Just Eliminate Calculating DQ's And Time Differentials.

[Wesley Tucker]

My background and interests are not ski and snowboard racing. I've always, though, been a fan of drag racing.

Here's the rules:

Everybody qualifies.
Fastest qualified in each heat has LANE CHOICE.
Two racers run the course.

The fastest time advances.

No second run, no switching courses, no worrying about DQ penalties and a 32-man bracket is done in half the time. You want lane choice? Then qualify in the top half of the bracket.

Now, everyone does get a second run: in the LOSER'S BRACKET. In a 32-man bracket 16 skaters will not advance. They move to the losers bracket. Same rules: fastest qualifier gets lane choice. Whoever has TWO losses is done. (One in the "main" bracket and one in the "loser's" bracket.) Eventually, everybody will have two losses EXCEPT the skater who wins.

The way it works is that through the course of the race, EVERYBODY BUT ONE will go to the Loser's Bracket and from there have to work their way back to have a chance to beat the one skater who's stayed undefeated all the way through the main bracket. And there will always be one.

Again, no need to calculate time differentials or DQ penalties. A DQ just means you've lost. You either get to go to the Loser's Bracket or you've already had your two losses and you are done. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE between this racing format and what we use now is there is an excellent chance a bunch of slow skaters are going to run in the "slow" lane twice. That's the breaks. Want to pick your lane? Qualify faster.

And please, don't anyone start yacking at me about how that's not the way it's done. It is. The NHRA does it that way and has for decades. (I think, though, in the NHRA it's one and done. i don't know about an NHRA "loser bracket" second run. Hollien would know.) It's a multi-million dollar enterprise. Obviously, something is working with the spectators and the sponsors.

Just imagine:

No DQ worries. A DQ just means you lost. Thank you very much. Come again.
No calculating time differential
No spectator wondering if someone won this time or last time or the next time
Everyone who wins is a winner and moves on.

That can't be said about the current format. Not everyone who wins "this time" is a winner "next time."

[Wesley Tucker]

And one other thing. (This I know is much more controversial and will never fly but I'll say it anyway.)

Another way to handle cones is NO PENALTY. Establish a max number of cones and if a skater stays within that number they complete the course. Hit one too many and it's a DQ.

No need to calculate cone penalties
No need to calculate DQ penalties
No need to calculate time differentials.

First one to the finish line who didn't hit too many cones wins.

Guess what?

The CLOCK HAS JUST BEEN ELIMINATED.

And you've got balls-to-the-wall racing where everybody knows who won: the skater who crossed the finish line first and didn't leave any cone spray.

Eyeballs at the top and bottom of the course (most everyone has two) can judge a race. Or you can still use the TrakMate as a four-tone start (Just like the NHRA's Christmas tree) and clear indicator in case of a "photo finish" of who really crossed the finish line first. It will also still indicate false starts. But the time itself doesn't have to be recorded. Just the fastest time means the skater won (if there aren't too many cones down and stayed in the course.)

Put an "W" by the winners name and the Loser gets an "L." Go to the next bracket.

BUT

You can still use a clock display: fastest time displayed wins.

If there's a DQ manually enter 999.99. That skater is a loser. And the DQ losers are obvious: they blow out the course or stop skating. Of course he didn't win.

It's the clearest way for a spectator to KNOW who won. No more of a skater "winning" the race for all to see only for all the spectators to be told later, "no, he didn't win. Our calculation indicate his cone penalty coupled with his inability to make up for the DQ penalty in the previous heat leads to the slower guy winning."

What?

It makes scoring 10 frames of bowling look easy.

[Wesley Tucker]

Clarification.

Even the racer who has not lost through the main bracket must lose twice to be eliminated.

You know what that means, right?

Whoever emerges out of the loser's bracket to take on the undefeated skater MUST win. If he does win, though, there will be a second race because the skater who was undefeated until the end also gets two losses. And the racer coming out of the loser's bracket also only has one loss and it takes two to be eliminated.

So, one run. Racer 2 beats undefeated-so-far racer 1. Now both have ONE LOSS

They race again. Winner is the Champion.

OR

One run. Undefeated-so-far Racer 1 wins. Race is over. Racer two now has two losees and is eliminated.

[Jack Smith]

Wes,

Thanks for the posts. Very interesting.

I think the first race I ever organized in Morro Bay, way back in 1975 used this system or something close to it. I remember going to the Recreation Department guy that ran the softball tourneys and getting a double elimination bracket from him.

That race had some interesting features:
We had starting gates that were flat on the ground. Built with wood. The gates were held shut by a solenoid, when a switch was thrown the solenoid closed, allowing the gate to be pulled open by a screen door spring.

For the finish line we built a frame that supported a bamboo wand on a hinge, The free end of the wand had a piece of metal on it that was wired to a signal light. The metal end was put into place against a metal "dairy milk can" from my grandfathers farm. When the first skater pushed the wand out of the way, a circuit was completed and the signal light lit up, declaring the winner.

I'm going to give your proposal serious thought!

[Wesley Tucker]

Jack,

Here's the double elimination bracket format:



It looks a little strange but it does make sense.

Winner's Bracket:

Round of 32
16 losers

Round of 16
8 losers

Loser's Bracket First Round:

16 Losers from the round of 32

PLUS

8 losers from the round of 16

There are now 24 in this round.

Proceed to the finals.

I could number all these but I think the progress is obvious. The highest seed always has the advantage. In the Loser's Bracket there is a "small" bracket and a "large" bracket feeding to the third-place round. The high seed is in the small bracket. Theorietically, two lower seeds will have to race an extra round to determine 3rd place. (We do that now with the consolation round.)

The Winner's Bracket ALWAYS RACES FIRST. The losers from this bracket are needed to fill out the Loser's Bracket round. And in the Winner's Bracket it's a Round of 16,8,4 and 2, THEN THE FINALS

In the Loser's Bracket it's a Round of 24,12, 6, TWO WITH A BYE FOR THE HIGH SEED, another Round of Two with the winner going on to compete in the finals.

Trust me, this is no more complicated than running everybody twice in different lanes and then calculating time differentials. Like I said before, with this format there's no NEED for a compuer or a clock. Clocks and computers, though, can make it run smoother and of course maintain accurate records of winners and losers.

Oh, I got your PM last night after midnight. I'm at 843-875-9005.

[Michael Stride]

Wes, we have used the max cone, no time added method you describe with success in the UK Wasteland races when either the timers dont work, or we just want an easy to administer format.

I think it works EXTREMELY well and precisely why I developed the dual lane first past the post photofinish device (described on the timers thread) it makes for a simple, clockless format.

I like the idea of racing for the line, and thats one reason why I have never liked the formats where the starts arnt the same time, or for that matter where a doubling of the jump start is added.

[Jonathan Harms]

Haven't given much time to sifting through your idea yet, Wesley, so I can't say much about the main points, but I do have one "side" question: What happens if BOTH racers DQ in a given race?

[Wesley Tucker]

Haven't given much time to sifting through your idea yet, Wesley, so I can't say much about the main points, but I do have one "side" question: What happens if BOTH racers DQ in a given race?

I talked to Jack Smith about that. His opinion that such an instance is where a "do over" is required.

We don't do-overs now because if there is a double DQ then in the next bracket there is a bye. But a double DQ in the winner's bracker would mean two people sent down and that cannot happen. I do not like advancing by qualifying times. When qualifying is over and racing starts then qualifying no longer matters.

So, we do a do over. Guess what? If there is a double DQ AGAIN, then both racers have their two losses. In such a case then in the Loser's round someone just earned a BYE because whoever was supposed to race them coming out of the winner's bracket just got eliminated . . . in both lanes. Double losses for double skaters mean both are done.

Oh, a double DQ in the loser's bracket DOES mean there's a bye in the next round. Once in the loser's bracket then it's not an issue.

Yes, double DQs are an issue. But certainly not an insurmountable one.

[Pat Chewning]

If a race organizer were to try using some of these deviations from the ISSA 2008 rules, what do you think the ISSA status would be of the race?

The reason I ask is this: The ink is just barely dry on the 2008 ISSA rules and now we see some ideas for a radically different format of racing. If someone decided to actually do a race this way, would you expect it to get a high ISSA contest status?

[Wesley Tucker]

If a race organizer were to try using some of these deviations from the ISSA 2008 rules, what do you think the ISSA status would be of the race?

The reason I ask is this: The ink is just barely dry on the 2008 ISSA rules and now we see some ideas for a radically different format of racing. If someone decided to actually do a race this way, would you expect it to get a high ISSA contest status?

Gee, I don't know.

Is there a moratorium on ideas? (I wasn't informed.)

If an organizer, though, does decide to follow a double-elimination format it would be a well-advertised effort where skaters would know in advance what to expect. As such the skaters could make whatever decision to participate or stay home.

I like I had said on many occassions: the ISSA DICTATES NOTHING. The ISSA rule book, though, is required for race sanctioning. If an organizer wants to try new things and skaters are enthusiastic about participating then I say "yeah, baby!" It would be inopportune, though, to do this and then gripe because no one got their points for a Prime event. Can't have both.

Let me also go back to my original reason for posting this notion. Other's have noted issues with various ways for calculating the disqualification penalty. My suggestion is to eliminate the penalty. The double elimination format does just that. No need to calculate a DQ penalty if the end result is a loss no matter what.

And besides, Pat, what if I threw this monkeywrench into the process last fall during the rules revision? It would have been glossed over and ignored in the crush of initiatives and multiple propositions.

The happenstance of Gib Lewis raising the issue of DQ penalties gave me the opportunity to raise this proposal during the quiet "silly season" and it's garnered some attention.

Rather clever on my part if I do say so myself. (I might as well. It's not like anyone else is going to do it.)

[Wesley Tucker]

Y'all need to BEWARE . . .

This is going to happen at a race sooner than later.

Jack Smith is like a wild man all over this.

And others have criticized me already . . . for not mentioning this earler.

[Jack Smith]

Wes is right about that.

After reading his post about the drag racing format, I got fired up about seeing if we could adapt it to dual slalom skateboard racing.

With Wes and Fluitt's help, I am close to posting the new format along with a mock race/bracket.

Stay tuned.

[Joe Iacovelli]

If a race organizer were to try using some of these deviations from the ISSA 2008 rules, what do you think the ISSA status would be of the race?

The reason I ask is this: The ink is just barely dry on the 2008 ISSA rules and now we see some ideas for a radically different format of racing. If someone decided to actually do a race this way, would you expect it to get a high ISSA contest status?

So why can't we the members of ISSA vote to include or exclude any new idea?

[Pat Chewning]

If a race organizer were to try using some of these deviations from the ISSA 2008 rules, what do you think the ISSA status would be of the race?

The reason I ask is this: The ink is just barely dry on the 2008 ISSA rules and now we see some ideas for a radically different format of racing. If someone decided to actually do a race this way, would you expect it to get a high ISSA contest status?

So why can't we the members of ISSA vote to include or exclude any new idea?

Joe, we have a process for that. It is called the rules update. The next one will be in September-December 2008 to be effective in 2009.

The rules update process calls for the "ISSA rules comittee" to consider proposed rule changes and then take action. I would expect that one possible action would be a vote by the ISSA members on some of the proposals.