criddle?

Adam Winston · Post by **Adam Winston** » Sun Jun 03, 2007 11:06 pm

so what is the offical rule on criddling? inside or outside of the cone ? or does it matter?

no personal opinions.. just the actual cited rule, if there even is one

i hear people talking about officals from issa, who are they just so i know?

Hans Koraeus · Post by **Hans Koraeus** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 1:20 am

The criddling rule used right now is...

As long as you make the cone count as a penalty you are ok. I.e. cone has fallen or is outside of its circle.

If you don't make the cone count as penalty you have either passed the cone perfectly or you have just DQ'd yourself. Depending on which side you passed the cone.

Taking a cone does not make it a criddle. It's all about the intention. If you take the cone on purpose because you think you will gain more than the penalty you get in time then it's a criddle.

Otherwise it's just bad control, timing or skill.

Justin Readings · Post by **Justin Readings** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 3:49 am

is this when you intentionally knock the inside of an offset cone to set you up for a better line?

Dave Gale · Post by **Dave Gale** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 5:15 am

Inside/Outside/Centered up..It doesn't matter, if you disturb the cone and don't clear it on the proper side..If it's done on purpose, it's a criddle.

Steve Collins · Post by **Steve Collins** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 5:34 am

I saw Kevin Dunne pull the most amazing criddle today at the Peck Park race. The prevailing strategy of the course was to criddle this one nasty offset on the top section, to set up for the following drop-in section with a better line. Kevin went neatly inside the cone and ever-so-lightly touched it. It moved about 1/2". At first I didn't think it was valid, but course judge Steve Evans gave it the nod, "Textbook perfect criddle".

Carsten Pingel · Post by **Carsten Pingel** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 8:04 am

This weekend we had this above mentioned discussion! When I started slalomracing I was told that if you hit the cone from the "wrong" side it is DQ.
Yesterday in Hannover the guys were talking about that criddling stuff and that is alright if you touch the cone while passing on the wrong side ?! If you pass on the wrong side and you don't touch it is DQ ?
So is it all about touching the cone ?

Jani Soderhall · Post by **Jani Soderhall** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 10:19 am

Carsten Pingel wrote:If you pass on the wrong side and you don't touch it is DQ?

That's all, it's as easy as that.

In the 80's we did not allow criddling in Europe. That lead to very difficult decisions from conejudges (and certainly also mistakes). Maybe not often on a straight course, but imagine a tricky special slalom course with very varying offsets, "blind" cones (ie with negative offsets), Gilmourian curves etc. To avoid such situations the ISSA decided to allow criddling, which is now the world wide rule.

/Jani

Carsten Pingel · Post by **Carsten Pingel** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 10:23 am

Thx Jani, good to know! Never too old to learn s.th. new !

Michael Stride · Post by **Michael Stride** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 7:55 pm

to clarify theconemust be hit by the board or foot. no hands!

Pat Chewning · Post by **Pat Chewning** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 7:55 pm

Steve Collins wrote:I saw Kevin Dunne pull the most amazing criddle today at the Peck Park race. The prevailing strategy of the course was to criddle this one nasty offset on the top section, to set up for the following drop-in section with a better line. Kevin went neatly inside the cone and ever-so-lightly touched it. It moved about 1/2". At first I didn't think it was valid, but course judge Steve Evans gave it the nod, "Textbook perfect criddle".

If Kevin passed the cone on the "INSIDE" (the wrong side of the cone), touched the cone and it moved 1/2" (not outside the circle), and not tipped over --- then that's not a Criddle at all.

That's a DQ!

Unless I'm missing something ........

Chris Barrett · Post by **Chris Barrett** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 8:00 pm

Michael Stride wrote:to clarify theconemust be hit by the board or foot. no hands!

Worth stating... I've seen some sneaky criddles using that method... nobody said anything then however.

Rick Floyd · Post by **Rick Floyd** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 8:36 pm

Pat Chewning wrote:If Kevin passed the cone on the "INSIDE" (the wrong side of the cone), touched the cone and it moved 1/2" (not outside the circle), and not tipped over --- then that's not a Criddle at all.

That's a DQ!

Unless I'm missing something ........

That's what I was thinking...doesn't the cone have to leave the circle completely?

Steve Collins · Post by **Steve Collins** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 9:06 pm

Pat Chewning wrote: If Kevin passed the cone on the "INSIDE" (the wrong side of the cone), touched the cone and it moved 1/2" (not outside the circle), and not tipped over --- then that's not a Criddle at all.

That's a DQ!

Unless I'm missing something ........

Pat, you're saying that if he had hit the cone slightly harder and it moved out of the circle or was knocked over, then it would have been valid. Although he did indeed touch the cone, but did not knock it over or out, it is not valid.

I though the point of a criddle was that contact has to be made with the cone, regardless of what side. That's what differentiates a criddle from just an ordinary plowed cone.

I'd like to get some clarification on this.

Guillaume Saint-Criq · Post by **Guillaume Saint-Criq** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 9:11 pm

this WE in Hannover world cup, some racers get DQ for passing the cone on the "INSIDE" (the wrong side of the cone) !

Pat Chewning · Post by **Pat Chewning** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 9:40 pm

Steve Collins wrote:
Pat Chewning wrote: If Kevin passed the cone on the "INSIDE" (the wrong side of the cone), touched the cone and it moved 1/2" (not outside the circle), and not tipped over --- then that's not a Criddle at all.

That's a DQ!

Unless I'm missing something ........
Pat, you're saying that if he had hit the cone slightly harder and it moved out of the circle or was knocked over, then it would have been valid. Although he did indeed touch the cone, but did not knock it over or out, it is not valid.

I though the point of a criddle was that contact has to be made with the cone, regardless of what side. That's what differentiates a criddle from just an ordinary plowed cone.

I'd like to get some clarification on this.

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying.

Clarification follows:

IF (Cone is knocked over or outside of circle)
THEN (Apply cone penalty)
IF (This was intentional, to gain a faster line)
THEN (This was a criddle)
ELSE (This was just poor skating)

IF (Cone remains upright, within circle)
THEN (Do not apply cone penalty)
IF (Racer passed on wrong side of cone)
THEN (DQ)

When passing on the wrong side of the cone you must knock the cone over or out of the circle and take the cone penalty in order to not DQ. Merely touching the cone is not sufficient.

(Corky says the same thing, in different words on #2 post of this thread).

Steve Collins · Post by **Steve Collins** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 10:52 pm

OK, I understand what you're saying and it does make sense.

I'd like to put it to vote to get an 'official' position on it. Not that I have a problem with you and Corky just saying it is so, but to get 'official' finality ... that is, unless there is already a clear and accepted rule in place somewhere that covers it.

I should mention that Kevin's apparent psuedo-criddle wasn't due to lack of skill or poor skating as implied above, but rather the opposite. The man has phenomenal control.

Also, since we were not clear on the rule at the time and the course judge did make a call, we are leaving the run and race results as they are.

Pat Chewning · Post by **Pat Chewning** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 11:51 pm

Steve Collins wrote:OK, I understand what you're saying and it does make sense.

I'd like to put it to vote to get an 'official' position on it. Not that I have a problem with you and Corky just saying it is so, but to get 'official' finality ... that is, unless there is already a clear and accepted rule in place somewhere that covers it.

I should mention that Kevin's apparent psuedo-criddle wasn't due to lack of skill or poor skating as implied above, but rather the opposite. The man has phenomenal control.

Also, since we were not clear on the rule at the time and the course judge did make a call, we are leaving the run and race results as they are.

http://www.slalomskateboarder.com/phpBB ... php?t=4507 This is the current rule for DQ for racers who "misses a cone". (My interpretation: Goes around the wrong side of the cone and does not displace the cone).

http://www.slalomskateboarder.com/phpBB ... php?t=4501 This is the current rule for what constitutes "displacing" a cone. (My interpretation: The racer can "hit" the cone from any direction and still incur this penalty -- and only this penalty).

Pat Chewning · Post by **Pat Chewning** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 11:54 pm

Steve Collins wrote:OK, I understand what you're saying and it does make sense.

I'd like to put it to vote to get an 'official' position on it. Not that I have a problem with you and Corky just saying it is so, but to get 'official' finality ... that is, unless there is already a clear and accepted rule in place somewhere that covers it.

I should mention that Kevin's apparent psuedo-criddle wasn't due to lack of skill or poor skating as implied above, but rather the opposite. The man has phenomenal control.

Also, since we were not clear on the rule at the time and the course judge did make a call, we are leaving the run and race results as they are.

I wasn't implying the Kevin did not intend to do what actually happened. I was merely trying to distinguish between an intentional (Criddle) displacement of a cone, vs an accidental (poor skating) displacement of the cone. In the rules there is no distinction: Both receive the same result -- i.e. The cone penalty.

Steve Collins · Post by **Steve Collins** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 12:02 am

Thanks for the links.

It seems to me that a minor elaboration on what constitutes having "missed a cone" might be in order.

For example: "A racer will have missed a cone if he/she passes the cone on the wrong side and does not displace it" (referring to the definition of a "displaced" cone).

P.S. At the race in question, almost everybody intentionally hit that one cone. It was just remarkable how Kevin hit it so lightly. Many of the other racers, myself included, ended up popping the cone straight forward and chasing it around the next cone or two, sometimes comically.

Wesley Tucker · Post by **Wesley Tucker** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 12:15 am

Here's my take on criddling:

In a perfect world races would employ true course proctors to judge and administer the rules specific to cones, staying on course, acceptable cone hits, what is a DQ, etc.

As it is most races if not all utlilize volunteers to cone marshall, most of whom are seeing there very first race the day they start picking up cones.

So, criddling is probably more of a tactic than a chargeable foul. If a slalomer purposefully hits a cone on the inside or outside, it's just going to be charged as another hit cone. Other racers may marvel or criticize a racer's line and strategy for making a course, but judging it is just beyond most race organizer's ability to facilitate.

Image this: going down a course, hitting a cone and a distant voice yells, "that's a criddle! DQ!" Man, I don't even wanna be around when those feathers start flying.

Adam Winston · Post by **Adam Winston** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 3:04 pm

blah blah blah... so many 'heres my take'

sit down write a rule book... AN OFFICAL RULE BOOK.... then there are no more opinions...

it seems to me that there is too much of this 'oh this is how we used to do it, or back in the day, ect ect'

if a sport is to survive and get bigger it needs to have set rules, in writing... not just posted some place on the internet... a governing body that will choose the rules and vote to which ones make sense and which ones dont... now i understand that when you go to a race IE in another country, contient or state rules vary from place to place, because thats how the locals ride... so you can either play by the locals rules or make up a concrete set of rules that every body has to abide by....

rules are meant to be simple and easy to follow, there should be NO room for interpretation..

i suggest the pros and the people who excell at the sport sit down at some point, or via email and come out with an offical rule book... you should be able to go anyplace in the world and know exactly what the rules of the game are... otherwise we are all playing different games

Carsten Pingel · Post by **Carsten Pingel** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 3:18 pm

I totally agree, Adam!

Jani Soderhall · Post by **Jani Soderhall** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 5:21 pm

Adam Winston wrote:I suggest the pros and the people who excell at the sport sit down at some point, or via email and come out with an offical rule book... you should be able to go anyplace in the world and know exactly what the rules of the game are... otherwise we are all playing different games

It's here - isn't it? It's just that the rule topics are numerous and we have nobody moderating them. JRad made an attempt before, but it was never followed up. During this year I would hope that someone makes the effort of assembling all the bits and pieces, from the various discussion threads, and put it together in a formal way - something which could replace the ISSA rules of 1995 (see: http://www.slalomskateboarder.com/ISSA1995/ ).

I think that everyone agrees on the criddle rule (ie allow it). So that's one of the easier ones.

/Jani

Justin Readings · Post by **Justin Readings** » Wed Jun 06, 2007 4:13 am

I know im not a pro but i find allot of sports have way to many regulations on different gear restricting what you use.
i don't think slalom should be this way, if you can rock big 90 flys or any tiny wheels in slalom then do it. any trucks and board lengths should also be allowed each board will have advantages and disadvantages.
also I've read allot of 6 wheeler rules this should be something that gets decided! theres allot of people saying yes and allot saying no both with good reasons!

Wesley Tucker · Post by **Wesley Tucker** » Wed Jun 06, 2007 4:30 am

Adam Winston wrote:blah blah blah... so many 'heres my take'

sit down write a rule book... AN OFFICAL RULE BOOK.... then there are no more opinions...

it seems to me that there is too much of this 'oh this is how we used to do it, or back in the day, ect ect'

if a sport is to survive and get bigger it needs to have set rules, in writing... not just posted some place on the internet...

Damn, Adam, you're right!

As soon as you write it, let me know the page count. I'll give you a quote on printing, what, 500 copies? I'm sure you've got $1200 or $1500 to make it a really gorgeous piece.

Let us know when it' done. After all, somebody needs to do it.

Here's Rule #1:

"Anyone who says somebody needs to do something for slalom becomes the person who needs to do it."

Adam Winston · Post by **Adam Winston** » Wed Jun 06, 2007 8:38 am

har har tucker...

if i knew all the rules i would write it, or atleast PDF it.. but thats what i mean, i dont know all the rules, i just learnt about lifting your wheels on the start ramp this weekend.

well the idea was put forth, if nobody does anything about it... then you arent allowed to whine or compain when somebody at a race enforces a rule you dont like....

rule number one :all skaters who skate parallel will not be allowed
rule number two: cheerleaders are manidtory at all races
rule number three: NO SPANDEX unless on the above mentioned cheerleaders
rule number four : no victory dances

if i can collect all the rules i will write it... i have no problems with that

Malcolm Stooke · Post by **Malcolm Stooke** » Wed Jun 06, 2007 8:57 am

Dave Gale wrote:Inside/Outside/Centered up..It doesn't matter, if you disturb the cone and don't clear it on the proper side..If it's done on purpose, it's a criddle.

ok well then i definatley didnt dq in qualifying in ottawa last year. that sucks what a waste of time... well not really but shit i could have raced.

Adam Winston · Post by **Adam Winston** » Wed Jun 06, 2007 11:06 am

so who judges if it is done on purpose... we dont exactly have special trained cone heads.... just the people who are nice enough to lend a hand

they didnt go to cone school....

'ok students today we are going to learn how to count cones, this is a cone... this is a circle, if the cone is out of the circle, you mark one cone out.' its not a hard concept to grasp...

Karl Floitgraf · Post by **Karl Floitgraf** » Wed Jun 06, 2007 11:13 am

A criddle just means that you think that it's faster to hit the cone and take the .1 or .2 penalty than to go around it, racer choice. Don't make things too complicated.

Dave Gale · Post by **Dave Gale** » Wed Jun 06, 2007 12:41 pm

Quite..On purpose, or not on purpose....you still take the penalty. And you can still be D.Q'd if it puts you over the allowed cones hit! It's simply a name given to the intent of hitting a cone on purpose. But if it only moves a tad and it isn't counted as a knocked down cone, you best be outside it for it to not count as a D.Q...
This discussion takes place in 2002 for an extended period of time(thought the answers were decided then)

Rick Floyd · Post by **Rick Floyd** » Wed Jun 06, 2007 5:31 pm

Steve Collins wrote:I saw Kevin Dunne pull the most amazing criddle today at the Peck Park race. The prevailing strategy of the course was to criddle this one nasty offset on the top section, to set up for the following drop-in section with a better line. Kevin went neatly inside the cone and ever-so-lightly touched it. It moved about 1/2". At first I didn't think it was valid, but course judge Steve Evans gave it the nod, "Textbook perfect criddle".

I think the above is what set off the debate this time...but as Pat and others point out - it may not have been a "textbook perfect criddle". Gotta MOVE that sucker a lot more than a half inch.

Lenny Poage · Post by **Lenny Poage** » Wed Jun 06, 2007 6:44 pm

Adam Winston wrote:
rule number one :all skaters who skate parallel will not be allowed
rule number two: cheerleaders are manidtory at all races
rule number three: NO SPANDEX unless on the above mentioned cheerleaders
rule number four : no victory dances

Can the cheerleaders themselves do victory dances? What if they choose to, instead of wearing spandex, wear over-sized diapers and Ronald Reagan masks?

GARY GLASSER · Post by **GARY GLASSER** » Thu Jun 07, 2007 3:30 am

Wesley Tucker wrote:Here's my take on criddling:

In a perfect world races would employ true course proctors to judge and administer the rules specific to cones, staying on course, acceptable cone hits, what is a DQ, etc.

As it is most races if not all utlilize volunteers to cone marshall, most of whom are seeing there very first race the day they start picking up cones.

So, criddling is probably more of a tactic than a chargeable foul. If a slalomer purposefully hits a cone on the inside or outside, it's just going to be charged as another hit cone. Other racers may marvel or criticize a racer's line and strategy for making a course, but judging it is just beyond most race organizer's ability to facilitate.

Image this: going down a course, hitting a cone and a distant voice yells, "that's a criddle! DQ!" Man, I don't even wanna be around when those feathers start flying.

If there is a 6-10 cone stinger at the end of a course, and it does not appear the racer is trying to go around each cone but is trying to go down one side through 4-5 cones. If no attempt to turn to the left side of any cone but simply plows them all down on the right side is that still a criddle? Or is that a job for the future "official" conehead?

Dave Gale · Post by **Dave Gale** » Thu Jun 07, 2007 4:02 am

That's where cone penalty and D.Q come to play! And it's hard to pump for excelleration when going straight thru a well set course!

Adam Winston · Post by **Adam Winston** » Thu Jun 07, 2007 3:23 pm

hell cheerleaders can do what ever they like as long as i get to take them home and trap a little fur

Chris Barrett · Post by **Chris Barrett** » Thu Jun 07, 2007 6:35 pm

I'd just like to formally apologize to the world for Rob and Civ getting Adam into slalom.

He's your problem now guys! :p

(good show in germany, Adam. See you back home soon!)

Wesley Tucker · Post by **Wesley Tucker** » Thu Jun 07, 2007 6:53 pm

Adam Winston wrote:hell cheerleaders can do what ever they like as long as i get to take them home and trap a little fur

That'll happen.

Claude Regnier · Post by **Claude Regnier** » Thu Jun 07, 2007 7:36 pm

This whole "Criddle DQ" rule is an existing ISSA rule. Race organisers that ask for ISSA sanctioned events are not FREE to use their local existing rules and guidelines for events. This is what Detlef was doing in Hannover.

Adam people will wear what they please. Just like the people that have to prove they are tough by not wearing appropriate safety gear. It all comes down to personal choice. Lycra or underwear? We are trying to promote the Sport as a fun wholesme activity whether competitive or not is the goal.

Be sure that the foot remains on the board for this to count as a DQ. to clarify theconemust be hit by the board or foot. no hands!

There are many rules. Some times too many sometimes not enough. We just need to know them. They need to be respected.

Chris Barrett · Post by **Chris Barrett** » Thu Jun 07, 2007 9:49 pm

Claude Regnier wrote:Just like the people that have to prove they are tough by not wearing appropriate safety gear.

is that a dig at me?

Ps, I'm grabbing a set of those tiple 8 guards, they rule.

Claude Regnier · Post by **Claude Regnier** » Thu Jun 07, 2007 9:58 pm

chris, if we wanted to get a dig in, we could find much better stuff!
hope you heal up quick
those wrist guards are harbinger

see you in a few weeks

malcolm: there will be advanced cone judging

Adam Winston · Post by **Adam Winston** » Fri Jun 08, 2007 9:13 pm

its all in good fun boys... all in good fun...

And yes those triple 8s do kick butt.. i have a set of the knee pads and i like them a lot

Hans Koraeus · Post by **Hans Koraeus** » Sun Jun 10, 2007 9:01 pm

The reason why the rule about that "if you took the cone from the right side it was ok. If you took the cone from the wrong side it was DQ" was taken away was because it was impossible to make a clear judgement of this. Especially for the poor cone judges that often are just pulled out from the crowd.

With the current ruling it became much easier to judge.
1. If the cone is displaced then it's simply a cone penalty.
2. If cone is standing then it's just to judge on what side of the cone the racer passed. Even though it may be difficult for a novice conejudge to notice sometimes it is easy to spot by the event administrators. And when you see someone pass a cone on the wrong side you just have to check if the cone is moved outside of the circle or not. This is a very exact judgement.

John Gilmour · Post by **John Gilmour** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 3:53 am

A criddle is just an ordinary cone penalty. Without the penalty... you must not have entered the cone space with certainty with your wheels, board or feet and thus you were off the course...DQ.

Optimally a criddle is a cone that the racer has determined for his strategy would be faster to knock over the cone and despite the time penalty.

Some cones are not worth criddling for some racers and some are. In a cone that is set by the course setter.. He may decide to set a cone that is easy for slow skaters to make but hard for very fast skaters to make.

The fast skater has a choice to make.... either slow down to the rate of the slower skaters... or full rockets ahead and NAIL the cone to be criddled. Accept the penalty like gentleman in hopes that the criddle pays off, and often it means you really have to ratchet up the entry speed to ensure it is worth it.

For a skater with a low skill level he may be forced to criddle one or more cones just to make the course. which is okay and far better than a DQ.

Having criddling allowed makes it easier to set a course with a difficulty level that can suit a wider range of skaters abilities.

So what is a criddle?

In the skaters mind, a criddle is the INTENTIONAL KNOCKING OVER OF A CONE to take a better line. (NOT DISPLACEMENT- SEE BELOW)

To the judges, a criddle is merely just another cone hit that proves that the racer was on course when he passed the cone.

You can not however pass a cone on the wrong side and slightly move it. It is too hard to judge whether the cone was 1/2" off the circle to begin with. So therefore if a racer wants to take a faster line through a cone (as in right through it or in any space occupied by the cone) he must completely knock it down so it may be counted as a penalty or move it completely out of the circle without ANY chalk touching.

There is a risk.... though small with criddling.

In the case of an nearly optimal criddle where you do move the cone out of the circle... if the cone is not knocked down you run a small risk.

for example.

In the first Farm race I did not criddle a cone but struck a cone from the outside. This cone (if anyone remembers who shouted "WITCHCRAFT!" ) spun around in a circle rolled a few feet and then came to a rest upright back cleanly within its circle. This did not count as a penalty because the cone remained upright within the circle.

If however I had passed from the inside and the cone did the same thing and the cone landed within the circle- there would be a raging debate as to whether I passed on the wrong side or not. ie... did I hit it to the inside or outside. This would lead to judging which inherently is something we wish to avoid as much as possible in slalom. So there must be no grey area. The cone must fall over to be counted as a criddle and if it does not fall ..or moved completely out of the circle.. and the skater is deemed to have passed on the wrong side.. it is a DQ.

To have fair judging the cone should fall. Then there is no question as to whether the person passed at least through the area of the cone. Wind can move a cone- but a knocked over cone is a clear strike. IF BY SOME FREAK A CONE IS KNOCKED clearly OUT of THE CIRCLE (no chalk touching it) AND STILL STANDS..... it is still a criddle. It's a regular penalty- a cone completely knocked out of the circle like anything else.

My take FWIW. Nothing is more unnerving to a skater that goes for a criddle heelside and does not hear it fall behind him........ and nothing is more of a relief to see after crossing the finish that it fell over... however so quietly....

The cone should fall or really move out of the circle drawn around it and it is to the skater's and judges advantage to have this rule. This way a skater who goes for a criddle must NAIL the cone hard in fear of just skimming it and not having it fall or having it remain within the circle. And the judges will have much less to determine in judging. and announcers can call a criddle as it happens as opposed to wondering about a slightly nudged cone. Judges are only needed for the exceedingly rare "close to the chalk line criddle". Think of it this way... no part of the cone can be touching the INSIDE the chalked line. (it should be "Inside" though perhaps we have been using the outside in some races)

A great race typically has judges who are having fun as spectators- and never have to be called upon. A criddling rule should be so clear that a person need not have special judging skills to determine the criddle.

Hand criddling is clearly illegal (like in soccer- look MA no hands) - skateboarding is a sacred refuge for those without hand eye coordination.

GARY GLASSER · Post by **GARY GLASSER** » Sun Jan 13, 2008 5:15 pm

I guess I am still missing something here..If a SINGLE cone is criddled (knocked out, down from chalk circle) and racer approached it from wrong side of cone, its NOT a DQ? If this is true then what would keep the racer from criddling 2-3 (or more) cones in a stinger? I see the single cone advantage of the criddle but I have also seen racers (pro and advanced open) trying to criddle multiple cones. (all on the "wrong" side) Is this an unchallenged loop-hole? Is this a place where we need experienced racers coneheading to keep racers from taking advantage of not-so experienced cone-headers?

Pat Chewning · Post by **Pat Chewning** » Sun Jan 13, 2008 5:57 pm

GARY GLASSER wrote:I guess I am still missing something here..If a SINGLE cone is criddled (knocked out, down from chalk circle) and racer approached it from wrong side of cone, its NOT a DQ? If this is true then what would keep the racer from criddling 2-3 (or more) cones in a stinger? I see the single cone advantage of the criddle but I have also seen racers (pro and advanced open) trying to criddle multiple cones. (all on the "wrong" side) Is this an unchallenged loop-hole? Is this a place where we need experienced racers coneheading to keep racers from taking advantage of not-so experienced cone-headers?

The rules make no distinction between cones knocked down from mistakes or from deliberately taking a faster line. The rules allow this up to the maximum cone-count which results in a DQ.

Are you sure that these racers were deliberately hitting multiple cones in order to take a faster line through the course? Or was this just a particularly difficult part of the course that was prone to cones being hit?

This is not a loop-hole.

GARY GLASSER · Post by **GARY GLASSER** » Sun Jan 13, 2008 6:17 pm

Are you sure that these racers were deliberately hitting multiple cones in order to take a faster line through the course? Or was this just a particularly difficult part of the course that was prone to cones being hit?

Both. The advantage was somewhat obvious.

So if no/few cones were hit at the top and a racer only hits a few (3-4 cones) in the stinger though hitting them out on the 'wrong" side of the cone, (staying under the allowable DQ limit) this is acceptable?

So a less than admirable (or a savvy racer) can in a sense, hit a string of cones making no attempt to go around them yet knock them out of the circle, and not DQ by cone count. This IS acceptable?

Wesley Tucker · Post by **Wesley Tucker** » Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:14 pm

I always do better with pictures.

Fig.1 clearly shows the path to no penalty and making the cone:

Fig. 2 represents modern slalom and where it is LEGAL to hit a cone with any part of a skateboard or skater's overhanging foot:

Whether or not the skater intentionally or accidentally follows the inside line to hit the cone makes no difference. The course in modern slalom INCLUDES the entire cone width. In essence, though, the width of the cone is a "penalty" or "criddle" zone. As long as a skater, though, is somewhere in that zone it is not a DQ.

Again, rules and judgements over whether a skater intentionally or accidentally hits the cone is superfluous. The rules are a skater must make the course and there is a penalty for hitting a cone up to a certain maximum. Whether a skater uses that cone penalty as a strategy to win is up to the skater.

Here's my feeling on the matter. It's not a rule, just my opinion:

If a skater is:

turning left and hits a cone with the right wheels;
turning right and hits with the left wheels;
turning toe side and hit with the heel;
turning heelside and hit with the toe

then that's a DQ.

Here's the way I would envision a cone:

One side of the cone is penalty, the other is a DQ.

Again, though, let me stress that's just my opinion of good slalom. it's about going around the cone and not through them. There is a clear line between being "off" and clipping a cone and being "out of the course" and going to the inside.

John Gilmour · Post by **John Gilmour** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 12:04 am

Sometimes a course is set that makes little sense.

an example... A course is set (not on a steep hill) with 8-10 foot wide gates throughout somewhere near the bottom of the course is a 5 foot on center straight line of four cones.

This IMHO is an odd course. If you run a large board you can go fast but not make the stinger. If you run a short board you can not double pump but you can make the stinger.

The smart racers choice. In such spacing running a longer wheelbase can take possibly over a full second off his time.

Pump the crap out of the top and plow the four cones down. Hit them all on the same side or pump to accelerate making sure you hit them all.

The result is cone splatter. as soon as one smart racer does it and posts the fastest time... everyone runs for the longer wheel base boards.

Now if the course had 1/2 of the cones as 5 footers (uggh- why bother with such a tight setting..it only allows slow unimpressive courses on flatter hills) then the racer is forced to run a short wheelbase board. He can try to stuff it through.. with a longer deck but likely it will not work.

WT though in theory it would be nice to know that everyone honestly tried to make the course.... we just can't judge that..The only way to do it would be to have some sort of indelible gook like a colored wet paste on the cones and each cone would have to have its own special paste. After each run you would have to inspect the wheels of the board and if the wrong color paste was found on the wrong side of the board you would be DQ'ed.

I don't wanna go there. Just accept that the course is the course laid down and if you don't want a penallty don't hit a cone. If you desire to physically alter the line the course setter intended...well then you may criddle and accept the penalty and risk of DQ if you miss it. You can't criddle all the cones so still you are limited in how much you can alter the course.

Indeed even if you don't criddle and hit it by mistake from the correct side...YOU ARE ALTERING THE INTENDED COURSE and making it easier... so it is just a matter of degrees and we are only talking about the width of a cone.

A great course setter may set a course with some criddles intended in it...If you don't pay attention you might miss it.

Its almost like finding a secret passage way in a video game. I really like putting them in for the upper level racers to figure out so they can go into a section that would normally be a braking section and enter it super super hot and come out hotter .

Dave Gale · Post by **Dave Gale** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 12:14 pm

Good post JG...I also like for the per designed criddle cones to occur early on in the course, the gamble is greater for the racer to criddle early on, knowing that the concequence is multiplied by the nessecity to clean the lower course or DQ is a possibility.

Dave Gale · Post by **Dave Gale** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 12:20 pm

sry dble post

Join the ISSA 25 cone series. One cyber race every second month!

Regular sessions allow newbies to join our community and discover slalom racing.

criddle?

criddle?

That's not a Criddle!

Re: That's not a Criddle!

Re: That's not a Criddle!

Re: That's not a Criddle!

gear

Rules!

Re: Rules!

no digs

What is a criddle. Defined by a admirer of a fine criddle

Criddling allowed= better courses.