Posts
4876
Joined
6/26/2009
Location
Boise, ID
US
Fantasy
66th
Edited Date/Time
10/30/2020 11:37pm
EDIT, 3:02pm mtn time: Originally this was posted for discussion as a cut-and-dry DSQ in my eyes. Turns out not everyone thinks so (half of you who replied), and the UCI rule is not specific about where "off course" is in relation to a course-marking pole. Also, FWIW, this mishap by Angel was not protested by any racer/team manager (that we know of), and the protest period passed with Angel's result standing. That's also the rule, so Angel gets the result. Cased closed.
Let's hope the UCI makes the off-course rules very clear from here on out!
--------------------------
ORIGINAL post - pulled from maribor race 1 webcast. as of now, angel has a result. his tires are outside of the pole, so should be DQ? claudio says "uh, well, i won't comment on that" as replay goes.
the other rule in play here is the protest time period, which is now over apparently. so that rule means that angel's result stands b/c it wasn't protested. case closed. so this is only fun, armchair racing. it's a really interesting discussion IMO, and i'm surprised at how differently the footage is interpreted.
1:12(in the video time) into Tahnee's 3rd place run at Leogang she goes off in the exact same manner, result=DQ
but in all seriousness I do think the rule could be a little less cut and dry. I think the rule could benefit from being updated. But yes judging by the rules, this is very close to (if not) a DQ
i always took the point in the ground as the course and tires have to go around. UCI rule is vague. slalom or 4x gates/poles are short, so it's obvious.
if the pole was tall, maybe mathilde would have "ridden over the pole" if the pole bent the right way - would that have been acceptable? i don't think so.
maybe UCI will make a more definitive rule soon.
re: "not intentional" - if rider intent is part of a DH ruling, there should be no rules. one person on course, one responsible for the outcome of their run.
"i didn't intend to crash. can i get another run, please?"
"i didn't intend to mess up that section, can i get another run, please?"
Spomer, I second or two before your screen grab you can see the top of the pool bend under the rear wheel and come out on the right side of his bike (i.e. rear tire was completely outside the pole).
He also totally blows up the tape between the pole he hit and pole above it with the rear tire. That's OB. It's not like he hit the pole with his bars and the tape broke. It was the his rear wheel that's on the ground.
I agree with others saying I don't think there was an advantaged gained but tossing in that type of ambiguity into a situation just doesn't work for a DH racing. I don't want add more judgement to the outcomes that would arise from that because riders would push the limits of the "ref."
in my opinion, he leaves the course by breaking the tape after pole "A" and re-enters before pole "B". Since there is no poles skipped, he re-enters in the same segment, so I think there is no reason dor a DQ...
the sequence is: Over pole A, out of the track, back in the track, and over pole B
For the record, I think Tahnee's case in 2018 is the same thing, she sould not have been DQ. link here: https://www.redbull.com/int-en/videos/tahnee-seagraves-run-leogang-uci-mountain-bike-world-cup-2018
If you consider the course to be defined by only the points where the poles meet the ground, that would be cutting the track, but it would open Pandora's box about imaginary planes with the wheels in the air, and all that BS that causes so many problems in other sports like soccer, american football, etc.
if you can cut a segment of the track WITHOUT skipping any poles, and still gain time, that is just poor taping IMO, but this is not the case here in Maribor.
Post a reply to: UCI DH Rule Unclear - DSQ for Riding Over a Course-Marking Pole?