way they would tie was if they raced to equal race time during their head 2 head heats.

So try that again.

Yes, I would also like to see an example with real numbers that shows how it can work. I might be missing something.

A "10% rule" doesn't mean much unless we know:
A) What am I taking 10% of? (Other racer's time, best qual time, worst qual time ... ??)
B) What am I supposed to do with this 10%? (Add to other racer's time, add to my time, add to best qual time, add to worst qual time.... ???)


What I'm afraid of is that there is no reasonable method for constructing a "fair" time out of a DQ. The racer did not finish the course. This could be one of several ways:
A) The racer falls off the start ramp and crashes.
B) The racer is running neck-and-neck with the opponent all the way to the finish line and then hits the last cone and veers away from the finish.
C) The racer is trying to keep up with the opponent and is falling WAY back. Knowing this, he pulls out of the course so he does not get a HUGE differential into the 2nd run.
D) The racer is leading the opponent but hitting lots of cones. He finally hits the 20% cone limit, plus one.
E) The racer's knee gives out 1/2 way through the course and he falls.
F) ......
G) .....

Yet we think we can add some universal formula to make up a time for the DQ'd racer that is "fair" going into the 2nd run -- and make it apply well to ALL of the cases above.

I propose that we cannot, and that a DQ should be as big a penalty in head-to-head as it is in qualifying -- i.e. 999 seconds.

[Jonathan Harms]

Not that it REALLY helps, but remember this is a specific scenario: One racer DQs ONLY the first run, and the other racer DQs ONLY the second run.

Surely this has occurred in the last year or two? How WAS it handled? Who advanced, and why/how? Was it based on qualifying times? Or on something else?

(Side question for Jack only: If you were the organizer of a race in which this happened, how did/would YOU decide who moves on? With all due respect, I can only assume it wouldn't be based on qualifying time--right?)

If it HASN'T happened, then maybe we don't need to worry about it?

[Pat Chewning]

I agree with Claude...Anyone remember Kenny Mollica-v-Gary Fluitt, Morro Bay World Champs 2003? Mollica DQ's and gets a 1 sec penalty, charges 2nd run like a madman (entertaining to the crowd), beats Flu and goes on to WIN the World title? Should he not have been given that chance then?
Not getting a second run after a DQ is VERY harsh

Jonathan ... above is a real example from a real race using the 1 second DQ penalty. (Yes, I know it is not an example of one racer DQ'ing in each run.)

Martin is using this as an argument FOR constructing a "fair" DQ time and a 2nd run.

Now let's look at it from another perspective:
A) Was 1 second too small a DQ penalty, and thus allowing Kenny to advance after only putting in 1 excellent run rather than 2 good runs?
B) If the penalty was 1.5 or 2 sec or 10% or 999sec, might Fluitt have won and advanced?
C) If Fluitt were to advance and go on to win the championsip (if the DQ was 999 seconds), would Martin still be advocating for a small DQ penalty going into the 2nd round?
D) If the penalty were harsher than 1sec would Kenny have altered his race strategy and raced more cautiously in the 1st run, perhaps not DQ-ing and won on outright time?
E) If the penalty were harsher than 1sec would Fluitt have been able to run more cautiously in the 2nd run and not hit so many cones and get a winning 2-run time?

The fact that we have an example where a racer did advance after getting a DQ in the 1st run does not mean that the artificial construction of a time from a DQ is the RIGHT thing to do....

It is still an artificial construction of a time from nothing. I have a problem with that.

I understand I'm in the minority and we will likely have something in the rules for constructing an artificial time from a DQ. I disagree with that, but I am committed to implement whatever we vote on (even if it has problems like I have exposed above).

[Claude Regnier]

This is what I think or remember:

A "10% rule" doesn't mean much unless we know:


A) What am I taking 10% of? (Other racer's time, best qual time, worst qual time ... ??) Add 10% to the completed run: 10% comes the fastest qualifying time 10 = 1 second


B) What am I supposed to do with this 10%? (Add to other racer's time, add to my time, add to best qual time, add to worst qual time.... ???)

Racer A runs 10
Racers B DQ's -time awarded is 11

Racer A DQ's -
Racer B still needs to beat the 10 second run in order to beat out the 11 time from the first run DQ.

The racers still need to be the fastest in one of their two heats to advance.

C) The racer is trying to keep up with the opponent and is falling WAY back. Knowing this, he pulls out of the course so he does not get a HUGE differential into the 2nd run

C) Does suck as I hat it happen to me in Georgea a few years ago. I DQ on the second cone in the first run as the Byrd stule ramps lifted and through my front foot off the board as it came down.

I'll repeat the biggest reason t keep a DQ penalty in instead of knocking out a racer. You will lose participants in events that use this type of rule. You will certainly kill growth in the beginer fields and events running a,b,c,d class races or they will simply not want to be part of the ISSA santions.

[Pat Chewning]

Racer A runs 10
Racers B DQ's -time awarded is 11

Racer A DQ's -
Racer B still needs to beat the 10 second run in order to beat out the 11 time from the first run DQ.

The racers still need to be the fastest in one of their two heats to advance.

I still don't understand what time racer A gets from the 2nd run and how this adds up to ensure that the fastest racer advances. Is there a different rule being applied to the 2nd run than the 1st?

[Pat Chewning]

Just as a means of argument to expose some of the flaws in applying a DQ penalty to construct a time:

What if we wanted 2 runs added together to form our qualifying times? (Rather than the single best time).

How would you "construct" a 2nd time for a racer who DQ'd one run?
How would this be "fair" to any racers who qualify below this one racer, yet did not DQ?

I'll leave this as an exercise for the student.... Due tomorrow.

[Claude Regnier]

Jonothan wrote:

(Side question for Jack only: If you were the organizer of a race in which this happened, how did/would YOU decide who moves on? With all due respect, I can only assume it wouldn't be based on qualifying time--right?)

In the FCR, La Costa race Hackett and I both DQ'd in the left lane (lots of loose sand from the wind) His good run was better then my run by .002. He advanced. the good news was he put my fall in the BLR video

Usually the rider with the best time advanced. In the heat not from qualifying times. If they both made one run then they have a time. Although it is possible to get the same time it happens very seldom to the .000. You just need to check some spreadsgeets to see.

Rather then post again I'll edit this in:

Pat wrote:

still don't understand what time racer A gets from the 2nd run and how this adds up to ensure that the fastest racer advances. Is there a different rule being applied to the 2nd run than the 1st?

Okay so Racer B on his second runs earn a time of 9.5 - There doesn't need to be a calculation for Rider A. The 9.5 beat the 10. It would come into play only if there was no 2nd DQ by one of the riders.

If Racer A didn't DQ then...........well you know that part?

[Pat Chewning]

I'm glad nobody proposed this as a rule to vote on, but:

In some races I've seen an artificial reduction of the time differential to meet the "max differential" which was set equal to the DQ penalty time.

In this case: (using 1.0 second as DQ penalty and max differential)

Racer A gets 15 seconds 1st run (Applied time is 11 seconds due to max differential)
Racer B gets 10 seconds 1st run

Racer A gets 10 seconds 2nd run
Racer B gets 11 seconds 2nd run

Racer A and Racer B are now tied. That's right, they are tied. Because of the limit of 1 second differential. Racer A might advance (qualifying time tie-breaker) even though he raced 13% slower than racer B over the two runs.

I'm glad that we are not even considering using a "max differential" in the rules.

[Martin Drayton]

I agree with Claude...Anyone remember Kenny Mollica-v-Gary Fluitt, Morro Bay World Champs 2003? Mollica DQ's and gets a 1 sec penalty, charges 2nd run like a madman (entertaining to the crowd), beats Flu and goes on to WIN the World title? Should he not have been given that chance then?
Not getting a second run after a DQ is VERY harsh

Jonathan ... above is a real example from a real race using the 1 second DQ penalty. (Yes, I know it is not an example of one racer DQ'ing in each run.)

Martin is using this as an argument FOR constructing a "fair" DQ time and a 2nd run.

Now let's look at it from another perspective:
A) Was 1 second too small a DQ penalty, and thus allowing Kenny to advance after only putting in 1 excellent run rather than 2 good runs?
B) If the penalty was 1.5 or 2 sec or 10% or 999sec, might Fluitt have won and advanced?
C) If Fluitt were to advance and go on to win the championsip (if the DQ was 999 seconds), would Martin still be advocating for a small DQ penalty going into the 2nd round?
D) If the penalty were harsher than 1sec would Kenny have altered his race strategy and raced more cautiously in the 1st run, perhaps not DQ-ing and won on outright time?
E) If the penalty were harsher than 1sec would Fluitt have been able to run more cautiously in the 2nd run and not hit so many cones and get a winning 2-run time?

The fact that we have an example where a racer did advance after getting a DQ in the 1st run does not mean that the artificial construction of a time from a DQ is the RIGHT thing to do....

It is still an artificial construction of a time from nothing. I have a problem with that.

I understand I'm in the minority and we will likely have something in the rules for constructing an artificial time from a DQ. I disagree with that, but I am committed to implement whatever we vote on (even if it has problems like I have exposed above).

Looking at it from your perspective:
A) Are we not rewarding excellence over just good?
B) He may well have gone further, however Mollica went consistantly fastest all day with the fastest time of the day being in the final against Chicken, after eliminating Luca.Adhering to your rule would have meant the fastest racer on the day WOULD NOT have won.
C) Yes, what if he had made a small error against an opponent he could easily beat in the next round who, for the sake of argument, earned his place by a much faster opponent DQ'ing? We would have a 2-time lucky loser go through and make a mockery of the event! Remember the way the draw works, fastest against slowest in the early head-to-head rounds...
D) Possibly...I can't guess what his race strategy would be.
E) Possibly...I can't guess what his race strategy would be.

Pat, my worry is that the 999sec penalty will give NO second chance to the losing racer, who may have spent a fortune getting there, and could also allow, by virtue of the way the draw works, allow a less skilled racer through to the next round and possibly beyond!

I agree with Claude, and personally for me this would put me off going to a race. I have little free time or money and to spend possibly $2,000-$4,000 getting to the start ramp, making a small error and its over in a few seconds....not attractive to me. But if I know I have a chance to put everything on the line on my second run...I'll do it.
In fact I was more than 1.5 secs down (not DQ penalty) against Adam Schwippert in the round of 16 @ Morro Bay '05, put everything into the run of my life, beat him, pumping so hard my feet came off the board, I rolled and desintegrated a knee pad (and part of my knee). Isn't that the sort of effort we are trying to encourage? The spectators seemed to think so...

Also just as an aside, a rider pulling out when behind and taking a penalty is called 'smart racing'...Racing is not only about being the fastest, but also about being a tactician.

Just as a means of argument to expose some of the flaws in applying a DQ penalty of 999secs or not allowing a second run...

[Jack Smith]

Jonathan, I hope I am reading your question to me correctly.

Racer A - no time first run
Racer B - no time second run

Racer A second run time - 15 sec.
Racer B - first run time - 16 sec.

Racer A advances.

Have also seen both racers DQ on their first run - racer with fastest second run advances. And of course have seen: both racers DQ on their second run - racer with fastest first run advances.

Ah, heck...let's just throw this elimination stuff at the window, we could use the Q times for final placement, the events would be over much sooner and everyone would know exactly where they finished, none of that "equal placing" stuff. Just kidding, folks.

[Wesley Tucker]

I disagree. Throw out the Q times once the racing starts.

Q times do one thing and one thing only: seed the brackets. After that's done they are useless.

So, how do you determine 5th through whatever place?

Simple.

Four skaters are eliminated in the round of 8. The fastest time produced by those four is 5th place on down to 8th.

8 skaters are eliminated in the round of 16. The fastest time produces by those 8 is 9th place.

The only thing that matters is RACING. Qualifying is NOT racing. It's qualifying. The only times that matter are the times produced when head to head when it matters. No sandbagging, no "qualifying setups," no malarkey other than getting to the finish line the fastest and cleanest.

Those are the only times that matter and the only times to consider.

And that elminates the irritating "4 tied for 5th, 8 tied for 9th" results.

[Jack Smith]

Simple.
Four skaters are eliminated in the round of 8. The fastest time produced by those four is 5th place on down to 8th.

8 skaters are eliminated in the round of 16. The fastest time produces by those 8 is 9th place.

Close, but no cigar. You cannot compare times in different heats of head to head racing. Each heat is a world unto itself.

In head to head racing, if you don't directly defeat someone you should not be placed higher than them in the final standings.

Example:
Final round - racer A defeats racer B, racer A is first place. Racer B is second place.

Consolation round - racer C defeats racer D, racer C is third place. Racer D is fourth place.

Round of 8
Four advance - Four are eliminated. The four eliminated racers did not defeat anyone in that round, they all are equal fifth. Their times in this round are meaningless.

In true head to head racing, only the difference between racers crossing the finish line is timed. We used this method at the 2005 Worlds.

I don't why it is "irritating"...like I have said before using Q times or times from the head to head heats to determine places lower than 4th, is just a "feel good" deal. Oh, look I placed 6th, doesn't that sound better than equal 5th. Give me a break! And the whole argument that it would create too many times in the rankings doesn't hold water either.

Wes, please don't take this personally.

I know I sound like a broken record on this subject, it's a pet peeve...sorry.

[Wesley Tucker]

Simple.
Four skaters are eliminated in the round of 8. The fastest time produced by those four is 5th place on down to 8th.

8 skaters are eliminated in the round of 16. The fastest time produces by those 8 is 9th place.

Close, but no cigar. You cannot compare times in different heats of head to head racing. Each heat is a world unto itself.
I don't why it is "irritating"...like I have said before using Q times or times from the head to head heats to determine places lower than 4th, is just a "feel good" deal. Oh, look I placed 6th, doesn't that sound better than equal 5th. Give me a break! And the whole argument that it would create too many times in the rankings doesn't hold water either.

Wes, please don't take this personally.

I know I sound like a broken record on this subject, it's a pet peeve...sorry.

It's irritating because it is irrelevant to use a time put down at 9:30 in the morning to determine final placing at 4:00 in the afternoon.

What's more is determining everyone is tied for 5th is great until it's time to divvy up the rewards.

And a person who lays down a 15:578 in the round of 8 is more deserving of 5th place than someone who only produced a 15.965, even if someone layed down a 16.23 in the Qs as opposed to person who posted a 16.3.

It's RACING times that matter, not qualifying. Qualifying only matters to seed the brackets. Once racing starts the Qs are no longer relevant.

And there's no need for me to take it personally, Jack, when I'm right.

[Pat Chewning]

If either of you had proposed a different way we would be voting on it now.....

[Wesley Tucker]

There's no reason to vote on it.

FCR did it wrong five years ago and now doing it wrong is ingrained into the slalom racing process. Proposing to change it now would be like trying to stop the tide no matter how damaging the incoming waves might be.

The right way to do it as I propose will take time and experience to overcome the established mistakes. We're going to have to have a lot of fast racers getting fed up with constantly coming in tied for 5th with guys a lot slower to affect any change. And then there are the guys who lay down a fantastic time in the races but end up in 8th place because their qualifying times six hours earlier sucked. Who wants to be remembered by something staged a PRELIMINARY compared to what is accomplished when RACING?

It'll take time to overcome the tradition of doing the wrong way.

[Jack Smith]

It's irritating because it is irrelevant to use a time put down at 9:30 in the morning to determine final placing at 4:00 in the afternoon.

I totally agree with you here.

What's more is determining everyone is tied for 5th is great until it's time to divvy up the rewards.

Not everyone, just four racers, or eight if you are giving prizes that deep. I have never had a problem at any of my races with anyone complaining about dividing up the prizes.

And a person who lays down a 15:578 in the round of 8 is more deserving of 5th place than someone who only produced a 15.965, even if someone layed down a 16.23 in the Qs as opposed to person who posted a 16.3.

There is no justification for one racer to be placed higher than another based on times from different heats. What your proposing is really not much different than using Q times.

It's RACING times that matter, not qualifying. Qualifying only matters to seed the brackets. Once racing starts the Qs are no longer relevant.

I have always said "Qualifying only matters to seed the brackets. Once racing starts the Qs are no longer relevant."

There's no reason to vote on it.

I agree, however, I will continue to run my races using the "equal placing" system. The rankings folks can sort it out, however that may be a bit difficult because I will only be timing the "differential". I can see that starting a whole new thread...well, I got beat by .2 by Racer A and he ended up finishing first, and you got beat by .2 by Racer B and he ended up finishing second, so I must be faster than you and accordingly should be placed higher in the final standings.

FCR did it wrong five years ago and now doing it wrong is ingrained into the slalom racing process. Proposing to change it now would be like trying to stop the tide no matter how damaging the incoming waves might be.

Do you think we just made up that system Wes? If I'm not mistaken most dual racing sports use the "equal placing" system. Not to mention other sports that use elimination rounds, where a group of competitors are eliminated in a given round, never facing the other competitors in the given round.

The right way to do it as I propose will take time and experience to overcome the established mistakes. We're going to have to have a lot of fast racers getting fed up with constantly coming in tied for 5th with guys a lot slower to affect any change.

"Fast racers getting fed up with constantly coming in tied for 5th", There's an easy cure for this, it's called winning your heat and advancing. Control your own destiny.

Also I doubt there is much difference in racer ability of the guys who get eliminated within a given round.

And then there are the guys who lay down a fantastic time in the races but end up in 8th place because their qualifying times six hours earlier sucked. Who wants to be remembered by something staged a PRELIMINARY compared to what is accomplished when RACING?

Once again I agree with you Racing is Racing and Qualifying is Qualifying.

It'll take time to overcome the tradition of doing the wrong way.

The "wrong way" in your opinion...The "right way" in my opinion.

I find it interesting how you totally disregard that in true head to head racing only the differential between racers crossing the finishing is timed.

[Jani Soderhall]

My motivation to applaud Wesley's idea is to keep the motivation up to race as hard as you can until the bitter end. I.e. if you're bound to loose out to a stronger opponent, use the opportunity and get some help in obtaining a one-hell-of-a-run and it might help you advance a place or two, rather than just relax "I can't win, at least I have my xx:th place".

This summer several riders came asking me, "What if I loose in this round, will I still keep my xx:th place?". The answer was always Yes, you have at least that place". Although it's nice to reassure someone, I still think we would be better off telling them "No, you have to fight it all the way through!".

I was always a slow starter, taking it quite easy in the qualifying rounds and then working harder and harder (as it became more important and the opponent became stronger) and as I got better control of it if the course was difficult. I definitely think the effort of doing your best even in a round where you're bound do loose should be compensated.

The qualifying times have done their job - ie create the bracketing order.

Jack's view is a bit too pure for me. I don't see in any way how it helps motivate the skater. We're used to timing. Obtaining a time in every run is important. That's how we measure ourselves against others and compared to ourselves. If we take Jacks idea to the extreme we should only time the difference between the two, we'd loose out on a very important part of slalom racing.

It's my favourite rule change proposal!

/Jani

[Wesley Tucker]

Jack's strongest opposition to the concept is when #2 races #15 and #1 races #16, then how can anyone possible compare #15 and #16 when they didn't race each other?

My answer is they can be compared because there is a CLOCK, a RECORDED TIME and most importantly the WILL TO SUCCEED no matter who is in the other lane.

Furthermore, the notion we can't compare times from different brackets would logically mean we can't compare times across QUALIFYING. After all, no one races anyone in qualifying so how can any of the times be relevant? (Yes, I know that's completely absurd but that's what's called "logical reasoning.")

Another of Jack's objections is no other sport does it.

Well, la de da.

What's wrong with Slalom Skateboarding being innovative and operating under a process that's different than what ski racers and barrel riders do?

[Jack Smith]

Jack's view is a bit too pure for me. I don't see in any way how it helps motivate the skater.

The motivation is to win your heat and advance. If you're not racing your hardest in an effort to defeat your opponent you shouldn't be racing.

We're used to timing. Obtaining a time in every run is important. That's how we measure ourselves against others and compared to ourselves. If we take Jacks idea to the extreme we should only time the difference between the two, we'd loose out on a very important part of slalom racing.

In head to head racing you measure yourself by whether or not you win your heat and advance. You cannot measure yourself against another racer in another heat, your heat has nothing to do with a racer in a separate heat.

The only place where individual times matter are in qualifying.

I just don't get the need to say I finished 6th instead of equal fifth, heck you don't even have to say equal 5th, you can just say "I finished 5th" if it makes you feel better.

Jack "the purist" Smith

[Wesley Tucker]

And one other thing . . .

If all that matters is who wins and who advances, then why do we bother having a consolation round for 3rd and 4th? Aren't they just two more skaters who didn't win their head-to-head and didn't get to advance? Why aren't they tied for 3rd?

I guess it's because in archery and foosball they award a 3rd place so we have to. It's all about what other sports do that matters.

[Jack Smith]

Wes, now you're just being silly.

In a perfect world we would take the four eliminated racers from the round of 8 and run them until we had a true 5-8...there's just this thing called sunlight.

Hmmm, no consolation round...don't tempt me. Just kidding!

[Hans Koraeus]

I think it would be nice if one could take the best time from qualifying or from the head to head to determine placements but...

- Qualification you run to get a time
- Head to Head you run to win

So difficult to mix them. In the end you either stand for the traditional "same placements" philosophy or you want individual placements.

Event organizers can do what they want but for the World Ranking the individual placements philosophy is counted. Otherwise too many people will have same points wich equals to boring result lists. Imagine if only top 16 goes to head to head of 50 racers. Then we will have 34 persons on 17:th place. How fun is that. And if you say that for those the qualifying times should count then why not for the rest of the pack?

But concerning the mix of qual times and head to head times you could also see it as...

- Qualification you run for times
- Head to Head you run firstly to win (and as winner your time is of no importance)
- Head to Head you run secondly to get a good time (as a looser your time will be compared to the other loosers in that round) I think qualification time should also be taken into account but if you do better then that could help you advance a little.

That way it could actually be more fun and motivating for the underdogs to keep on fighting and do their best in head to head even if they are sure to loose to a much better rider.

But then again, a good reason only taking into account the qual time though is that is much easier to administer...

[Jonathan Harms]

Jonathan, I hope I am reading your question to me correctly.

Racer A - no time first run
Racer B - no time second run

Racer A second run time - 15 sec.
Racer B - first run time - 16 sec.

Racer A advances.

Have also seen both racers DQ on their first run - racer with fastest second run advances. And of course have seen: both racers DQ on their second run - racer with fastest first run advances.

So if one racer DQs in each run, then whoever had the better non-DQ run advances, i.e. it's based on ONE run. But that's not the way Pat figured it. In his example, the racers will always be tied, because you COMBINE the two runs. Just trying to clarify.

(Obviously I'm a bit late replying. I was enjoying our amazing mid-November weather. My knees now hurt, but it was worth it.)

[Jack Smith]

Event organizers can do what they want but for the World Ranking the individual placements philosophy is counted. Otherwise too many people will have same points which equals to boring result lists. Imagine if only top 16 goes to head to head of 50 racers. Then we will have 34 persons on 17:th place.

Correct me if I'm wrong about this, but don't different events offer different amounts of points..main, prime, etc?

And to have all these ties you speak of in the rankings, racers would have to finish in the same place at every event to create all the said ties.

Personally, I would feel it a hollow victory if I was placed ahead of another racer in a head to head event, based on my Q time or by my time in the heat in which I was eliminated.

Hey, I know let's just give everyone a trophy and call it youth soccer...just kidding!

On another subject, if you get a chance pick up the new issue of Outside Magazine, the one with Sir Richard Branson on the cover and read the article about the fellow who just bought the "King of the Hill" racing series...we need to get in front of this guy.

I hope everyone has a good week.